1: \documentclass{pspum-l}

2: \usepackage{amssymb, amscd}

3: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}

4: %\baselineskip=24pt plus 2pt

5: %\raggedbottom

6: %\input epsf.tex

7: \overfullrule=0pt

8: \begin{document}

9: 

10: 

11: \font\nt=cmr7

12: \def\note#1

13: {\marginpar

14: {\nt $\leftarrow$

15: \par

16: \hfuzz=20pt \hbadness=9000 \hyphenpenalty=-100 \exhyphenpenalty=-100

17: \pretolerance=-1 \tolerance=9999 \doublehyphendemerits=-100000

18: \finalhyphendemerits=-100000 \baselineskip=6pt

19: #1}\hfuzz=1pt}

20: 

21: \def\note#1{}

22: 

23: \newcommand{\bignote}[1]{\begin{quote} \sf #1 \end{quote}}

24: 

25: %I took this out \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

26: %\let\myection=\section

27: %\renewcommand{\section}{\setcounter{equation}{0}\mysection}

28: 

29: % Peter's chapters have no blank pages between.

30: %

31: %\def\cleardoublepage{\clearpage}

32: 

33: %\topmargin=-.5in

34: %\oddsidemargin=.1in

35: %\evensidemargin=.1in

36: %\vsize=23.5cm

37: %\hsize=16cm

38: %\textheight=23.5cm

39: %\textwidth=16cm

40: 

41: %\def\upbracketfill{

42:      %  $\leaders\hrule\hfill$}

43: %\def\underbracket#1{\mathop{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr

44:    %$\hfil\displaystyle{#1}\hfil$\crcr\noalign{\kern3pt\nointerlineskip}

45:  %  \upbracketfill\crcr\noalign{\kern3pt}}}}\limits}

46: %\def\upslurfill{

47:       % $\bracelu\leaders\vrule\hfill\braceru$}

48: %\def\underslur#1{\mathop{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr

49:    %$\hfil\displaystyle{#1}\hfil$\crcr\noalign{\kern3pt\nointerlineskip}

50:  %  \upslurfill\crcr\noalign{\kern3pt}}}}\limits}

51: % Usage: \underslur{}

52: 

53: %use when boldfacing terms in equations-use \bold{xxxx}instead of

54: %{\mbox{\boldmath$(\p_i g^{ij})$}}

55: %\def\bold#1{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}

56: 

57: %\def\bop#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1M$}\mkern1.5mu

58:  %   \vbox{\hrule height0pt depth.04\ht0

59:   %  \hbox{\vrule width.04\ht0 height.9\ht0 \kern.9\ht0

60:    % \vrule width.04\ht0}\hrule height.04\ht0}\mkern1.5mu}

61: %\def\bo{{\mathpalette\bop{}}}                        % box

62: 

63: % Young tableaux:  \boxup<a>{\boxes<a>...\boxes<b>}

64: 

65: %\def\boxes#1{

66:  %       \newcount\num

67:   %      \num=1

68:    %     \newdimen\downsy

69:     %    \downsy=-1.5ex

70:      %   \mskip-2.8mu

71:       %  \bo

72:        % \loop

73:        % \ifnum\num<#1

74:        % \llap{\raise\num\downsy\hbox{$\bo$}}

75:        % \advance\num by1

76:        % \repeat}

77: %\def\boxup#1#2{\newcount\numup

78:     %    \numup=#1

79:    %     \advance\numup by-1

80:      %   \newdimen\upsy

81:       %  \upsy=.75ex

82:        % \mskip2.8mu

83:        % \raise\numup\upsy\hbox{$#2$}}

84: 

85: 

86: %%%%%%%%%%

87: %\font\mybbb=msbm10 at 8pt

88: %\font\mybb=msbm10 at 12pt

89: %\def\bbb#1{\hbox{\mybbb#1}}

90: %\def\bb#1{\hbox{\mybb#1}}

91: %\def\id{{1 \kern-.30em 1}}

92: %\def\id{\protect{{1 \kern-.28em {\rm l}}}}

93: \def\I {\mathbb{1}}

94: \def\Z {\mathbb{Z}}

95: \def\pRe{\mathbbb{R}}

96: \def\Re {\mathbb{R}}

97: \def\C {\mathbb{C}}

98: \def\pC{\mathbbb{C}}

99: 

100: \def\H {\mathbb{H}}

101: \def\ni{\noindent}

102: \newcommand\noi{\noindent}

103: \def\nn{\nonumber}

104: \newcommand\seq{\;\;=\;\;}

105: 

106: \def\eq{\begin{equation}}

107: \def\eqe{\end{equation}}

108: \def\eqa{\begin{eqnarray}}

109: \def\eqae{\end{eqnarray}}

110: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

111: \def\ena{\end{eqnarray}}

112: 

113: \def\st{\star}

114: \def\dZ2p{\frac{dZ_1}{2\p i}}

115: 

116: %\def\half{\frac{1}{2}}

117: %\def\({\left(} \def\){\right)} \def\<{\langle } \def\>{\rangle }

118: %\def\[{\left[} \def\]{\right]} \def\lb{\left\{} \def\rb{\right\}}

119: 

120: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

121: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

122: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}

123: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}

124: \newcommand{\al}{\mbox{$\alpha$}}

125: \newcommand{\als}{\mbox{$\alpha_{s}$}}

126: \newcommand{\s}{\mbox{$\sigma$}}

127: \newcommand{\lm}{\mbox{$\mbox{ln}(1/\alpha)$}}

128: \newcommand{\bi}[1]{\bibitem{#1}}

129: \newcommand{\fr}[2]{\frac{#1}{#2}}

130: \newcommand{\sv}{\mbox{$\vec{\sigma}$}}

131: \newcommand{\gm}{\mbox{$\gamma_{\mu}$}}

132: \newcommand{\gn}{\mbox{$\gamma_{\nu}$}}

133: \newcommand{\Le}{\mbox{$\fr{1+\gamma_5}{2}$}}

134: \newcommand{\R}{\mbox{$\fr{1-\gamma_5}{2}$}}

135: \newcommand{\GD}{\mbox{$\tilde{G}$}}

136: \newcommand{\gf}{\mbox{$\gamma_{5}$}}

137: \newcommand{\om}{\mbox{$\omega$}}

138: \newcommand{\Ima}{\mbox{Im}}\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[subsection]

139: \newtheorem{mthm}{Theorem}

140: 

141: \newcommand{\Rea}{\mbox{Re}}

142: \newcommand{\Tr}{\mbox{Tr}}

143: \newtheorem{cor}[thm]{Corollary}

144: \newtheorem{prop}[thm]{Proposition}

145: \newtheorem{lemma}[thm]{Lemma}

146: \newtheorem{claim}[thm]{Claim}

147: \newtheorem{conj}[thm]{Conjecture}

148: \newtheorem{definition}[thm]{Definition}

149: \newtheorem{proposition}[thm]{Proposition}

150: \newtheorem{condition}[thm]{Condition}

151: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

152: 

153: 

154: %\newcommand{\beta}[2] {\mbox{$\bar{\beta}_{#1}^{\hspace*{.5em}#2}$}}

155: %\newcommand{\homega}[2]{\mbox{$\hat{\omega}_{#1}^{\hspace*{.5em}#2}$}}

156: 

157: \def\a{\alpha}

158: \def\b{\beta}

159: \def\c{\chi}

160: \def\d{\delta}

161: \def\e{\epsilon}           % Also, \varepsilon

162: \def\f{\phi}               %      \varphi

163: \def\g{\gamma}

164: \def\h{\eta}

165: \def\i{\iota}

166: \def\j{\psi}

167: \def\k{\kappa}                    % Also, \varkappa (see below)

168: \def\l{\lambda}

169: \def\m{\mu}

170: \def\n{\nu}

171: \def\o{\omega}

172: \def\p{\pi}                % Also, \varpi

173: \def\q{\theta}                    %     \vartheta

174: \def\r{\rho}                      %     \varrho

175: \def\s{\sigma}                    %     \varsigma

176: \def\t{\tau}

177: \def\u{\upsilon}

178: \def\x{\xi}

179: \def\z{\zeta}

180: \def\D{\Delta}

181: \def\F{\Phi}

182: \def\G{\Gamma}

183: \def\J{\Psi}

184: \def\L{\Lambda}

185: \def\O{\Omega}

186: \def\P{\Pi}

187: \def\Q{\Theta}

188: \def\S{\Sigma}

189: \def\U{\Upsilon}

190: \def\X{\Xi}

191: \def\del{\partial}

192: \def\pa{\partial}

193: 

194: % Calligraphic letters

195: 

196: \def\ca{{\mathcal A}}

197: \def\cb{{\mathcal B}}

198: \def\cc{{\mathcal C}}

199: \def\cd{{\mathcal D}}

200: \def\ce{{\mathcal E}}

201: \def\cf{{\mathcal F}}

202: \def\cg{{\mathcal G}}

203: \def\ch{{\mathcal H}}

204: \def\ci{{\mathcal I}}

205: \def\cj{{\mathcal J}}

206: \def\ck{{\mathcal K}}

207: \def\cl{{\mathcal L}}

208: \def\cm{{\mathcal M}}

209: \def\cn{{\mathcal N}}

210: \def\co{{\mathcal O}}

211: \def\cp{{\mathcal P}}

212: \def\cq{{\mathcal Q}}

213: \def\car{{\mathcal R}}

214: \def\cs{{\mathcal S}}

215: \def\ct{{\mathcal T}}

216: \def\cu{{\mathcal U}}

217: \def\cv{{\mathcal V}}

218: \def\cw{{\mathcal W}}

219: \def\cx{{\mathcal X}}

220: \def\cy{{\mathcal Y}}

221: \def\cz{{\mathcal Z}}

222: 

223: \def\vecnab{\vec{\nabla}}

224: \def\vx{\vec{x}}

225: \def\vy{\vec{y}}

226: \def\arrowk{\stackrel{\rightarrow}{k}}

227: \def\kbar{k\!\!\!^{-}}

228: \def\karrow{k\!\!\!{\rightarrow}}

229: \def\arrowl{\stackrel{\rightarrow}{\ell}}

230: \def\var{\varphi}

231: 

232: 

233: %\fig 3.15in by 3.88in (15 scaled 800) make figure smaller

234: %Use this when scanning figures into an equation file - example -\fig 1.24in by

235: %1.31in (3.4)

236: %\def\fig #1 by #2 (#3){\vbox to #2{

237:  %   \hrule width #1 height 0pt depth 0pt\vfill\special{picture #3}}}

238: 

239: % Usage: #1 = width, #2 = height (see pictures window),

240: %        #3 = name of picture, or name "scaled" magnification ¥ 1000

241: %

242: % For best bitmaps, do at 72dpi, then scale 240

243: 

244: %\def\hook#1{{\vrule height#1pt width0.4pt depth0pt}}

245: %\def\leftrighthookfill#1{$\mathsurround=0pt \mathord\hook#1

246:  %       \hrulefill\mathord\hook#1$}

247: %\def\underhook#1{\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr                 % |_| under

248:    %     $\hfil\displaystyle{#1}\hfil$\crcr

249:  %       \noalign{\kern-1pt\nointerlineskip\vskip2pt}

250:   %      \leftrighthookfill5\crcr}}}

251: 

252: %\def\under#1#2{\mathop{\null#2}\limits_{#1}}

253: 

254: \def\ttZ{\tilde{\tilde{Z}}}

255: \def\ttz{\tilde{\tilde{z}}}

256: \def\tz{\tilde{z}}

257: \def\tZ{\tilde{Z}}

258: \def\tq{\tilde{\q}}

259: \def\del{\partial}

260: \def\half{\frac{1}{2}}

261: \def\st{\star}

262: \def\stam{\stackrel{\rightarrow}{\m}}

263: \def\stab{\stackrel{\rightarrow}{\b}}

264: \def\half{\frac{1}{2}}

265: \def\m{\mu}

266: \def\n{\nu}

267: \def\g{\gamma}

268: \def\d{\delta}

269: \def\in{\infty}

270: \def\nn{\nonumber\\}

271: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

272: 

273: \title[Supersymmetry in a simple model]{ Supersymmetry, supergravity, superspace\\ and BRST symmetry in a simple model}

274: %\title {in a simple model}

275: \author{ Peter van Nieuwenhuizen}

276: \address{ C.N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics,

277: Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-3840, USA}

278: \copyrightinfo{2000}%            % copyright year

279:     {American Mathematical Society}% copyright holder

280: %\dedicatory{To Dennis Sullivan on his 60-th birthday}

281: \keywords{Supersymmetry, superspace, action, Hamiltonian, spinors, conserved

282: charges, constraints, gauge fixing, Faddeev-Popov ghosts, supergravity, BRST quantization}

283: \subjclass[2000]{81T60}

284: %\date{July, 2002}

285: \maketitle

286: %\pagenumbering{roman}

287: %\mathversion{bold}

288: \tableofcontents

289: %\mathversion{normal}

290: 

291: %\pagenumbering{arabic}

292: 

293: %\baselineskip=24pt

294: 

295: %\setcounter{secnumdepth}{-2}

296: \section{Introduction}

297: 

298: %\setcounter{secnumdepth}{10}

299: 

300: In these lectures we shall introduce rigid supersymmetry,

301: supergravity (which is the gauge theory of supersymmetry) and

302: superspace, and apply the results to BRST quantization. We assume

303: that the reader has never studied these topics. For readers who

304: want to read more about these ``super" subjects, we give a few

305: references at the end of this contribution, but the whole point

306: of these lectures is that one does not need additional references

307: for a self-contained introduction.  The reader should just sit

308: down with paper and pencil. We could have decided to begin with

309: the usual models in $3+1$ dimensional Minkowski space with

310: coordinates $x$, $y$, $z$ and $t$; this is the standard approach,

311: but we shall instead consider a much simpler model, with only one

312: coordinate $t$.  We interpret $t$ as the time coordinate.  For

313: physicists, the $3+1$ dimensional models are the ones of interest

314: because they are supposed to describe the real world. For

315: mathematicians, however, the simpler model may be of more

316: interest because the basic principles appear without the dressing

317: of physical complications. Let us begin with three definitions

318: which should acquire meaning as we go on.

