1 / 36

R. P. Malik Physics Department, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, INDIA

Notoph Gauge Theory : Superfield Formalism. R. P. Malik Physics Department, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, INDIA 31 st July 2009, SQS’09, BLTP, JINR. NOTOPH opposite of PHOTON Nomenclature : Ogieveskty & Palubarinov (1966-67) Notoph gauge field =

varana
Download Presentation

R. P. Malik Physics Department, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, INDIA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Notoph Gauge Theory : Superfield Formalism R. P. Malik Physics Department, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, INDIA 31st July 2009, SQS’09, BLTP, JINR

  2. NOTOPH opposite of PHOTON • Nomenclature :Ogieveskty & Palubarinov (1966-67) • Notoph gauge field = • Antisymmetric tensor gauge field [Abelian 2-form gauge field]

  3. VICTOR I. OGIEVETSKY • (1928—1996) • & • I. V. PALUBARINOV • COINED THE WORD • ``NOTOPH’’

  4. Why 2-form gauge theory?

  5. Irrotational fluid QCD and hairs on the Black hole Spectrum of quantized (super) string theory Ogievetsky Palubarinov (’66-’67) R. K. Kaul (1978) Celebrated B ^ F term mass & gauge invariance Dual description of a massless scalar field Non-commutativity in string theory [ Xμ, Xv ] ≠ 0

  6. The Kalb-Ramond ( KR) Lagrangian density for the Abelian 2- form gauge theory is (late seventies) 3-form: : Exterior Derivative

  7. Gauge Theory KR Theory = Constraint Structure Momentum: e.g. R. K. Kaul PRD (1978) First-class constraints BRST formalism

  8. Earlier Works: (1) Harikumar, RPM, Sivakumar:J. Phys. A: Math.Gen.33 (2000) (2) RPM: J. Phys. A: Math. Gen 36 (2003) BRST (Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin) invariant Lagrangian density:

  9. Notations: : (anti-)ghost field [ghost no. (-1)+1] : Nakanishi – Lautrup auxiliary field : Massless scalar field : Bosonic ghost & anti-ghost field with ghost no. (± 2) Auxiliary ghost fields ghost no. (± 1)

  10. BRST symmetry transformations: • anti-BRST symmetry transformations: • Notice: anticommutativity gone!!

  11. Bonora, Tonin, Pasti (81-82) Delbourgo, Jarvais, Thompson Starting point for the superfield formalism!! Why superfield formalism ?? Gauge Theory BRST formalism BRST Symmetry (sb) Local Gauge Symmetry anti-BRST Symmetry (sab)

  12. Key Properties: 1: Nilpotency, (fermionic nature) 2: Anticommutativity Linear independence of BRST & anti-BRST Superfield formalism provides • Geometrical meaning of Nilpotency & Anticommutativity • Nilpotency and ABSOLUTE Anticommutativity are always present in this formalism. (Bonora, Tonin)

  13. Outstanding problem:How to obtain absolute anticommutativity?? • LAYOUT OF THE TALK • HORIZONTALITY CONDITION • CURCI-FERRARI TYPE RESTRICTION • COUPLED LAGRANGIAN DENSITIES • ABSOLUTE ANTICOMMUTATIVITY (RPM, Eur. Phys. J. C (2009))

  14. Recall Horizontality Condition Gauge invariant quantity (Physical) (N = 2 Generalization) (Gauge transformation) : Grassmannian variables

  15. 4D Minkowski space (4, 2)-dimensional Superspace

  16. The basic superfields, that constitute the super • 2-form , are the generalizations of the 4D • local fields onto the (4, 2)-dimensional Supermanifold. • The superfields can be expanded along the • Grassmannian directions, as

  17. The basic fields of the BRST invariant 4D 2-form theory are the limiting case of the superfields when • r.h.s of the expansion = Basic fields + Secondary fields Horizontality condition is the requirement that the Super Curvature Tensor is independent of the Grassmannian variables.

  18. (H. C.) (Soul-flatness/horizontality condition) r.h.s of the H. C. = [Independent of ] • In other words, in the l.h.s. all the Grassmannian components of the curvature tensor are set equal to zero. • Consequence: All the secondary fields are expressed in • terms of the basic and auxiliary fields.

  19. The explicit expression for

  20. The horizontality condition requires that all the differential forms with Grassmann differentials should be set equal to zero because the r.h.s. is independent of them. , Thus, equating the coefficients of , equal to zero, we obtain and

  21. Choosing We have the following expansions

  22. Equating the rest of the coefficients of the • Grassmannian differentials We obtain the following relationships

  23. It is extremely interesting to note that equating the • coefficient of the differential • equal to zero yields

  24. Where we have identified the following • The above equation is the analogue of the celebrated • Curci-Ferrari restriction that we come across in the • 4D non-Abelian 1-form gauge theory • It can be noted that all the secondary fields of the super • expansion have been expressed in terms of the basic and • auxiliary fields of the 2-form theory. For instance

  25. (After H. C.) Which can also be expressed, in terms of the BRST and anti-BRST Symmetry transformations, as In exactly similar fashion, all the superfields can be re-expressed in terms of the BRST and anti-BRST symmetry transformations.

  26. Any generic superfield can be expanded as This shows that the following mapping is true

  27. Geometrical Interpretations Superfield approach : Abelian 2-form gauge theory : FieldSuperfield (4D)(4,2)-dimensional

  28. One of the most crucial outcome of the superfield approach to 4D Abelian 2-form gauge theory is: Emergence of a Curci-Ferrari type restriction for the validity of the absolute anticommutativity of the (anti-)BRST transformations Nilpotency property is automatic.

  29. BRST and anti-BRST symmetry transformations must anticommute because - and directions are independent on (4,2)-dimensional supermanifold. • This shows the linear independence of the BRST and anti-BRST symmetries

  30. The following coupled Lagrangian densities: and

  31. respect nilpotent and absolutely anticommuting (anti-)BRST and (anti-)co-BRST symmetry transformations [Saurabh Gupta & RPM Eur. Phys. J. C (2008)] These are coupled Lagrangian densities because: define the constrained surface [1-form non-Abelian theory]. Here and are the new Nakanishi-Lautrup type auxiliary fields Curci-Ferrari-Type restrictions [1-form non-Abelian theory]

  32. The BRST transformations are: The anti-BRST transformations are: BRST and anti-BRST transformations imply:

  33. Anticommutativity check: and where

  34. SG & RPM Eur. Phys. J C (2008) SG & RPM arXiv:0805.1102 [hep-th] RPM Europhys. Lett. (2008) Hodge Theory ( Symmetries) [SG, RPM, HK, SK] New Constraint Structure (Hamiltonian Analysis) [BPM, SKR, RPM] arXiv: 0901.1433 [hep-th] Summary of results at BHU arXiv: 0905.0934 [hep-th] LB & RPM Phys. Lett. B (2007) RPM Eur. Phys. J C (2008) Superfield formalism [RPM Eur.Phys. J.C (2009)] Similarity with 2D Anomalous Gauge Theory [SG, RK, RPM] Non-Abelian Nature↔ Gerbes [SG, RPM, LB]

  35. Acknolwedgements: DST, Government of India, for funding Collaborators: Prof. L. Bonora (SISSA, ITALY) Dr. B. P. Mandal (Faculty at BHU) Mr. Saurabh Gupta, (Ph. D. Student) Mr. S. K. Rai (Ph. D. Student) Mr. Rohit Kumar (Ph. D. Student)

  36. THANK YOU

More Related