Abstract

We apply the approach of S. Ferrara, M. Porrati and A. Sagnotti \cite{FPS} to the one dimensional system described by the $N=2, d=1$ supersymmetric action for two particles in which one of $N=1$ supersymmetries is spontaneously broken. Using the nonlinear realization approach we reconsider the system in the basis where only one superfield has the Goldstone nature while the second superfield can be treated as the matter one, being invariant under transformations of the spontaneously broken $N=1$ supersymmetry. We establish the transformations relating the two selected FPS-like cases with our more general one, and find the field redefinitions which relate these two cases. Thus we demonstrate, at least in one dimension, that the only difference between two FPS cases lies in the different choice of the actions, while the supermultiplets specified by the FPS-like constraints are really the same. Going further with the nonlinear realization approach, we construct the most general action for the system of two $N=1$ superfields possessing one additional hidden spontaneously broken $N=1$ supersymmetry. The constructed action contains two arbitrary functions and reduces to the FPS actions upon specification of these functions. Unfortunately, the exact form of these functions corresponding to FPS actions is not very informative and gives no explanation on why the FPS cases are selected.

Highlights

  • Which can be solved in order to express X in terms of the superfields Wα, W α [2]

  • Using the nonlinear realization approach we reconsider the system in the basis where only one superfield has the Goldstone nature while the second superfield can be treated as the matter one, being invariant under transformations of the spontaneously broken N = 1 supersymmetry

  • At least in one dimension, that the only difference between two FPS cases lies in the different choice of the actions, while the supermultiplets specified by the FPS-like constraints are really the same

Read more

Summary

Generalization to the multiparticle case

Let us demonstrate how such a splitting works in the present system With such a choice of the symmetric tensor dabc, the basic constraints (2.11), (2.13) have a splitting form ψ1Dψ1 − ν1 (m1 − Dν1) = 0, ψ2Dψ2 − ν2 (m2 − Dν2) = 0, ψ1ν1 = 0, ψ2ν2 = 0. Let us introduce two Goldstone spinor superfields ξa with the following transformation properties δξ1 = ǫ + ǫ ξ1 ∂t ξ1, δξ2 = ǫ + ǫ ξ2 ∂t ξ2. The complex superfields ψ and ν transform with respect to broken supersymmetry as and obey the constraints δψ = ǫ (1 − Dν) , δν = ǫDψ, δψ = ǫ (1 − Dν) , δν = ǫDψ. If we introduce two Goldstone spinor superfields ξ, ξwith the following transformation properties δξ = ǫ + ǫ ξ ∂t ξ, δξ = ǫ + ǫ ξ∂t ξ,.

Relations between two cases
Nonlinear realization approach
Interesting cases
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.