319: 

320: \noindent {\bf Supersymmetry} is a symmetry of the action (to be

321: explained) with a rigid (constant) anticommuting

322: parameter%

323: \footnote{ Technically: a Grassmann variable.  ``Constant'' means 

324: ``independent of the spacetime coordinates $x,y,z$ and $t$''.}  

325: (usually denoted by $\epsilon$)

326: between bosonic  (commuting) and fermionic (anticommuting) fields

327: (again to be explained).  It requires that for every bosonic

328: particle in Nature there exists a corresponding fermionic

329: particle, and for every fermionic particle there should exist a

330: corresponding bosonic particle.  So supersymmetry predicts that

331: there are twice as many particles as one might have thought.  One

332: may call these new particles supersymmetric particles.  These

333: supersymmetric particles will be looked for at CERN (the European

334: high-energy laboratory) in the coming 8 years.  So far not a

335: single  %\note{*}

336:  supersymmetric particle has been discovered: supersymmetry

337: is a theoretical possibility, but whether Nature is aware of this

338: possibility remains to be seen.%

339: \footnote{ This is not the first time a doubling of the number of particles has been

340: predicted.  In 1931  Dirac predicted that for every fermionic

341: particle a fermionic antiparticle should exist, and these

342: antiparticles were discovered in 1932.  We consider in these

343: lectures only real fields, and  the particles corresponding to

344: real fields are their own antiparticles.  Hence in these lectures

345: the notion of antiparticles plays no role.}

346: 

347: \noindent {\bf Supergravity} is the gauge theory of supersymmetry.

348:  Its action is invariant under transformation rules which depend on a local (space- and time-dependent)

349:  anticommuting parameter $\epsilon(x,y,z,t)$, and

350: there is a gauge field for supersymmetry which is called the gravitino field.

351:  It describes a new hypothetical particle, the gravitino.  The gravitino is the fermionic partner

352:  of the graviton.  The graviton is the quantum of the gravitional field (also called the

353: metric).   The astonishing discovery of 1976 was that a gauge

354: theory of supersymmetry requires gravity: Einstein's 1916 theory

355: of gravity (called general relativity) is a product of local

356: supersymmetry.  Phrased differently: local supersymmetry is the

357: ``square root of general relativity'', see~(\ref{moya}). (Likewise,

358: supersymmetry is the square root of translation symmetry, see

359: (\ref{Jacobi})).

360: 

361: \noindent {\bf Superspace.} In Nature fields can be divided into

362: bosonic (commuting) fields and fermionic (anti-commuting)

363: fields.   This is one of the fundamental discoveries of the

364: quantum theory of the 1920's.  The anticommuting fields are

365: described by spinors and the bosonic fields by tensors according

366: to the spin-statistics theorem of the 1930's.  (Spinors and

367: tensors refers to their transformation properties under Lorentz

368: transformations).  One can also introduce in addition to the

369: usual coordinates $x^\mu$ anticommuting counterparts $\theta^\a$.

370: The space with coordinates $x$ and $\theta$ is called

371: superspace.  In the case of a four-dimensional Minkowski space

372: (our world) there are four coordinates ($x,y,z$ and $t$) and also

373: four $\theta$'s, namely $\theta^1$, $\theta^2$, $\theta^3$ and

374: $\theta^4$, but in other dimensions the number of $x$'s and

375: $\theta$'s are not the same.%

376: \footnote{ The $x^\mu$ transform as vectors under the Lorentz group while the

377: $\theta^\a$ transform as spin $1/2$ spinors.}  

378:  These $\theta$'s

379: are Grassmann variables \cite{Berezinfa}, for example $\theta^1

380: \theta^2 =- \theta^2 \theta^1$ and $\theta^1 \theta^1 =0$.   In

381: our case we shall have one $x^\mu$ (namely $t$) and one

382: $\theta^\a$ (which we denote by $\theta$).  In superspace one can

383: introduce superfields: fields which depend both on $x$ and

384: $\theta$.Because $\theta^2=0$, the superfields we consider can be

385: expanded as $\phi(t,\theta)=\varphi(t)+\theta\psi (t)$. This

386: concludes the three definitions.

387: 

388: Supersymmetric quantum field theories have remarkable properties.

389: Leaving aside the physical motivations for studying these

390: theories, they also form useful toy models.  We present here an

391: introduction to supersymmetric field theories with rigid and

392: local supersymmetry, both in $x$-space and in superspace, in the

393: simplest possible model%

394: \footnote{ Actually, an even simpler model than the one we present in these lectures

395: exists. It contains constant fields, so fields which do not even

396: depend on $t$ and $\theta$. These so-called matrix models are

397: important in string theory, but they do not have enough structure

398: for our purposes, so we do not discuss them.}. 

399: To avoid the complications due to ``Fierz rearrangements" 

400: (recoupling of four fermionic fields $A,B,C,D$ from the structure

401:   $(AB) (CD)$ to $(AD)(CB)$)\footnote{Here  $(AB)$ means contraction of spinor fields $A$ and $B$.} \note{*}

402: we consider one-component (anticommuting) spinors. Then

403: $(AB) (CD)$ is simply equal to $-(AD) (CB)$.  The simplest case in

404: which spinors have only one component is a one-dimensional

405: spacetime, i.e., quantum mechanics.  The corresponding superspace

406: has one commuting coordinate $t$ and one anticommuting coordinate

407: $\theta$.  Both are real.

408: 

409: We repeat and summarize: one can distinguish between rigidly supersymmetric field

410: theories,

411: which have a constant symmetry parameter, and

412: locally supersymmetric field theories whose symmetry parameter is an arbitrary

413: space-time dependent parameter.

414: For a local symmetry one needs a gauge

415: field.   For supersymmetry the gauge field has been called the

416: gravitino.  (The local symmetry on which Einstein's theory of gravitation is based is diffeomorphism invariance.  The gauge field is the metric field $g_{\mu\nu} (x)$).  Gauge theories of supersymmetry

417: (thus theories with a local

418: supersymmetry containing the gravitino) need curved spacetime.  In

419: other words, gravity is needed to

420: construct gauge theories of supersymmetry, and for that reason local

421: supersymmetry is usually called

422: supergravity.  In curved space the quanta of the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ are massless particles 

423: called gravitons.  They are the bosonic partners of the gravitinos.  Neither gravitons nor gravitinos have ever been directly detected.  Classical gravitational radiation may be detected in the years ahead, but the gravitons (the quantized particles of which the gravitational field is composed) are much harder to detect individually.  The detection of a single gravitino would have far-reaching consequences.

424: 

425: In the last chapter we quantize the supergravity action which we

426: obtained in chapter~3. There are several methods of quantization,

427: all in principle equivalent, but we shall only discuss the BRST

428: method. It yields the ``quantum action", which is the action to

429: be used in path integrals. This method has a beautiful and

430: profound mathematical structure, and that is one of the reasons

431: we chose to include it.

432: 

433: The author wrote in 1976 with D.Z. Freedman and S. Ferrara the

434: first paper on supergravity, soon followed by a paper by S. Deser and

435: B. Zumino. However, we will not discuss past work

436: and give references; rather, the present account may serve as a

437: simplified introduction to that work. For readers who want to

438: read further, we include a few references at the end.

439: 

440: \mathversion{bold}

441: \section{Rigid $N=1$ supersymmetry in $x$-space}

442: \mathversion{normal}

443: 

444: The model we consider contains in $x$-space (or rather $t$-space)

445: two point particles which correspond to a real bosonic field

446: $\varphi (t)$ and a real fermionic field $\l(t)$.  We view them

447: as fields whose space-dependence (the dependence on $x$, $y$, $z$)

448: is suppressed. The function $\varphi (t)$ is a smooth function of

449: $t$, so its derivative is well-defined, but for  every value of

450: $t$ the expression $\l (t)$ is an independent Grassmann

451: number~\cite{Berezinfa}.% 

452: \footnote{For a more recent mathematical treatment, 

453: see  ``Five Lectures on Supersymmetry'' by D.~Freed (AMS)

454: and articles by Deligne \& Morgan and by Deligne \& Freed in 

455: ``Quantum Fields and Strings: A course for mathematicians'' (AMS)}    \note{*}

456:  So $\l (t_1) \l (t_2) =- \l (t_2) \l

457: (t_1)$. We assume that the concept of a derivative of $\l (t)$

458: with respect to $t$ can be defined, and that we may partially

459: integrate.  As action for these ``fields" we take $S = \int L dt$

460: with 

461: \eqa L \; ({\rm rigid}) = {1 \over 2} \dot\varphi^2 + {i

462: \over 2} \l \dot\l \label{1one}. \eqae 

463: The $\dot\l = {d \over dt} \l$ 

464: are independent Grassmann variables, so $\dot\l (t) \l (t) =-

465: \l (t) \dot\l (t)$ and $\dot\l (t_1) \dot\l (t_2) =- \dot\l (t_2)

466: \dot\l (t_1)$.  In particular they anticommute with themselves

467: and with each other at equal $t$:

468: \eqa \{ \l (t) , \l (t) \} =0, \quad

469:                  \{ \l (t), \dot\l (t) \} =0, \quad

470:                  \{ \dot\l (t), \dot\l (t) \} =0. 

471: \eqae The symbol $\{ A,B \}$ is by definition $AB+BA$.  Later we

472: shall define Poisson brackets and Dirac brackets, which we denote

473: by $\{ A,B \}_P$ and $\{ A,B \}_D$ to avoid confusion.   At the

474: quantum level the Poisson and Dirac brackets are replaced by

475: commutators for commuting fields and anticommutators for

476: anticommuting fields, which we denote by $[A,B]$ and $\{ A,B \}$,

477: respectively, and which are defined by $[A,B] =AB-BA$ and $\{

478: A,B  \} = AB+BA$.

479: 

480: We introduce a concept of hermitian conjugation under which $\varphi (t)$ and $\l (t)$ are 

481: real: $\varphi (t)^\dagger = \varphi (t)$ and $\l (t)^\dagger = \l (t)$.  Also $\dot\l (t)$ 

482: is real. Furthermore $(AB)^\dagger = B^\dagger A^\dagger$ for any $A$ and $B$. We define the

483: action by $S=\int L(t)dt$.  

484: The action should be hermitian according to physical principles

485: (namely unitarity%

486: \footnote{``Unitarity'' means ``conservation of probability'': 

487: the total sum of the probabilities that a given system can decay into any other system should be one.}). 

488:  We need then a factor $i$ in the second term in (\ref{1one}) in order that $({i \over 2}

489: \l \dot\l )^\dagger = -{i \over 2}

490: \dot\l \l$ be equal to ${i \over 2} \l \dot\l$.   In the action we need $\l (t)$ at different $t$.  We repeat that for

491: different $t$ the $\l (t)$ are independent Grassmann variables.  Thus we need an infinite basis for all Grassmann variables.%

492: \footnote{ In some mathematical studies one takes a finite-dimensional basis for the Grassmann variables. 

493:  This is mathematically consistent, but physically unacceptable: it violates unitarity.}

494: 

495: Physical intermezzo which can be skipped by mathematicians:  The

496: term ${1 \over 2} \dot\varphi^2$ is a truncation of the

497: Klein-Gordon action to an $xyz$ independent field, and the term

498: ${i \over 2} \l \dot\l$ is the truncation of the Dirac action for

499: a real%

500: \footnote{ Real spinors are called Majorana spinors,

501:  and complex spinors are called Dirac spinors. 

502: Already at this point one can anticipate that $\l$ must be real because we

503: took $\varphi$ to be real, and we shall soon prove that there

504: exists a symmetry between $\l$ and $\varphi$.} 

505: spinor to one of its components.  In higher dimensions the Dirac action in curved

506: space reads (as discussed in detail in 1929 by  H. Weyl)   \note{*}

507: \eqa \cl \; ({\rm Dirac}) = - ( \det e_\mu{}^m ) \bar\l

508: \g^m e_m{}^\mu D_\mu \l \label{1two}, \eqae where $D_\mu \l =

509: \del_\mu \l + {1 \over 4} \o_\mu{}^{mn} \g_{mn} \l$ with $\g_{mn}

510: \equiv  {1 \over 2} [ \g_m , \g_n ]$ the Lorentz generators

511: (constant matrices) and $\o_\mu{}^{mn}$ the spin connection (a

512: complicated function of the vielbein fields $e_\mu{}^m$). The

513: matrices $\gamma^m$ (with $m=0,1,2,\dots ,d-1$) in $d$ spacetime

514: dimensions satisfy  Clifford algebra relations,

515: $\{\gamma^m,\gamma^n\}=2\eta^{mn}$. The ``vielbein" fields

516: $e_\mu{}^m$ are the square root of the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ in the

517: sense that $e_\mu{}^m e_\nu{}^n \eta_{mn} = g_{\mu\nu}$, where

518: $\eta_{mn}$ is the Lorentz metric (a diagonal matrix with

519: constant entries $(-1, +1, +1, \cdots , +1)$). Furthermore,

520: $e_m{}^\mu$ is the matrix inverse of $e_\mu{}^m$, and 

521: $\bar\lambda$ is defined by $\l^\dagger i \g^0$. However, in one

522: dimension there are no Lorentz transformations, hence in our toy

523: model $D_\mu \l$ is equal to $\dot\l$. Furthermore, $\det

524: e_\mu{}^m = e_\mu{}^m$ in one dimension, and this cancels the

525: factor $e_m{}^\mu$.  Thus even in curved space, the Dirac action

526: in our toy model reduces to ${i \over 2} \l \dot\l$

527: (for real $\l$; 

528: the factor $\frac12$ is used for real fields, just as  for

529: $\frac12{\dot\varphi}^2$ in~(\ref{1one})). As a consequence, the

530: gravitational stress tensor, which is by definition proportional

531: to ${\delta \over \delta e^m_\mu (x)} S$, vanishes in this model

532: for $\l (t)$. Also the canonical Hamiltonian %

533: \footnote{The momenta are defined by left-differentiation: $p=\tfrac{\partial}{\partial\dot{q}}S$. 

534: Hence $p(\phi)=\dot{\phi}$ and $\pi(\lambda)=-\tfrac{i}{2}\lambda$, where $\pi$ denotes the conjugate momentum of $\lambda$.}

535: $H= \dot{q}p-L$

536: vanishes for $L$ given in (2.1) and $q = \l (t)$. This will play a role in the

537: discussions below. The sign of the term ${1 \over 2}

538: \dot\varphi^2$ is positive because it represents the kinetic

539: energy, but the sign of the fermion term could have been chosen

540: to be negative instead of positive. (Requiring $\l$ to be real,

541: we cannot redefine $\l \rightarrow i \l$ in order to change the

542: sign of the second term and still keep real $\l$.)  The $+$ sign

543: in (2.1) will lead to the susy anticommutator $\{Q,Q\}=2H$

544: instead of $\{Q,Q\}=-2H$ with a hermitian $Q$.  End of physical

545: intermezzo.

546: 

547: The supersymmetry transformations should transform bosons into fermions, and vice-versa, so $\varphi$ into

548: $\l$, and $\l$ into $\varphi$.  Since

549: $\varphi$ is commuting and $\l$ anticommuting, the parameter must be

550: anticommuting.  We take it to be a

551: Grassmann number $\epsilon$, although other choices are also

552: possible.%

553: \footnote{ The author has proposed long ago with J. Schwarz to consider

554: $\theta$'s which satisfy a Clifford algebra, 

555: $\{ \theta^\a , \theta^\beta \} = \gamma^{\a\b}_\mu  x^\mu$.  

556: %One can then introduce not only the super-curvatures

557: %familiar in quantum groups but also super-torsions. 

558: %They satisfy a Yang-Baxter algebra (see work with Bouwknegt and McCarthy)

559: .}  

560: %\bignote{This footnote looks too special for this exposition. }

561:  One might then be tempted to

562: write down $\delta \varphi = i \epsilon \l$ and $\delta \l = \varphi

563: \epsilon$ (where the factor $i$ is

564: needed in order that $\delta \varphi$ be real, taking $\epsilon$ to

565: be real) but this is incorrect as

566: one might discover by trying to prove that the action is invariant

567: under these transformation rules.

568: There is a more fundamental reason why in particular the rule $\delta

569: \l = \varphi \epsilon$ is

570: incorrect, and that has to do with the dimensions of the fields and

571: $\epsilon$ as we now explain.

572: 

573: The dimension of an action $S \equiv \int L dt$ is zero (for

574: $\hbar =1$).%

575: \footnote{ More precisely, the dimension of $H$ and $L$ is an energy, 

576: and $t$ has of course the dimension of time.  In quantum mechanics the Planck constant

577: $\hbar \equiv h/2 \pi$ has the dimension of an energy $\times$ time

578: (discovered by Planck in 1900).  Since $S$ has the dimension of

579: an energy $\times$ time, one can define dimensionless exponents

580: of the action by $\exp {i \over \hbar} S$.  Such exponents appear

581: in path integrals.  Physicists often choose a system of units such that $\hbar =1$.}

582:  Hence $L = {1 \over 2} \dot\varphi^2$ should

583: have dimension $+1$, taking the dimension of $t$ to be $-1$ as

584: usual for a coordinate.  It follows that the dimension of

585: $\varphi$ is $-1/2$ and that of $\l$ is $0$ 

586: \eqa

587:    [\varphi ] =- 1/2 ;\quad  [\l] =0 .

588: \eqae

589: From $\delta \varphi = i \epsilon \l$ we then conclude that

590: $\epsilon$ has dimension $-1/2$

591: \eqa

592: \; [ \epsilon ] =- 1/2 .

593: \eqae

594: Thus $\delta \varphi = i \epsilon \l$ is dimensionally correct: $[

595: \delta \varphi ] =- 1/2$ and $[

596: \epsilon \l] =- 1/2$.  Consider now the law for $\delta \l$.  The

597: proposal $\delta \l = \varphi

598: \epsilon$ has a gap of one unit of dimension: $[\delta \l ] =0$ but

599: $[ \varphi \epsilon ] = - 1/2 - 1/2

600: =-1$.  To fill this gap we can only use a derivative (we are dealing

601: with massless fields so we have no

602: mass available).  Thus $\delta \l \sim \dot\varphi \epsilon$.  We

603: claim that the correct factor is minus

604: unity, thus

605: \eqa

606: \delta \varphi = i \epsilon \l ; \quad \delta \l = -\dot\varphi \epsilon. 

607: \label{1five}

608: \eqae

609: By correct we mean that (\ref{1five}) leaves the action invariant as

610: we now show.

611: It is  easy to show that $S$ (rigid) is invariant under these

612: transformation rules if $\epsilon$

613: is constant (rigid supersymmetry).  Let us for future purposes

614: already consider a local $\epsilon$

615: (meaning $\epsilon (t)$) and also keep boundary terms due to partial

616: integration.  One finds then if one successively varies the fields in $S$ according to (\ref{1five})

617: \eqa

618: \delta S &=& \int \left( \dot\varphi \delta \dot\varphi + {i \over 2} \delta \l  \dot\l

619:  +  {i \over 2} \l \delta \dot\l \right) dt \nn

620: &=& \int \left[ \dot\varphi {d \over dt} (i \epsilon \l) - {i

621: \over 2} (\dot\varphi \epsilon) \dot\l - {i \over 2} \l {d \over

622: dt} ( \dot\varphi \epsilon ) \right] dt \nn &=& \int \left[

623: \dot\varphi i \dot\epsilon \l + \dot\varphi i \epsilon \dot\l -

624: {i \over 2} \dot\varphi \epsilon \dot\l - {i \over 2} {d \over

625: dt} (\l \dot\varphi \epsilon) + {i \over 2} \dot\l \dot\varphi

626: \epsilon \right] dt \nn &=& \int \left[ \dot\epsilon (i

627: \dot\varphi \l ) - {i \over 2} {d \over dt} ( \l \dot\varphi

628: \epsilon ) \right] dt \label{1six} . 

629: \eqae 

630: We performed a partial

631: integration in the third line and used $\dot\l \epsilon =

632: -\epsilon \dot\l$ in the fourth line. We now assume that

633: ``fields" (and their derivatives) tend to zero at $t= \pm

634: \infty$.  (If there would also be a space dimension $\s$, we

635: could consider a finite domain $0 \leq \s \leq \pi$, and then we

636: should specify boundary conditions at $\s = 0, \pi$.  This

637: happens in ``open string theory".)  It is clear that neglecting

638: boundary terms at $t= \pm \infty$, and taking $\epsilon$ constant

639: ($\dot\epsilon =0$), the action is invariant.  (A weaker

640: condition which achieves the same result is to require that the

641: fields at $t \rightarrow + \infty$ are equal to the fields at $t

642: \rightarrow - \infty$).  This assumption that fields vanish at

643: $t= \pm \infty$ is not at all easy to justify, but we just accept

644: it.

645: 

646: The algebra of rigid supersymmetry transformations reveals that

647: supersymmetry is a square root of

648: translations, in the sense that two susy tranformations (more

649: precisely, a commutator) produce a

650: translation.  On $\varphi$ this is clear

651: \eqa

652: && [ \delta (\epsilon_2) , \delta (\epsilon_1) ] \varphi =  

653: \delta (\epsilon_2) i \epsilon_1 \l - \delta (\epsilon_1) i \epsilon_2 \l 

654: % 1 \leftrightarrow 2 

655:    \nn

656: && = i \epsilon_1 (-\dot\varphi \epsilon_2 )-  i \epsilon_2 (-\dot\varphi \epsilon_1 )   =

657:                (2 i \epsilon_2 \epsilon_1 ) \dot\varphi.

658: \eqae

659: We recall that the symbol $[A,B]$ is defined by $AB-BA$, so $[ \delta (\e_2) , \delta (\e_1) ]$ is a commutator of two supersymmetry transformations.

660: We used in the last step that $\epsilon_1 \epsilon_2 = - \epsilon_2 \epsilon_1$.

661: The result is a translation $(\dot\varphi)$ over a distance $\xi =

662: 2i \epsilon_2 \epsilon_1$.  The same result is obtained for $\l$

663: \eqa

664: && [ \delta (\epsilon_2 ), \delta (\epsilon_1) ] \l =

665: -\delta (\epsilon_2 ) \dot\varphi \epsilon_1 + \delta (\epsilon_1 ) \dot\varphi \epsilon_2

666: % 1 \leftrightarrow 2 =  

667: \nn

668: && = -{d \over dt} ( i \epsilon_2 \l) \epsilon_1 + {d \over dt} ( i \epsilon_1 \l) \epsilon_2

669: = ( 2 i \epsilon_2 \epsilon_1 ) \dot\l.

670: \eqae

671: We used that $\epsilon_2$ is constant, so ${d \over dt} \epsilon_2 =0$, and $\l \e_1 = -  \e_1 \l$.

672: 

673: In higher dimensional theories this commutator on a fermion yields in addition to a translation also

674: a term proportional to the field equation of the fermion, and to

675: eliminate this extra term with the field equation, one introduces

676: auxiliary fields.  (Auxiliary fields are fields which appear in the action without derivatives; they are usually bosonic fields which enter as $a (t)^2$).  Here, however, the translation $\dot\l$

677: and the field equation of

678: $\l$ are both equal to $\dot\l$.  So the result could still have been a sum of the same

679: translation as on $\varphi$, and a field

680: equation, because both are proportional to $\dot\l$.  This is not the

681: case:  the coefficient of $\dot\l$ is the same as the coefficient

682: of $\dot\varphi$.   There is a simple counting argument that explains

683: this and that shows that no auxiliary

684: fields are needed in this model. Off-shell (by which physicists mean: when the field equations are not satisfied) the translation operator

685: is invertible (the kernel of ${\del \over \del t}$ with the boundary conditions mentioned before is empty), hence the commutator

686: $[\delta (\epsilon_2), \delta (\epsilon_1)]$ cannot vanish on field

687: components.  It follows that under rigid

688: supersymmetry if  ``the algebra closes" (meaning if $[ \delta (\epsilon_2 ),

689: \delta (\epsilon_1 )]$ is uniformly equal to only a translation but

690: no further field equations), each bosonic field

691: component must be mapped into a fermionic

692: one, and vice-versa.  Then the number of bosonic field components

693: must be equal to the number of

694: fermionic field equations.  In our toy model there is one bosonic

695: field component $(\varphi)$ and one

696: fermionic field component $(\l)$.  Thus there are no auxiliary fields

697: needed in this model.%

698:  \footnote{ In the 4-dimensional Wess-Zumino model there

699: are 2 propagating real scalars (A and B) and

700: a real 4-component spinor. Hence there one needs two real bosonic

701: auxiliary fields (F and G). In the 2-dimensional heterotic string the

702: right-handed spinors $\l_R$ do not transform under rigid supersymmetry, $Q \l_R =0$. 

703:  It follows that on the right-hand side of the susy commutator evaluated on

704: $\l_R$ the field equation $(\dot\l)$ exactly cancels the translation $P \l = \dot\l$.}

705: 

706: We can construct charges $Q$ and $H$ which produce susy and

707: time-translation transformations.  This requires

708: equal-time Poisson brackets for $\varphi$, and Dirac brackets for

709: $\l$, which become at the quantum level

710: commutators and anticommutators. For $\varphi$ these results are

711: standard: the conjugate momentum $p$ of $\varphi$ is defined by $p = {\partial \over \partial \dot\varphi} S$ and this yields $p = \dot\varphi$.  The quantum commutator is given by

712: \eqa

713: p = \dot\varphi;\quad [p (t) , \varphi (t) ] = {\hbar \over i}.

714: \eqae

715: For $\l$ the conjugate momentum is (we use left-derivatives) $\pi =

716: {\del \over \del \dot\l} S = - {i

717: \over 2} \l$.  The relation $\pi =- {i \over 2} \l$ is a constraint between the coordinates and the conjugate momenta, called by Dirac a primary constraint

718: \eqa

719: \Phi = \pi + {i \over 2} \l =0.

720: \eqae

721: The naive Hamiltonian is $H_L = \dot{Q} P -L = \dot{q} p- {1 \over 2}

722: \dot{q}^2 + \dot\l \pi - {i \over 2}

723: \l \dot\l = {1 \over 2} p^2$.  Here $Q$ and $P$ denote the total set of fields and their canonically conjugates.  (We must put $\dot \l$ in front of

724:  $\pi$, if we define $\pi$ by left-differentiation,

725:  $\pi = {\del \over \del \dot\l} L$, because only then

726: $H_L$ is independent of $\dot{q}$ and $\dot \l$. Namely $\delta

727: H_L$ contains no terms with $\delta \dot{Q}$ but only with

728: $\delta Q$ and $\delta P$.) According to Dirac, one must then

729: consider the naive Hamiltonian plus all possible primary

730: constraints \eqa H = {1 \over 2} p^2 + \a \left( \pi + {i \over

731: 2} \l \right), \eqae where $\a (t)$ is an arbitrary anticommuting

732: parameter.  Requiring that the constraint $\pi + {i \over 2} \l =

733: 0$ be maintained in time requires $[H, \pi + {i \over 2} \l ] =0$

734: modulo the constraints, which is indicated by the symbol~$\approx$

735: \eqa \left[ H, \pi + {i \over 2} \l \right]_P \approx 0. \eqae The

736: subscript $P$ indicates that we use here Poisson brackets. We

737: define the Poisson bracket by \eqa \{ f (p, q) , g (p , q) \}_P =

738: - \partial f / \partial p {\partial \over \partial q} g + (-)^\s

739: \partial g / \partial p {\partial \over \partial q} f, \eqae where

740: $\s = + 1$ except when both $f$ and $g$ are anticommuting, in

741: which case $\s =- 1$.  The basic  relations are $\{ p , q \}_P

742: =-1$ and $\{\pi,\l\}_P =-1$. Of course ${1 \over 2} p^2$ commutes

743: with $\pi+ {i \over 2} \l$, but \eqa \left\{ \Phi, \Phi

744: \right\}_P = \left\{ \pi + {i \over 2} \l, \pi + {i \over 2} \l

745: \right\}_P = - {i \over 2} - {i \over 2} =- i. \eqae Note that the

746: Poisson bracket $\left\{ p, q \right\}_P$ is $-1$ for bosons and

747: fermions alike.%

748: \footnote{ In quantum mechanics the sign of the quantum commutator $[p,q] = - i \hbar$ or the

749: quantum anticommutator $\{ \pi , \l \} = - i \hbar$ is not a

750: matter of convention but follows from the compatibility of the

751: field equations with the Heisenberg equations.  For example, for a

752: Dirac spinor $\psi$ with mass $m$ one has $L=i\psi^\dagger

753: \dot\psi+ m\psi^\dagger \psi$ and $\pi=-i\psi^\dagger$. For

754: $\psi$ the field equation is $i\dot\psi+m\psi=0$, and the

755: Heisenberg equation is $\dot\psi={i \over \hbar} [H,\psi]$ with

756: $H=-m\psi^\dagger \psi$. Compatibility of the field equation with

757: the Heisenberg equation requires

758: $\{\psi,\pi\}=\{\psi,-i\psi^\dagger\}=-i\hbar$ which agrees with

759: $\{\pi,\psi\}={\hbar \over i}$ in quantum brackets.}  It follows

760: that $[H, \pi + {i \over 2} \l ] = - i \a$, and hence $\a =0$.

761: Thus, with $\a =0$, there are no further (secondary) constraints,

762: and we have \eqa H= {1 \over 2} p^2. \eqae

763: 

764: Whenever a set of constraints $\phi^\a$ satisfies $\{ \phi^\a ,

765: \phi^\beta \} = M^{\a\b}$ with ${\rm sdet} M^{\a\b} \not= 0$, we

766: call these constraints second class

767: constraints.%

768: \footnote{  The expression ${\rm sdet} M$ denotes the superdeterminant of a supermatrix 

769: $M = \left( \begin{array}{cc} A & B \\ C & D \end{array} \right)$,

770: where $A$ and $D$ contain commuting entries and $B$ and $C$

771: anticommuting entries.  Any matrix can be written as the product

772: of diagonal matrices 

773: $\left( \begin{array}{cc} A & 0 \\ 0 & B

774: \end{array} \right)$ and triangular matrices $\left(

775: \begin{array}{cc} I & C \\ 0 & I  \end{array} \right)$ and $\left(

776: \begin{array}{cc} I & 0 \\ D & I  \end{array} \right)$. Namely, $\left(

777: \begin{array}{cc} A & B \\ C & D  \end{array} \right)=\left(

778: \begin{array}{cc} I & BD^{-1} \\ 0 & I  \end{array} \right) \left(

779: \begin{array}{cc} A-BD^{-1}C & 0 \\ 0 & D  \end{array} \right)\left(

780: \begin{array}{cc} I & 0 \\ D^{-1}C & I  \end{array} \right)$.  The

781: superdeterminant of the product of supermatrices is the product

782: of the superdeterminants of these supermatrices, and ${\rm sdet} \left(

783: \begin{array}{cc} A & 0 \\ 0 & D \end{array} \right) = \det A/

784: \det D$ while ${\rm sdet} \left( \begin{array}{cc} I & B \\ 0 & I

785: \end{array} \right) =1$. Hence ${\rm sdet} M =\det (A-BD^{-1}C)/\det D $. }

786: It follows that $\phi = \pi + {i \over

787: 2} \l$ is a second class constraint. The Dirac bracket is

788: defined by \eqa \left\{ A,B \right\}_D = \left\{ A,B \right\}_P -

789: \left\{ A, \Phi \right\}_P \left\{ \Phi, \Phi \right\}^{-1}_P

790: \left\{ \Phi, B \right\}_P \label{1bracket}, \eqae where $\{ A,B

791: \}_P$ denotes the Poisson bracket. Its definition is chosen such

792: that $\{A,\Phi\}_D=0$ for any $A$ and any second-class constraint

793: $\Phi$.  Since in our toy model $\{ \Phi, \Phi \} =-i$, we find

794: \eqa \{ A,B \}_D = \{ A,B \}_P - i \{ A, \pi+ {i \over 2} \l \}_P

795: \{ \pi + {i \over 2} \l, B \}_P \label{1sixteen}. \eqae

796: 

797: We can now compute the basic equal-time Dirac brackets

798: \eqa

799: && \{ \l (t), \l (t) \}_D =0 - i (-1) (-1) =-i, \nn

800: && \{ \pi (t) , \l (t) \}_D = -1 - i \left( {-i \over 2} \right) (-1)

801: =- {1 \over 2}, \nn

802: && \{  \pi (t), \pi (t) \}_D =0 - i \left( {-i \over 2} \right) \left(

803: {-i \over 2} \right)  = {i \over 4}.

804: \eqae

805: Recalling that $\pi =- {i \over 2} \l$, we see that these relations

806: are consistent: we may replace $\pi$ by $-{i \over 2} \l$ on the

807: left-hand side.  At the quantum level, as first proposed by Dirac, we add a factor $i \hbar$ to

808: the Poisson brackets to obtain the quantum (anti) commutators.  Hence

809: \begin{align} \label{1varphi} \{ \l (t), \l (t) \} & = \hbar,\nonumber \\

810: [ p (t) , \varphi (t) ] & = {\hbar \over i}.

811: \end{align}

812: 

813: We now construct the susy charge $Q$ as a Noether charge.  A Noether charge is the space integral of the time component of the Noether current, but since there is no space in our toy model, the Noether current is equal to the Noether charge.  We want to obtain an expression for the Noether charge in terms of $p$'s and $q$'s, and therefore we rewrite (\ref{1one}) in Hamiltonian form, namely as $L = \dot{q} p-H$ where $H$ depends only on $p, \pi, \varphi, \l$ but not on their time derivatives.  Since, as we shall discuss, the terms proportional to a derivative of the symmetry parameter yield the Noether current, the latter will only be a function of $p$'s and $q$'s but not of derivatives of $p$'s and $q$'s.

814: 

815: The action in Hamiltonian form reads \eqa\label{achamil} L=

816: \dot\varphi p+ \dot\l \pi - {1 \over 2} p^2. \eqae where we took

817: the Dirac Hamiltonian $H = {1 \over 2} p^2$ as discussed above.

818: This action is invariant under 

819: \begin{gather} \label{1twenty} \delta \varphi = {i \over 2}

820: \epsilon \l - \epsilon \pi, \quad \delta \l = -p \epsilon, \nonumber \\

821: \delta p =0, \quad \delta \pi = {i \over 2} p \epsilon.

822: \end{gather}

823: These rules follow by requiring

824: invariance of the action, but one can also derive them by adding

825: equation of motion symmetries to the original rules. For example,

826: $p=\dot \varphi$ leads to $\delta p={i \over 2}\epsilon

827: \dot\l-\epsilon\dot\pi$, and to remove $\dot\l$ one may add

828: $\delta({\mathrm extra}) p={i \over 2}\epsilon{\del \over \del \pi}S$

829: and $\delta({\mathrm extra}) \pi=-{i \over 2}{\delta S \over \delta

830: p} \epsilon$.  These extra transformation rules form a separate

831: symmetry of any action, so we may add them to the original

832: rules.  Then $\delta p=-\epsilon \dot\pi$, and also $\delta

833: \pi=\delta (-{i \over 2}\l)={i \over 2}\dot\varphi \epsilon$ is

834: modified into $\delta \pi={i \over 2}\dot\varphi \epsilon-{i

835: \over 2}(\dot\varphi-p)\epsilon={i \over 2}p\epsilon$. To also

836:  remove the term

837: $-\epsilon\dot\pi$ in $\delta p$, one adds another equation of motion symmetry:

838: $\delta(\mathrm{extra})p = {\delta \over \delta \l} S \e$ and

839: $\delta(\mathrm{extra})\l=\tfrac{\partial}{\partial p}S$. The final result

840: is~(2.22).

841: 

842: The standard way of obtaining the Noether charge follows from

843: letting the rigid parameter become local and collecting terms

844: proportional to $\dot\e$.   The terms with $\dot\epsilon$ in

845: $\delta L$ for local $\epsilon (t)$ are contained in \eqa \delta

846: L &=& p {d \over dt} \left(  {i \epsilon \over 2} \l - \epsilon

847: \pi \right) - \pi {d \over dt} (-p \epsilon ) + \dot\l \left( { i

848: \over 2} p \epsilon \right) \nn &=& {i \over 2} p \dot\epsilon \l

849: - p \dot\epsilon \pi + {d \over dt} ( \pi p \epsilon).

850: \label{1twentyone} \eqae So, defining $Q$ as the coefficient of

851: $i\dot \epsilon$, we find \eqa Q = p \left( {1 \over 2} \l +i \pi

852: \right). \label{1twentytwo} \eqae This reproduces (2.22);

853: for example, $\tfrac{1}{\hbar}[\varphi, \epsilon Q]=\delta \varphi$ follows

854: from~(\ref{1varphi}). Using the constraint $\pi =-{i \over 2} \l$

855: we see that $Q$ becomes equal to $Q = p \l$, and (2.22)

856: reduces to (\ref{1five}). However, if one uses (anti) commutators

857: one needs a Hamiltonian treatment, and then one needs

858: (\ref{1twentytwo}).

859: 

860: The charge $Q$ which appears in brackets such as $[ \varphi, \e Q

861: ]$ is clearly an operator, so $Q$ in (\ref{1twentytwo})  is an

862: operator expressed in terms of Heisenberg fields.  The latter

863: satisfy their own equations of motion.  On the other hand, in the

864: action the fields are off-shell.  So, in principle one might need

865: extra terms proportional to the equations of motion to obtain the

866: correct off-shell transformations.  In this case we do not need

867: such terms.  In section 6 we shall discuss the Hamiltonian

868: approach with off-shell fields.  This is a very general approach

869: which yields the action in Hamiltonian form and the quantum BRST

870: charge, starting only from the set of first class constraints.

871: 

872: The other way of obtaining $Q$ (more precisely, $i\epsilon Q$) is to write

873: it as a sum of terms of

874: the form $\delta \varphi p$ for all fields, plus $-K$ where

875: $\delta L = {d \over dt} K$.  From ({\ref{1twentyone}) we read off

876: that $K =  \pi p \epsilon$.  Hence

877: \begin{align}

878: i \epsilon Q  & = \delta \varphi p + \delta \l \pi - K = \left( {i

879: \over 2} \epsilon \l - \epsilon \pi

880: \right) p - p \epsilon \pi - \pi p \epsilon \nonumber \\

881: & = i \epsilon \left( {1 \over 2} \l + i \pi \right) p,

882: \end{align}

883: which is indeed the same result as in (\ref{1twentytwo}).

884: 

885: The supersymmetry algebra (rather a superalgebra with commutators

886: and anticommutators) is now easy to evaluate.  Using the quantum

887: brackets of (\ref{1varphi}) finds \eqa && \{  Q,  Q \} = \left\{

888: \left( { 1\over 2} \l + i\pi \right) p , \left( {1\over 2} \l +

889: i\pi \right) p \right\} = \{  \l p,  \l p \} =\hbar p^2 =2\hbar H,

890: \nn && [H, Q] =0 \quad \text{(via Jacobi, or directly)}.

891: \label{Jacobi} \eqae Thus the generators $Q$ and $H$ form a

892: closed superalgebra, and supersymmetry is the square root of (the

893: generator of time-) translations.

894: 

895: Dirac was the first to take the square root of the Laplace

896: operator $\Box$, and this led to the famous Dirac equation of

897: 1927.  This equation led to the prediction that for  every

898: fermionic particle there is a fermionic antiparticle. These

899: antiparticles have been found in the laboratories. Likewise, the

900: square root $Q\sim \sqrt{H}$ predicts that for every particle there

901: should be a superpartner.  Not a single superpartner has been

902: found so far, but that may change.

903: 

904: 

905: \mathversion{bold}

906: \section{$N=1$ supergravity in $x$-space}

907: \mathversion{normal}

908: 

909: Having discussed the rigid supersymmetry (= susy) of the action

910: $S  \; {\rm (rigid)} \;  = \int L dt$ with $L=  {1 \over 2}

911: \dot\varphi^2 + {i \over 2} \l \dot\l$, we turn to local susy. We

912: let $\epsilon$ become time-dependent and find then (see

913: (\ref{1six})). \eqa \delta S \; {(\rm rigid)} \; =

914: \int\limits^\infty_{-\infty} \dot\epsilon (i \dot\varphi \l) dt.

915: \label{1seee} \eqae The boundary terms at $t = \pm \infty$ vanish

916: if we require that $\e (t)$ vanishes at $t = \pm \infty$. To

917: cancel this variation we introduce the gauge field for local

918: susy, the gravitino $\psi (t)$.  The transformation rule of a

919: gauge field begins always with a derivative of the local

920: parameter.  We then couple $\psi$ to the Noether current of rigid

921: supersymmetry, using $\delta \psi = \dot\epsilon + \cdots$ to fix

922: the overall constant of this new term \eqa S \; {\rm (Noether)}

923: \; = \int\limits^\infty_{-\infty}  (- i \psi \dot\varphi \l) dt ;

924: \delta \psi = \dot\epsilon + \cdots \label{1already} \eqae If we

925: vary $\psi$ in (\ref{1already}), then the variation $\delta S$

926: (Noether) cancels $\delta S$ (rigid), but the fields

927: $\dot\varphi$ and $\l$ in $S$ (Noether) must also be varied. This

928: yields two further variations \eqa \delta S \; {\rm (Noether)} \;

929: = \int\limits^\infty_{-\infty} \left[ - i \psi \left\{ {d \over

930: dt} (i \epsilon \l ) \right\} \l + i \psi \dot\varphi \epsilon

931: \dot\varphi \right] dt. \eqae

932: %Since $\l \l =0$, the derivative ${d \over dt}$ must cut on $\epsilon$.  Then

933: In the first variation the ${d \over dt}$ must hit the field $\l$

934: because otherwise one would be left with $\l\l$ which vanishes.

935: Hence the remaining variations to be canceled are \eqa \delta S

936: \; {\rm (Noether)} \; = \int\limits^\infty_{-\infty}  i \psi

937: (\dot\varphi \dot\varphi + i \l \dot\l ) \epsilon dt.

938: \label{1twentyseven} \eqae The last term can be canceled by

939: adding a new term in $\delta \l$ (because this variation is

940: porportional to the field equation of $\l$). However, the first

941: term can only be canceled by introducing a new field $h$ (the

942: graviton) and coupling it to $\dot\varphi \dot\varphi$.  Thus the

943: coupling of rigidly supersymmetric matter to the supergravity

944: gauge fields requires for consistency (invariance of the whole

945: action under local susy) also the coupling to gravity.  \emph{

946: Local susy is a theory of gravity, and this explains the name

947: supergravity.}

948: 

949: There appears, however, an ambiguity at this point:  we can also

950: couple this new field $h$ to $-i \l \dot\l$, and the most general

951: case is a linear combinations of both possibilities.  Hence we add

952: \begin{align} \label{1however}  S\,{\rm (stress)} & = - \int\limits^\infty_{-\infty} h

953: [ \dot\varphi \dot\varphi - i \l \dot\l x ] dt, \nonumber \\ \delta h & =

954: -i \epsilon \psi, \quad \delta \l =- \dot\varphi \epsilon +i (1 +x)

955: \psi \l \epsilon, \end{align} where $x$ is a free

956: constant real parameter. We must now evaluate the old variations

957: in the new action,  the new variations in the old action, and the

958: new variations in the new action. The aim is to use these

959: variations to cancel~(\ref{1twentyseven}).

960: 

961: The new variation $\delta h =- i \epsilon \psi$ in the new action $- \int h \dot\varphi

962: \dot\varphi dt$ cancels the first term in

963: (\ref{1twentyseven}).  The new variation $\delta \l =  i (1+x) \psi \l

964: \epsilon$ in the old action $ {i \over 2} \l \dot\l$ in (\ref{1one}) and the

965: new variation $\delta h =-i \epsilon \psi$ in the new action $S$ (stress) cancel the

966: variation $- \psi \l \dot\l \epsilon$ of $\delta S$ (Noether)

967: \begin{gather} i \l {d \over dt} [ i (1+x) \psi \l \epsilon ] - i \epsilon \psi

968: (i \l \dot\l x) - \psi \l \dot\l \epsilon   \nonumber \\

969:  = (1 +x) \l \dot\l \psi \epsilon - \psi \epsilon \l \dot\l x- \psi

970: \epsilon \l \dot\l = 0.

971: \end{gather}

972: (We partially integrated the first term, and the last term comes from (\ref{1twentyseven})).

973: We find thus at this moment a free parameter $x$ in the action and

974: transformation rules; this frequently

975: happens in the construction of supergravity models, and usually these

976: parameters get fixed at a later stage, or they can be removed by field redefinitions.  We demonstrate this later explicitly in our toy model.

977: 

978: We are again in the same situation as before: we canceled $\delta

979: S$ (Noether) by introducing a new term in the action, namely $S$

980: (stress).   We already took into account the variation of the

981: gauge field $h$ in this new term, but we must still vary the

982: matter fields in $S$ (stress).  We first set $x=0$ and later

983: consider the case $x \not= 0$.  If $x=0$, we need only vary the

984: $\dot\varphi$ in $S$ (stress) and this yields 

985: \begin{align}  \label{1streee} \delta L\,

986: {\rm (stress)} = - 2h \dot\varphi {d \over dt} (i \epsilon \l) = -2 h \dot\varphi i \dot\epsilon \l -2 h \dot\varphi i

987: \epsilon \dot\l.

988:  \end{align} The first term is

989: proportional to the Noether current $\dot\varphi \l$ in

990: (3.2) and can thus be canceled by a new term in the

991: gravitino law \eqa \delta \; {\rm (new)} \; \psi =- 2 h

992: \dot\epsilon. \eqae Substituting this vatiation into

993: (\ref{1already}), the first term in (\ref{1streee}) is

994: cancelled.   The second term in (\ref{1streee}) is proportional

995: to the free field equation of $\l$ and can be canceled by adding

996: a new term to the transformation law of $\l , \delta \l = 2 h

997: \dot\varphi \epsilon$, because then $\delta ({i \over 2}\l

998: \dot\l)=-i\dot\l (2h\dot\varphi \epsilon)$ cancels the second

999: term in (\ref{1streee}).

1000: 

1001: The new transformation law $\delta \l = 2 h \dot\varphi \epsilon$

1002: produces a new variation in the Noether action (\ref{1already})

1003: \eqa

1004: \delta L\,(\text{Noether due to} \; \delta \l = 2 h

1005: \dot\varphi \epsilon) =- i \psi \dot\varphi (2 h \dot\varphi

1006: \epsilon).

1007: \label{1Noether}

1008: \eqae

1009: Since this term is proportional to $\dot\varphi \dot\varphi$ it can

1010: be canceled by a final extra term in

1011: $\delta h$, namely $\delta h = 2i h \epsilon \psi$. Then the new variation of

1012: $h$ used in (\ref{1however}) cancels (\ref{1Noether}).

1013: 

1014: Because each time when we replace an $\dot\epsilon$ in a variation by $\psi$ we loose a time derivative,

1015:  this process of adding further terms to the action and transformation laws is guaranteed to stop. 

1016:  Of course it is not guaranteed that an invariant action exists. 

1017:  Examples are known where this process does not yield an invariant action, for example adding a cosmological constant to supergravity in $10 + 1$ dimensions.

1018: 

1019: We have now canceled all variations for the case $x=0$, hence we have

1020: constructed a locally susy action.

1021: The final results read

1022: \begin{align} \label{1thirtythree}

1023: L & = {1 \over 2} \dot\varphi^2 + {i \over 2} \l \dot\l - i \psi

1024: \dot\varphi \l - h

1025: \dot\varphi^2, \nonumber \\

1026: \delta \varphi & = i \epsilon \l, \quad \delta \l = -\dot\varphi \epsilon

1027: + i \psi \l \epsilon +2 h

1028: \dot\varphi \epsilon, \nonumber\\

1029: \delta \psi & = \dot\epsilon - 2 h \dot\epsilon,\quad \delta h = -i

1030: \epsilon \psi +2 i h \epsilon \psi.

1031: \end{align}

1032: 

1033: Before going on, we make three comments.

1034: 

1035: \medskip

1036: \noindent 1) There is no gauge action for gravity or local

1037: supersymmetry in one dimension as one might expect, since the scalar

1038: curvature $R$ and its linearization, the Fierz-Pauli action,%

1039: \footnote{The linearized form of the Einstein-Hilbert action $e R$ is called the

1040: Fierz-Pauli action and is given in n-dimensions by

1041: \[

1042: L = - {1 \over 2} \varphi^2_{\mu\nu , \l} + \varphi_\mu^2 -

1043: \varphi_\mu \varphi_{, \mu} + {1 \over 2} \varphi_{, \mu}^2,

1044: \]

1045: where $\varphi_\mu = \del^\nu \varphi_{\mu\nu}$, $\varphi=\eta^{\mu\nu}

1046: \varphi_{\mu\nu}$ and the metric $g_{\mu\nu} \equiv \eta_{\mu\nu} +

1047: \kappa h_{\mu\nu}$ is related to $\varphi_{\mu\nu}$ by

1048: $(\sqrt{-g} g^{\mu\nu})_{\rm lin} - \eta^{\mu\nu} =- \kappa

1049: (h^{\mu\nu}- {1 \over 2} \eta^{\mu\nu} h)=\varphi^{\mu\nu}$.  

1050: In one dimension the first term in $L$ cancels the last term, and the second term cancels the third term.} 

1051: vanishes in one dimension.  (Also the gravitino gauge action vanishes in one and $1+1$ dimensions. 

1052:  The gravitational action is a total derivative in $1+1$ dimensions, where it yields the Euler invariant).  A gauge action for supergravity in one dimension

1053: would have to start with $L = {1 \over 2} \dot{h} \dot{h} + {i \over 2}

1054: \psi \dot\psi$ and it is indeed

1055: invariant under the rigid symmetries $\delta h = i

1056: \epsilon \psi, \delta \psi = -\dot{h} \epsilon$, see (\ref{1one}) and

1057: (\ref{1five}).  However, for local $\epsilon (t)$  the

1058: rules were already fixed by the matter coupling, see

1059: (\ref{1thirtythree}), and these rules do not leave this action

1060: invariant.

1061: 

1062: \medskip

1063: \noindent 2) The term $\int g \varphi^n dt$ with $g$ a coupling

1064: constant cannot be made supersymmetric.  Yukawa couplings

1065: do not exist in this model because $\l \varphi \l$ vanishes.

1066: However, one can make $\l$ a complex Dirac spinor and then

1067: supersymmetric interactions exist. One can also supersymmetrize a term $f

1068: ( \varphi ) \dot\varphi

1069: \dot\varphi$; the action becomes $f (\varphi ) ( \dot\varphi

1070: \dot\varphi + i \l \dot\l)$ and is called a

1071: susy nonlinear $\s$ model because $f(\varphi)$ can be nonlinear, for

1072: example $\exp \varphi$.

1073: 

1074: \medskip

1075: \noindent 3) One can also couple the first-order action

1076: in~(\ref{achamil}) to supergravity. Denoting the graviton and

1077: gravitino fields by $H$ and $\Psi$, the result is \eqa &&

1078: L=\dot\varphi p + \dot\l \pi  - {1 \over 2}p^2 - i \Psi \left( {1

1079: \over 2}p\l + i p \pi \right) - Hp^2,  \nn && \delta p=0,\quad \delta

1080: \pi={i \over 2} p \epsilon,\quad \delta \l=-p \epsilon, \nn && \delta

1081: \varphi={i \over 2}\epsilon \l - \epsilon \pi,\quad \delta

1082: \Psi=\dot\epsilon,\quad \delta H=-i\epsilon \Psi. \label{1Gaussian}

1083: \eqae Note that $\delta (\pi+{i \over 2}\l)=0$ agrees with the

1084: constraint $\pi+{i \over 2}\l=0$. So we may replace $\pi$ by $-{i

1085: \over 2} \l$ in the action and transformation rules. Furthermore

1086: we can eliminate $p$ by integrating in the path integral over a

1087: Gaussian with $p^2$ \cite{rfeynman}. The result of these

1088: manipulations is the following action \eqa L = {1 \over 2} {1

1089: \over 1+2H} \dot\varphi^2 - {i \over 1+2H} \dot\varphi \Psi \l +

1090: {i \over 2} \l \dot\l. \eqae Comparison with the second-order

1091: action in (\ref{1thirtythree}) (the action without conjugate

1092: momenta) we can read off how $H$ is related to $h$, and $\Psi$ to

1093: $\psi$. \eqa\label{dvatr} H= {h \over 1-2h} ,  \;\; \Psi \; = {1

1094: \over 1-2h} \psi  , \;\; {\rm or} \;\; h = {H \over 1+2H}  , \;\;  \psi

1095: \; = {1 \over 1+2H} \Psi. \eqae The Jacobian for the change of

1096: variables from $(H,\Psi)$ to $(h,\psi)$ is ${1 \over

1097: 1-2h}=1+2H$.  (One needs a super Jacobian, in particular $\del

1098: \delta \psi / \del \psi$ is equal to $1-2 h$, and not simply

1099: equal to $(1-2 h)^{-1}$).  The transformation rules in

1100: (\ref{1Gaussian}) go over into (\ref{1thirtythree}) if one uses

1101: these redefinitions.

1102: 

1103: For physicists:  The Jacobian $J = 1/1-2h$ can be exponentiated using a new kind of ghosts, introduced by Bastianelli and the author and playing the same role as the Faddeev-Popov ghosts.  In order that the theories with $h$ and $\psi$ and $H$ and $\Psi$ are equivalent at the quantum level (by which we mean that they should give the same Feynman graphs) one needs those new ghosts.  The propagators of $h$ and $\psi$ come from the gauge fixing terms.

1104: 

1105: We now return to the model in (\ref{1thirtythree}) and evaluate the local susy algebra.

1106: On $\varphi$ one finds

1107: \eqa

1108: [ \delta (\epsilon_2), \delta (\epsilon_1) ] \varphi &=& 

1109:   i \epsilon_1 (-\dot\varphi \epsilon_2 + i \psi \l \epsilon_2 + 2 h \dot\varphi \epsilon_2) - 

1110:   i \epsilon_2 (-\dot\varphi \epsilon_1 + i \psi \l \epsilon_1 + 2 h \dot\varphi \epsilon_1)

1111: % 1 \leftrightarrow 2 

1112:        \nn

1113: &=& [ 2 i (1-2 h) \epsilon_2 \epsilon_1 ] \dot\varphi + i [-2 i

1114: \epsilon_2 \epsilon_1 \psi ] \l.

1115: \eqae

1116: The right-hand side contains a general coordinate transformation

1117: $\delta \varphi = \hat\xi \dot\varphi$ with

1118: $\hat\xi = 2i (1-2h) \epsilon_2 \epsilon_1$; this is clearly the

1119: gravitational extension of the

1120: nongravitational rigid translation with parameter $\xi = 2i \epsilon_2 \epsilon_1$ which we

1121: found in the rigid susy commutator.

1122: The second term is a local susy transformation $i \hat{\epsilon} \l$ of $\varphi$ with

1123: parameter $\hat\epsilon = - 2 i \epsilon_2 \epsilon_1 \psi$.  Note that the composite parameters $\hat\xi$ and $\hat\epsilon$ are field- dependent.  The structure constants are no longer constants!   This has led to a new development in group theory.

1124: 

1125: On $\l$ one finds after somewhat lengthy algebra

1126: \eqa

1127: [ \delta ( \epsilon_2 ), \delta (\epsilon_1) ] \l = \hat\xi \dot\l -

1128: \dot\varphi \hat\epsilon +2 h

1129: \dot\varphi \hat\epsilon.

1130: \eqae

1131: and the terms with $\hat\epsilon$ agree with (\ref{1thirtythree}) (because $i \psi \l \hat\epsilon =0$ due to $\psi \psi =0$).

1132: The term with $\hat\xi$ constitutes a general coordinate transformation on $\l$.

1133: Clearly, the same algebra is found on $\l$ as on $\psi$!

1134: 

1135: On $\psi$ one finds

1136: \eqa

1137: [ \delta (\epsilon_2), \delta (\epsilon_1) ] \psi &=& 

1138: - 2 (-i \epsilon_2 \psi + 2i h \epsilon_2 \psi ) \dot\epsilon_1 + 2 (-i \epsilon_1 \psi + 2i h \epsilon_1 \psi )\dot\epsilon_2

1139: %- 1 \leftrightarrow 2 

1140: \nn

1141: &=&  -2i \left[ {d \over dt} (\epsilon_2 \epsilon_1 ) \right] \psi +

1142: 4 i h \left[ {d \over dt}

1143: (\epsilon_2 \epsilon_1 ) \right] \psi \nn

1144: &=& {d \over dt}  \hat\epsilon + 2i  \epsilon_2 \epsilon_1 \dot\psi

1145: -2h  {d \over dt}

1146:   \hat\epsilon - 4 ih \epsilon_2 \epsilon_1 \dot\psi \nn

1147: &=& {d \over dt} \hat\epsilon - 2h {d \over dt} \hat\epsilon +

1148: \hat\xi \dot\psi.

1149: \eqae

1150: So also on $\psi$ the same local algebra is realized.

1151: 

1152: Finally also on $h$ the same algebra is realized%

1153: \footnote{Here and below ``$1 \leftrightarrow 2$'' means ``switch indices 1 and 2 in the preceding expression.''}

1154: \eqa

1155: && [ \delta ( \epsilon_2), \delta (\epsilon_1)] h = 

1156: - i \epsilon_1 ( \dot\epsilon_2 - 2h \dot\epsilon_2 ) - 2i [ \delta (\epsilon_2) h \psi ] \epsilon_1

1157: % + (i \epsilon_2 ( \dot\epsilon_1 - 2h \dot\epsilon_1 ) - 2i [ \delta (\epsilon_1) h \psi ] \epsilon_2)

1158:    - (1 \leftrightarrow 2)  \nn

1159: && =  - i \epsilon_1 (\dot\epsilon_2 - 2h \dot\epsilon_2) - 2i (-i \epsilon_2 \psi +2 i h \epsilon_2 \psi) \psi \epsilon_1 - 2i h

1160:        (\dot\epsilon_2 - 2h \dot\epsilon_2) \epsilon_1 

1161: % && +   ( i \epsilon_2 (\dot\epsilon_1 - 2h \dot\epsilon_1) - 2i (i \epsilon_1 \psi +2 i h \epsilon_1 \psi) \psi \epsilon_2 - 2i h

1162: % (\dot\epsilon_1 - 2h \dot\epsilon_1) \epsilon_2 )

1163:    - ( 1 \leftrightarrow 2 ) 

1164: \nn

1165: && = - i \hat\epsilon \psi +2i h \hat\epsilon \psi + \hat\xi \dot{h} -

1166: \dot{\hat\xi} h + {1 \over 2} \dot{\hat\xi}.

1167: \label{1thirtyseven}

1168: \eqae

1169: The terms with $\hat\epsilon$ clearly agree with (\ref{1thirtythree}).

1170: The terms with $\hat\xi$ in (\ref{1thirtyseven}) yield a general

1171: coordinate transformation of $h$ as we shall

1172: discuss below.  Hence, the local susy algebra closes on all fields uniformly.

1173: We can write this as

1174: \begin{equation}\label{moya}

1175: [\delta_s(\epsilon_2),\delta_s(\epsilon_1)]=\delta_{s}(-2i\epsilon_2

1176: \epsilon_1\psi)+\delta_g((1-2h)2i\epsilon_2\epsilon_1).

1177: \end{equation}

1178: The commutator of $\delta_s$ with $\delta_g$, and with itself,

1179: close (they are proportional to $\delta_s$ and $\delta_g$).

1180: 

1181: We can understand the closure of the local supersymmetry algebra by using

1182: the same argument as used for the rigid supersymmetry algebra. There is

1183: one bosonic gauge field component ($h$) and one fermionic gauge

1184: field component ($\psi$), hence no auxiliary fields in the gauge sector are needed.

1185: 

1186: We now consider the case $x \not= 0$.  Here a simple argument

1187: suffices.  Rescaling \eqa \l = ( 1 +2 h x)^{1/2} \tilde\l,

1188: \label{1thirtyeight} \eqae we obtain as action from (3.10) \eqa \cl = {1

1189: \over 2} \dot\varphi^2 + {i \over 2} (1 + 2 hx) \tilde\l {d \over

1190: dt} \tilde\l -i \tilde\psi \dot\varphi \tilde\l - h \dot\varphi^2,

1191: \label{action} \eqae where we also rescaled $\psi$ according to

1192: \eqa \psi (1+2 hx)^{1/2} = \tilde\psi. \label{1forty} \eqae We

1193: have produced the action with $x \not= 0$ from the action with

1194: $x=0$ by a simple rescaling of the fields $\l$ and $\psi$.  It

1195: follows that this action is also locally susy. The precise susy

1196: transformation rules follow from this rescaling \eqa && \delta \l

1197: = (1+2 hx)^{1/2} \delta \tilde\l + (1+2 hx)^{-1/2} x \delta h

1198: \tilde\l \nn &&\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, = - \dot\varphi \epsilon + i

1199: \tilde\psi \tilde\l \epsilon +2 h \dot\varphi \epsilon.

1200: \label{1fortyone} \eqae By dividing (\ref{1fortyone}) by $(1+2

1201: hx)^{1/2}$ and using $\delta h = -i \epsilon \psi +2i h \epsilon

1202: \psi$ we find $\delta \tilde\l$. It reads \eqa && \delta \tilde\l

1203: =- \dot\varphi \tilde\epsilon + i \tilde\psi \tilde\l

1204: \tilde\epsilon +2 h \dot\varphi \tilde\epsilon  - x (1 + 2

1205: hx)^{-1} (-i \tilde\epsilon \tilde\psi +2i h \tilde\epsilon

1206: \tilde\psi ) \tilde\l, \eqae where we also rescaled $\epsilon$

1207: according to $(1+2 hx)^{-1/2} \epsilon = \tilde\epsilon$.  (We

1208: used $\epsilon \psi = \tilde\epsilon \tilde\psi$ in $\delta h$).

1209: By rearranging these terms as \eqa \delta \tilde\l &=& -(1-2h)

1210: \dot\varphi \tilde\epsilon +i \left( 1+ {x-2hx \over 1+2 hx}

1211: \right) \tilde\psi \tilde\l \tilde\epsilon \nn &= & -(1-2h)

1212: \dot\varphi \tilde\epsilon +i \left( {1 +x \over 1+2 hx} \right)

1213: \tilde\psi \tilde\l \tilde\epsilon, \eqae we find a polynomial

1214: result for $x=-1$ \eqa \delta \tilde\l = -(1-2h) \dot\varphi

1215: \tilde\epsilon,\quad \delta \varphi =i \tilde\epsilon (1-2h) \tilde\l

1216: \label{delta}. \eqae For $\delta h$ and $\delta \tilde\psi$ we

1217: find in a similar manner \eqa \delta h &=& -i \tilde\epsilon

1218: \tilde\psi +2i h \tilde\epsilon \tilde\psi, \delta \tilde\psi =

1219: \sqrt{(1-2h)} \delta \psi = \sqrt{(1-2 h)} (1-2h) \dot\epsilon \nn

1220: &=& (1-2 h) [(1-2 h) \dot{\tilde\epsilon} - \dot{h}

1221: \tilde\epsilon ]. \label{polynomial} \eqae We used that $\delta h

1222: \psi$ vanishes.  Thus for $x=-1$ all laws become again polynomial.

1223: 

1224: We can, in fact, apply the Noether method also directly to gravity.

1225: This will explain the $\hat\xi$

1226: terms in (\ref{1thirtyseven}).  Starting with

1227: \eqa

1228: L \; {\rm (rigid)} \; = {1 \over 2} \dot\varphi^2 + {i \over 2} \l \dot\l,

1229: \eqae

1230: we find from the translation symmetry rules $\delta \varphi = \xi

1231: \dot\varphi$ and $\delta \l = \xi

1232: \dot\l$ for local $\xi$

1233: \eqa

1234: \delta S \; {\rm (rigid)} \; = \int \left[ \dot\varphi {d \over dt}

1235: (\xi \dot\varphi) + {i \over 2} \l

1236: {d \over dt} ( \xi \dot\l) + {i \over 2} \xi \dot\l \dot\l \right] dt.

1237: \eqae

1238: The third term vanishes as $\dot\l \dot\l =0$, and the second term

1239: vanishes after partial integration,

1240: whereas the first term yields after partial integration of one-half

1241: of this term (this ${1 \over 2} - {1

1242: \over 2}$ trick cancels the $\ddot\varphi$ terms)

1243: \eqa

1244: \delta S \; {\rm (rigid)} \; = \int \left[ {1 \over 2} \dot\xi

1245: \dot\varphi \dot\varphi + {d \over dt}

1246: \left( {1 \over 2} \xi \dot\varphi \dot\varphi + {i \over 2} \xi \l

1247: \dot\l \right) \right] dt.

1248: \eqae

1249: We see that $\dot\varphi \dot\varphi$ is the Noether current for

1250: translations for the $(\varphi, \l)$ system.  (Also the other way to construct the Noether current gives the same result).

1251: 

1252: Introducing the gauge field $h$ for gravity and defining $\delta h = {1 \over 2} \dot\xi + \cdots$ we

1253: obtain

1254: \eqa

1255: L \; {\rm (Noether)} \; =- h \dot\varphi \dot\varphi, \quad \delta h

1256: = {1 \over 2} \dot\xi.

1257: \eqae

1258: Note that there is no term of the form $h \l \dot\l$ in $L$

1259: (Noether).  (However

1260: the field redefinition (\ref{1thirtyeight}) produces a $h \l \dot\l$ term

1261: in the action in (\ref{action})).  As Noether current for $\l$ one might have expected $\pi \dot\l$ where $\pi$ is the conjugate momentum of $\l$, but $\dot\l$ vanishes on-shell, and anyhow time-derivatives of fields should not appear in the Hamiltonian formalism.

1262: 

1263: Variation of $\dot\varphi$ in $L$ (Noether) yields

1264: \eqa

1265: \delta S \; {\rm (Noether)} \; = \int - 2 h \dot\varphi {d \over dt}

1266: (\xi \dot\varphi) dt,

1267: \eqae

1268: which can be canceled, using the $\tfrac{1}{2} - \tfrac{1}{2}$ trick, by $\delta h =

1269: \xi \dot{h} - h \dot\xi$.  We could also

1270: have proceeded in another way: if we would partially integrate we

1271: would obtain $2 \dot{h} \dot\varphi \xi

1272: \dot\varphi + 2 h \ddot\varphi \xi

1273: \dot\varphi$, and the first variation could be removed by $\delta h =

1274: 2 \xi \dot{h}$ while the second

1275: variation could be eliminated by a suitable $\delta \varphi = 2 \xi h

1276: \dot\varphi$ in ${1 \over 2} \dot\varphi^2$.

1277: However, the variation $\delta \varphi =2 \xi h \dot\varphi$ produces

1278: in $S$ (Noether) with the $\tfrac{1}{2} - \tfrac{1}{2}$ trick a new

1279: variation $-2 \dot\xi h \dot\varphi h \dot\varphi$, which can be

1280: canceled in two ways, etc.  All these ambiguities (and more)

1281: are equivalent to field redefinitions.

1282: 

1283: We have thus shown that

1284: \eqa

1285: L = {1 \over 2} \dot\varphi^2 + {i \over 2} \l \dot\l - h \dot\varphi^2

1286: \label{over}

1287: \eqae

1288: is invariant under

1289: \eqa

1290: \delta \varphi = \xi \dot\varphi , \delta \l = \xi \dot\l , \delta h

1291: = {1 \over 2} \dot\xi + \xi \dot{h}

1292: - \dot\xi h.

1293: \label{varphi}

1294: \eqae

1295: In particular the result for $\delta h$ shows that the $\hat\xi$

1296: dependent terms in (\ref{1thirtyseven}) are

1297: indeed a general coordinate transformation.

1298: 

1299: In higher dimension the coupling of a scalar field to gravity is given by

1300: \[

1301: L=-{1 \over 2}(-\det g)^{1 \over 2}g^{\mu\nu}\del_\mu \varphi

1302: \del_\nu\varphi,

1303: \]

1304: so in one dimension $e_m^\mu$ corresponds to $1-2 h$.  Then (\ref{varphi}) agrees with the usual transformation rules of general relativity.

1305: 

1306: Adding the coupling to the gravitino $-i \psi \dot\varphi \l$, we

1307: obtain invariance under $\xi$

1308: transformations, provided we choose $\delta \psi$ appropriately,

1309: \eqa

1310: \delta (-i \psi \dot\varphi \l) =- i \delta \psi \dot\varphi \l-i

1311: \psi \left[ {d \over dt} (\xi \dot\varphi ) \right]

1312: \l -i \psi \dot\varphi \xi \dot\l.

1313: \eqae

1314: Partially integrating the last two terms, we obtain

1315: \eqa

1316: -i \delta \psi \dot\varphi \l + i \dot\psi \xi \dot\varphi \l,

1317: \eqae

1318: and these two terms can be canceled by choosing $\delta \psi = \xi

1319: \dot\psi$.  In general, Lagrangian

1320: densities in general relativity transform as coordinate densities,

1321: which means that

1322: \eqa

1323: \delta (-i \psi \dot\varphi \l) = {d \over dt} (-i \xi \psi \dot\varphi \l).

1324: \eqae

1325: This is indeed achieved if $\psi$ transforms like

1326: \eqa

1327: \delta \psi = \xi \dot\psi.

1328: \label{dot}

1329: \eqae

1330: 

1331: Thus the model in (\ref{1thirtythree}) has now also been shown to be invariant under

1332: general coordinate transformation. The result in (\ref{dot}) can be explained

1333: by noting that the field $\psi$ in the Noether coupling in (\ref{1already}) corresponds to

1334: $(\det g)^{1 \over 2} g^{\mu\nu} \psi_\nu \sim e_m{}^\mu \psi_\mu$ in one

1335: dimension.  This field $e^\mu_m \psi_\mu$ is a coordinate scalar, in agreement with (\ref{dot}).

1336: 

1337: Let us again rescale $\l = \sqrt{1+2 hx} \tilde\l$ to obtain an

1338: action with a term $h \tilde\l \dot{\tilde\l}$.  We obtain from (\ref{over})

1339: \eqa

1340: && L = {1 \over 2} \dot\varphi^2 + {i \over 2} \tilde\l

1341: \dot{\tilde\l} -h \left( \dot\varphi^2 - i x \tilde\l {d

1342: \over dt} \tilde\l \right), \nn

1343: && \delta \tilde\l = {\delta \l \over \sqrt{1+2 h x}} - {\delta h x

1344: \l \over (1+2 hx)^{3/2}} = \xi {d \over dt} \tilde\l -

1345: {1 \over 2} x \dot\xi \left( {1-2h \over 1+2 hx} \right) \tilde\l.

1346: \eqae

1347: For $x =-1$ we find again a polynomial result $\delta \tilde\l = \xi

1348: \dot{\tilde\l} + {1 \over 2} \dot\xi \tilde\l$. The second term indicates

1349: that $\tilde\l$ is a half-density, in agreement with our earlier

1350: observation that $1-2h=e_m{}^\mu=\det e_m{}^\mu$ is a density, and $\tilde\l = \sqrt{1-2 h} \l$ is a half-density.

1351: 

1352: We already saw that it is natural to rescale $\psi$ as in

1353: (\ref{1forty}).  After the rescaling $\psi \sqrt{1+2

1354: hx} = \tilde\psi$ according to which $-i \psi \dot\varphi \l = -i

1355: \tilde\psi \dot\varphi \tilde\l$, the field $\tilde\psi$ transforms

1356: for $x =-1$ as

1357: \eqa

1358: \delta \tilde\psi = \xi {d \over dt} \tilde\psi - {1 \over 2} \dot\xi

1359: \tilde\psi.

1360: \eqae

1361: 

1362: Collecting all results for $x=-1$, and dropping the tildas, we have

1363: found the following action and

1364: transformation rules for general coordinate transformations

1365: \eqa

1366: && L = {1 \over 2} \dot\varphi^2 + {i \over 2} \l \dot\l -h

1367: (\dot\varphi^2 + i \l \dot\l)- i \psi \dot\varphi \l,

1368: \nn

1369: && \delta \varphi = \xi \dot\varphi , \quad \delta \l = \xi \dot\l + {1

1370: \over 2} \dot\xi \l,\quad \delta h = {1

1371: \over 2} \dot\xi  + \xi \dot{h}  - \dot\xi h , \quad \delta \psi = \xi

1372: \dot\psi - {1 \over

1373: 2} \dot\xi \psi.

1374: \label{general}

1375: \eqae

1376: The susy transformation rules for this model were given in (\ref{delta}) and (\ref{polynomial}),

1377: \eqa

1378: && \delta \varphi = i \epsilon (1-2 h) \l,\quad \delta \l = -(1-2 h)

1379: \dot\varphi \epsilon,\nn

1380: && \delta \psi = (1-2h) [ (1-2 h) \dot\epsilon - \dot{h} \epsilon ], \quad

1381: \delta h = -(1-2 h) i \epsilon \psi.

1382: \label{1sixty}

1383: \eqae

1384: 

1385: Hence we have found two polynomial formulations of this supergravity model,

1386: one without a coupling $h \l \dot\l$ in (\ref{1thirtythree}), and one with it in (\ref{general}).

1387: If one varies

1388: the susy Noether current $\dot\varphi \l$ in flat

1389: space under rigid susy, one finds

1390: \eqa

1391: \delta ( \epsilon ) \dot\varphi \l = {d \over dt} (i \epsilon \l) \l

1392: - \dot\varphi \dot\varphi \epsilon =

1393: -(\dot\varphi \dot\varphi + i \l \dot\l ) \epsilon.

1394: \label{1sixtyone}

1395: \eqae

1396: This is the current which couples to $h$ in the model with a $h \l

1397: \dot\l$ coupling.  The action of this

1398: model can suggestively be written as

1399: \eqa

1400: L = {1 \over 2} (1-2 h) (\dot\varphi^2 +i \l \dot\l ) - i \psi \dot\varphi

1401: \l.

1402: \label{1sixtyfoour}

1403: \eqae

1404: It is this formulation of the model which is easiest to write in superspace.

1405: 

1406: \mathversion{bold}

1407: \section{Rigid and local $N=1$ superspace}

1408: \mathversion{normal}

1409: 

1410: We now turn to the superspace description.  

1411: The coordinates of the superspace for our toy model are $t$ and $\theta$; both are real, and $\theta$ is a Grassmann variable. 

1412:  A superfield $\Phi$ depends on $t$ and $\theta$, but a Taylor expansion of $\Phi$ in terms of $\theta$ contains only two terms because $\theta \theta =0$.  We begin with

1413: \eqa

1414: \Phi = \varphi + i \theta \l,

1415: \eqae

1416: where $\varphi$ and $\l$ are arbitrary functions of $t$.

1417: Since $\varphi$ is real, also $\Phi$ is real, and this requires the factor $i$.

1418: Susy transformations in flat space are generated by the hermitian%

1419: \footnote{ To show that $Q$ is hermitian, note that from the anticommutator $\{ {\del \over \delta \theta} , \theta \} =1$ 

1420: if follows that $\del / \del \theta$ is hermitian.  

1421: Likewise, it follows from the commutator $[ {\del \over \del t} , t ] =1$ that $\del / \del t$ is antihermitian.} 

1422:  generator $Q$

1423: \eqa

1424: Q= {\del \over \del \theta} + i \theta {\del \over \del t},

1425: \eqae

1426: because

1427: \eqa

1428: \epsilon Q \Phi &=& \epsilon \left( {\del \over \del \theta} + i

1429: \theta {\del \over \del t} \right) (

1430: \varphi + i \theta \l) = i \epsilon \l + i \theta (-\epsilon \dot\varphi)\nn

1431: &=& \delta \varphi + i \theta \delta \l.

1432: \eqae

1433: The results for $\delta \varphi$ and $\delta \l$ agree with (\ref{1five}).

1434: 

1435: The susy covariant derivative, by definition, anticommutes

1436: with $Q, \{ Q,D \} =0$, and this determines $D= {\del \over \del \theta} - i \theta

1437: {\del \over \del t}$. The action can be written as

1438: \eqa

1439: S &=& {i \over 2} \int dtd \theta  (\del_t \Phi ) (D \Phi) \nn

1440: &=& {i \over 2} \int dtd \theta (\dot\varphi + i \theta \dot\l ) ( i

1441: \l - i \theta \dot\varphi) = {1

1442: \over 2} \int [ \dot\varphi \dot\varphi + i \l \dot\l ] dt.

1443: \eqae

1444: We used $\int d \theta \theta =1$ and $\int d \theta c =0$ if $c$ is

1445: independent of $\theta$. This definition of integration is called the

1446: Berezin integral \cite{Berezinfa} and it follows from translational invariance in $\theta$.

1447: Namely requiring that $\int d \theta f(\theta) = \int d \theta

1448: f(\theta+c)$, and using that $f(\theta)=a + b \theta$ because $\theta

1449: \theta=0 $, one finds $\int d \theta c =0$. We normalize $\theta$ such

1450: that $\int d \theta \theta = 1$.

1451: 

1452: The susy invariance of the action follows from $\delta \Phi =[\epsilon

1453: Q, \Phi]$, $\del_t \epsilon Q = \epsilon Q \del_t$ and $D \epsilon Q =

1454: \epsilon Q D$. One gets then for the variation of the action an expression

1455: of the form $\delta S = {i \over 2} \int d t d \theta Q[...]$. The

1456: ${\del \over \del\theta}$ in $Q$ yields zero because $\del_\theta [\dots]$

1457: contains no $\theta$ and $\int d \theta c = 0$.  The $i \theta {\del

1458: \over \del t}$ in $Q$ yields zero because of the total t-derivative.  This shows that any action built from superfields and derivatives ${\del \over \del t}$ and $D$ is always supersymmetric.

1459: 

1460: After performing the $\theta$ integration, we have obtained the correct $t$-space action.  We can also show before the $\theta$ integration that $\partial_t \phi D \phi $ is the correct Lagrangian density by checking that it has the correct dimension:  the dimension of $\phi$ is that of $\varphi$, so $[ \phi ] =- 1/2$, and $[ dt ] =-1$ and $d \theta = 1/2$.  The action should be dimensionless, so we need derivatives acting on $\phi$ with dimension $+3/2$.  The only derivatives we have available are ${\del \over \del t}$ and $D$, so the Lagrangian density is unique.

1461: If one considers generalized unitary group elements $e^{\theta Q + i t H}$, one finds by

1462: left-multiplication the vielbein fields

1463: \eqa

1464: && e^{\epsilon Q +iaH} e^{\theta Q +itH}= e^{\epsilon Q +iaH +\theta Q +itH

1465: +{1 \over 2} [ \epsilon Q, \theta Q ]} \nn

1466: && \equiv \exp [ \{ z^\Lambda + dz^M E_M{}^\Lambda (Z) \} ] T_\Lambda.

1467: \label{equiv}

1468: \eqae

1469: We used the Baker-Campbell-Hansdorff formua, and $z^\Lambda = (t, \theta ), T_\Lambda = (H,Q)$ and $dz^M = (a, \e)$.

1470: Using $[\epsilon Q, \theta Q]=- \epsilon \{Q,Q\} \theta= - 2\epsilon H

1471: \theta$ we find in the exponent $(\theta + \epsilon)Q + i (t + a +

1472: i\epsilon \theta)H$.  Thus $\delta (\epsilon) \theta = \epsilon $ and $\delta (\epsilon) t = i

1473: \epsilon \theta$. This is a nonlinear representation of the susy algebra

1474: \eqa

1475: \{Q,Q\}=2H {\bf ,} \;\; [Q,H]=0, \;\; {\rm and } \;\; [H,H]=0.

1476: \eqae

1477: in terms of coordinates. The field representation in (\ref{1five}) is induced by

1478: this coordinate representation, namely $\Phi ' (t',\theta ') = \Phi

1479: (t,\theta)$.%

1480: \footnote{Actually, one finds in this way minus the result of (2.6). To get (2.6), we would have replaced $\epsilon$ (and $a$) in (4.5) by $-\epsilon$ (and $-a$). In general, coordinates transform contragradiently (opposite) to fields.}

1481: 

1482: One can repeat the same procedure as in (\ref{equiv}) but now using right multiplication.

1483: Right multiplication yields $D$, and now we understand why $\epsilon_1 D$ and $\epsilon_2 Q$ commute: because left and

1484: right multiplications commute.

1485: 

1486: In 4 dimensions it is better to define $x$-space components by $D$

1487: derivatives of $\Phi$ at $\theta

1488: =0$.  Here this makes no difference since there are only two components in $\Phi$

1489: \eqa

1490: \Phi_{\big| \theta =0} = \varphi (t), \quad D \Phi_{\big| \theta =0} = i \l (t).

1491: \eqae

1492: Since $\int dt \int d \theta$ can be replaced

1493: by $\int dt D$ (recall that $\int d \theta = {\del \over \del \theta}$

1494: and $\int dt i \theta {\del \over

1495: \del t} L =0$ because it is a total $t$-derivative) we get

1496: \eqa

1497: S &=& {i \over 2} \int dt [ (\del_t D \Phi) D \Phi + \del_t \Phi DD \Phi

1498: ]\nn

1499: &=& {i \over 2} \int dt [ (i \dot\l ) (i \l) -  \dot\varphi i  \dot\varphi ].

1500: \eqae

1501: 

1502: The extended susy algebra of $Q, D$ and $H = i {\del \over \del t}$ reads

1503: \eqa

1504: && \{ Q, Q \} = 2 H,\;  \; \{ D,D \} =- 2 H, \; \; \{ Q, D \} =0, \nn

1505: && [H, Q] = [ H,D ] =0.

1506: \eqae

1507: 

1508: To formulate also the supergravity model in superspace, the $x$-space

1509: action of (3.43)

1510: \eqa

1511: L = {1 \over 2} (1-2 h) (\dot\varphi^2 +i \l \dot\l) -i \psi \dot\varphi\l,

1512: \eqae

1513: suggests to introduce as superfield for the gauge fields of supergravity

1514: \eqa

1515: H = ( 1-2 h) +2i \theta \psi,

1516: \label{2seventytwo}

1517: \eqae

1518: and to write

1519: \eqa

1520: L  = { i \over 2} \int d \theta H (\del_t \Phi) D \Phi.

1521: \label{1seventyfour}

1522: \eqae

1523: This is the action in the so-called prepotential approach.

1524: This action is not manifestly covariant w.r.t.\ general coordinate

1525: transformations in superspace, but we

1526: shall soon give another formulation which is manifestly covariant and

1527: equivalent, giving the same

1528: $t$-space action.  Let us first check that the expression in (\ref{1seventyfour}) yields

1529: indeed the $t$-space action

1530: \eqa

1531: L &=& {i \over 2} \int d \theta [ (1-2h) +2i \theta \psi ] (

1532: \dot\varphi + i \theta \dot\l )(i \l - i \theta

1533: \dot\varphi)  \nn

1534: &=& {1 \over 2} (1-2h) (\dot\varphi \dot\varphi + i \l \dot\l ) - i

1535: \psi \dot\varphi \l.

1536: \eqae

1537: This agrees with (\ref{1sixtyfoour}).

1538: 

1539: We now turn to the covariant approach.  One introduces ``flat

1540: covariant derivatives"

1541: \eqa

1542: \cd_{\bar{t}} &=& E_{\bar{t}}{}^\theta D_\theta + E_{\bar{t}}{}^t  \del_t ,\nn

1543: \cd_{\bar\theta} &=& E_{\bar\theta}{}^\theta D_\theta +

1544: E_{\bar\theta}{}^t  \del_t.

1545: %\cd_\theta &\equiv& \cd.

1546: \eqae

1547: The superfields $E_{\bar{t}}{}^\theta$ etc are the inverse super vielbeins.

1548: The bars on $\bar\theta$ and $\bar{t}$ denote that these are flat

1549: indices, while $\theta$ and $t$ are curved

1550: indices.  Because in rigid susy the natural derivatives are $\del_t$

1551: and $D_\theta$ rather than $\del_t$ and

1552: $\del_\theta$, one introduces vielbeins and parameters on this basis.

1553: We introduce the notation $D_\L = \{ D_\theta ,

1554: \del_t \}$ and $\cd_M = \{ \cd_{\bar\theta}, \cd_{\bar{t}} \}$ where

1555: $\L = \{ \theta, t \}$ and $M = \{

1556: \bar\theta, \bar{t} \}$.  Then the super-vielbeins on the basis

1557: $\del_\Lambda =(\del_\theta , \del_t)$ are related to the vielbeins on the

1558: basis $\cd_\Lambda$ as follows

1559: \eqa

1560: && \tilde{E}_M{}^\L  \del_\L = E_M{}^\L D_\L,\;\; \tilde{E}_M{}^\theta =

1561: E_M{}^\theta, \;\; {\rm but} \;\;

1562: \tilde{E}_M{}^t = E_M{}^t - E_M{}^\theta i \theta, \nn

1563: && \tilde\Xi^\L \del_\L = \Xi^\L D_\L,\;\; \tilde\Xi^\theta = \Xi^\theta,

1564: \;\; {\rm but}\; \; \tilde\Xi^t =

1565: \Xi^t -  \Xi^\theta i \theta.

1566: \label{1seventyseven}

1567: \eqae

1568: 

1569: A supercoordinate transformation of $\Phi$ becomes $\delta \Phi =

1570: \tilde\Xi^\L \del_\L \Phi = \Xi^\L D_\L

1571: \Phi$.  The (inverse) super vielbein $\tilde{E}_M{}^\L$ transforms as

1572: in ordinary general relativity.

1573: \eqa

1574: \delta \tilde{E}_M{}^\L &=& \tilde\Xi^\Pi (\del_\Pi \tilde{E}_M{}^\L) -

1575: \tilde{E}_M{}^\Pi (\del_\Pi

1576: \tilde\Xi^\L) \nn

1577: &=& \Xi^\Pi (D_\Pi \tilde{E}_M {}^\L) - E_M{}^\Pi (D_\Pi \tilde\Xi^\L).

1578: \eqae

1579: Contracting with $\del_\L$ on both sides of the equation and then

1580: using (\ref{1seventyseven}) one obtains

1581: \eqa

1582: \delta E_M{}^\S = \Xi^\Pi D_\Pi E_M{}^\S  + E_M{}^\Pi D_\Pi \Xi^\S +

1583: E_M{}^\Pi \Xi^\L T^{(0)}_{\L \Pi}{}^\S,

1584: \eqae

1585: where $[D_\L , D_\Pi \} = T^{(0)}_{\L \Pi}{}^\S  D_\S$.  In our

1586: case only the $\theta\theta$ component of the supertorsion is

1587: nonvanishing, $T^{(0)\; t}_{\theta\theta} = -2i$ (see (4.9)), and we get

1588: \eqa

1589: \delta E_M{}^t &=& \Xi^\Pi D_\Pi E_M{}^t - E_M{}^\Pi (D_\Pi \Xi^t +

1590: 2i \Xi^\theta \delta_\Pi{}^\theta), \nn

1591: \delta E_M{}^\theta &=& \Xi^\Pi D_\Pi E_M{}^\theta - E_M{}^\Pi D_\Pi \Xi^\theta.

1592: \eqae

1593: 

1594: In $x$-space we only have the field content of $H$. To reduce the extra

1595: superfields we shall now impose a constraint on the super-vielbein and

1596: choose a gauge. Afterward we shall come back to the general super

1597: coordinate transformations in the presence of this constraint and gauge.

1598: 

1599: To avoid cumbersome notation we write $\cd$ for $\cd_{\bar\theta}$ and

1600: parametrize $\cd$ as follows

1601: \eqa

1602: \cd = E D + X i \del_t, \quad {\rm with} \quad D=D_{\theta} = {\del \over \del \theta}

1603: - i \theta {\del \over \del t}.

1604: \eqae

1605: Thus $E_{\bar\theta}{}^\theta$ is denoted by $E$, and

1606: $E_{\bar\theta}{}^t$ by $i X$.  The fields in

1607: $\cd_{\bar{t}}$ are determined in terms of the fields in $\cd$ by imposing

1608: the following \emph{constraint}.

1609: \eqa

1610: {1 \over 2} \{ \cd , \cd \} = -i \cd_{\bar{t}}.

1611: \label{1eightyone}

1612: \eqae

1613: This is the curved space extension of $\{ D, D \} =- 2 i \del_t$.  It

1614: is a so-called conventional constraint; in 4 dimensions

1615: it expresses the bosonic Lorentz connection in terms of the fermionic

1616: Lorentz connections, but here no connection is present,

1617: and the constraint expresses the super vielbeins with flat index

1618: $\bar{t}$ in terms of those with flat index $\bar\theta$.

1619: 

1620: The anticommutator in (\ref{1eightyone}) yields

1621: \begin{gather}

1622: {1 \over 2} \{ ED + X i \del_t, ED + Xi \del_t \} \nonumber \\

1623: = [-E^2 + E (D X)

1624: + i X \dot{X} ] i \del_t + [E (DE) + i X \dot{E} ]D \nonumber \\

1625: \equiv -i [E_{\bar{t}}{}^{\theta} D + E_{\bar{t}}{}^{t} \del_{t}].

1626: \end{gather}

1627: Hence

1628: \eqa

1629: E_{\bar{t}}{}^t &=& E^2 - E (DX) - i X \dot{X}, \nn

1630: E_{\bar{t}}{}^\theta &=& i E (DE) - X \dot{E}.

1631: \eqae

1632: As a matrix, the inverse super vielbein is thus given by

1633: \eqa

1634: E_M{}^\L = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} E^2 - E (DX) - i X \dot{X}

1635: &\qquad  & i E (DE) -  X \dot{E} \\ i X & & E

1636: \end{array} \right).

1637: \eqae

1638: The superdeterminant of $\left( \begin{array}{cc}  A & B \\ C & D

1639: \end{array} \right)$ being given by%

1640: \footnote{ Use $\left(

1641: \begin{array}{cc}  A & B \\ C & D \end{array} \right) = \left(

1642: \begin{array}{cc}  A-BD^{-1} C

1643: & BD^{-1} \\ 0 & 1 \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{cc}  1 &

1644: 0 \\ C & D \end{array} \right)$ and take the product of

1645: the \\two superdeterminants.}

1646: \eqa

1647: s \det \left( \begin{array}{cc}  A & B \\ C & D \end{array} \right) =

1648: {1 \over D} (A - B D^{-1} C),

1649: \eqae

1650: and we find

1651: \eqa

1652: s \det E_M{}^\L &=& {1 \over E} \left\{ E^2 - E (DX)  - i X \dot{X} +

1653: [E (DE) + i X \dot{E} ] {1 \over E} X

1654: \right\}

1655: \nn &=& E - (DX) - i {X \dot{X} \over E} + {DE \over E} X,

1656: \eqae

1657: where we used that $XX=0$.

1658: 

1659: We now choose \emph{the gauge which sets $i X = E_{\bar\theta}{}^t$ to zero}.  This will fix some

1660: of the gauge symmetries in superspace as we discuss

1661: later.  In the covariant formalism, an invariant action (an action

1662: invariant under super general coordinate

1663: transformation, there are no Lorentz transformations) is given by ($s

1664: \det E_\L{}^M$) times covariant

1665: derivatives on tensors (scalars in our case) with flat indices.  We

1666: find then for the covariant action in

1667: superspace, which generalizes (4.12),

1668: \eqa

1669: S &=&  {i \over 2} \int dt d \theta ( s \det E_\L{}^M )

1670: (\cd_{\bar{t}} \Phi ) (\cd_{\bar{\theta}} \Phi ) \nn

1671: &=& \int dt d \theta \left(  {i \over 2E} \right) (E^2 \del_t \Phi )

1672: (ED \Phi ).

1673: \eqae

1674: (A term $i E(DE) (D\Phi)$ in $\cd_{\bar{t}} \Phi$ cancels out).

1675: Identifying $E^2 =H$ we find the same action as in (\ref{1seventyfour}).

1676: 

1677: Let us now discuss the local symmetries in superspace.  On $\Phi$ a

1678: general supercoordinate transformation would read

1679: \eqa

1680: \delta \Phi = \tilde\Xi^t \del_t \Phi + \tilde\Xi^\theta \del_\theta \Phi.

1681: \eqae

1682: To incorporate rigid susy as the flat superspace limit $E=1, X=0$, we

1683: expand instead in terms of $\del_t$ and $D_\theta$.

1684: Then

1685: \eqa

1686: \delta \Phi = \Xi^t \del_t \Phi + \Xi^\theta D_\theta \Phi = \Xi \Phi\;

1687: \; {\rm with} \; \;\Xi = \Xi^t \del_t + \Xi^\theta D_\theta.

1688: \eqae

1689: We used again (4.15).  But $\Xi^\theta$ is not a free super parameter as we now show.  We can also write $\Xi \Phi$ as the operator equation $[ \Xi, \Phi ] = 0$.

1690: 

1691: The transformation rules of the super vielbein follow from

1692: \eqa

1693: \delta \cd_M = [ \Xi , \cd_M ].

1694: \eqae

1695: In particular for $\cd_{\bar{\theta}} = \cd = ED + X i \del_t$ we find

1696: \eqa

1697: \delta [ED +X i \del_t ] = [ \Xi^t \del_t + \Xi^\theta D, E D + X i \del_t].

1698: \eqae

1699: If the gauge $X=0$ has been reached, the terms with $\del_t$ on the

1700: right-hand side should vanish because they are absent on the left-hand

1701: side. This yields

1702: the following relation between $\Xi^\theta$ and $\Xi^t$

1703: \eqa

1704: -\Xi^\theta E 2i \del_t - E (D \Xi^t ) \del_t =0 \,\Rightarrow\,

1705: \Xi^\theta = {i \over 2} (D \Xi^t).

1706: \eqae

1707: Expanding

1708: \eqa

1709: \Xi^t = \xi (t) -2 i \theta \epsilon (t),

1710: \eqae

1711: we find

1712: \eqa

1713: \Xi^\theta = {i \over 2} (-2i \epsilon (t) - i \theta \dot\xi ) =

1714: \epsilon (t) + {1 \over 2} \theta \dot\xi.

1715: \eqae

1716: 

1717: The transformation of $\Phi$ becomes then

1718: \eqa

1719: \delta \Phi = (\xi - 2 i \theta \epsilon ) \dot\Phi + \left( \epsilon

1720: + {1 \over 2} \theta \dot\xi \right)

1721:   D \Phi,

1722: \eqae

1723: which reads in components

1724: \eqa

1725: \delta \varphi &=& \xi \dot\varphi + i \epsilon \l, \nn

1726: \delta \l &=& \xi \dot\l + {1 \over 2} \dot\xi \l - 2 \epsilon

1727: \dot\varphi +  \epsilon \dot\varphi.

1728: \eqae

1729: These are the correct $x$-space results of (3.38) and (\ref{1sixty})

1730:  after defining $\epsilon = \epsilon (x- {\rm space}) (1 -2 h)$.

1731: 

1732: To obtain the transformation rules of the supergravity gauge fields

1733: in $E$, we return to

1734: \eqa

1735: \delta \cd_M = [ \Xi, \cd_M ] \; {\rm with} \; \Xi = \Xi^t \del_t +

1736: \Xi^\theta D.

1737: \eqae

1738: From this relation $\delta E$ follows if one takes $\cd_{\bar{\theta}} =

1739: \cd = ED$

1740: and collects all terms with $D$,

1741: \eqa

1742: ( \delta E) D &=& ( \Xi E) D -E (D \Xi^\theta )D, \nn

1743: \delta E &=& \Xi^t \dot{E} + \Xi^\theta (DE) - E(D \Xi^\theta),\nn

1744: \delta H &=& 2 E \delta E = \Xi^t \dot{H} + \Xi^\theta DH - 2H (D \Xi^\theta).

1745: \label{2ninety7}

1746: \eqae

1747: Substituting the component expressions of (\ref{2seventytwo}) leads to

1748: \eqa

1749: && - 2 \delta h + 2i \theta \delta \psi = ( \xi -2 i \theta \epsilon)

1750: (-2 \dot{h} +2i  \theta \dot\psi ) + \left(

1751: \epsilon + {1

1752: \over 2} \theta \dot\xi \right) (2 i \psi +2i \theta \dot{h} )\nn

1753: && \quad - 2 [ (1-2 h) +2i \theta \psi ] \left( {1 \over 2} \dot\xi -

1754: i  \theta \dot\epsilon \right).

1755: \eqae

1756: This leads to

1757: \eqa

1758: \delta (-2h) &=& -2 \xi \dot{h}  +2i \epsilon \psi - (1-2 h) \dot\xi, \nn

1759: \delta (2 \psi) &=&  4 \epsilon \dot{h} +2 \xi \dot\psi + \dot\xi

1760: \psi - 2 \dot{h} \epsilon \nn

1761: && - 2 \dot\xi \psi +2 (1-2 h) \dot\epsilon.

1762: \label{doot}

1763: \eqae

1764: These results agree with (3.41) using again the identification $\epsilon =

1765: \epsilon (x- \; {\rm space} \; ) (1-2 h)$.

1766: 

1767: Instead of choosing a gauge we can also find a redefinition of the

1768: fields which leads to the same result.  We could demonstrate

1769: this in the most general case, but to simplify the analysis we still

1770: impose the constraint ${1 \over 2} \{ \cd , \cd \} = -i

1771: \cd_{\bar{t}}$.  Hence $E_{\bar{t}}{}^t$ and $E_{\bar{t}}{}^\theta$

1772: are given in terms of $E$ and $X$.  The action in the gauge

1773: $X=0$ is given by

1774: \eqa

1775: L= \int d \theta \left(  {i \over 2} \right) E^2 (\del_t \Phi ) (D \Phi ).

1776: \label{2one01}

1777: \eqae

1778: whereas the action without this gauge choice reads

1779: \begin{gather} \label{2one02}

1780: L = {i \over 2} \int d \theta \left( E-DX - i X \dot{X} /E + {DE

1781: \over E} X \right)^{-1} \nonumber \\

1782: [ (E^2 - E(DX) -i X \dot{X} ) \dot\Phi + ( i EDE -  X

1783: \dot{E} ) D \Phi ) ] [ ED \Phi + i X \dot\Phi ].

1784: \end{gather}

1785: The question we ask is this: which field redefinition (redefinition

1786: of $E, X, \Phi$) leads from (4.41) to (\ref{2one01})?  The

1787: solution of this question is most easily found by first making a

1788: general symmetry transformation on the fields in (4.41) and

1789: then requiring that the new field $X'$ vanishes.  This will express

1790: the symmetry parameter in terms of $E$ and $X$, and provide an

1791: explicit expression for the new field $E'$ in terms of $E$ such that

1792: the action takes the form in (\ref{2one01}).

1793: 

1794: The symmetries of the theory are in this case general supercoordinate

1795: transformations.  In classical general relativity a contravariant supervector $F^\L$

1796: transforms, by definition, as follows:

1797: $(F^\L )' (Z') = F^\Pi (Z) {\del \over \del Z^\Pi} (Z')^\L$. Since

1798: field redefinitions do not change $Z$ into $Z'$, we

1799: need a way to write general supercoordinate transformations as

1800: relations between $(F^\L)' (Z)$ and $F^\L (Z)$ \emph{at the

1801: same point $Z$}.  Such a formalism exists and we now explain it and

1802: then will use it. One may call it the ``operator approach to diffeomorphisms''.

1803: 

1804: For a scalar superfield (a scalar with respect to general

1805: supercoordinate transformations) we define, as it is customary for internal symmetries in 

1806: Yang-Mills theory,

1807: \eqa

1808: \phi' (Z) = e^{\hat{X} (Z) D} \phi (Z).

1809: \label{2one03}

1810: \eqae

1811: Here $Z= \{ \theta, t\}$ and $\hat{X} (Z)$ is an arbitrary superfield

1812: parameter which we will later write as a complicated

1813: expression in terms of $E$ and $X$.  The most general transformation would

1814: be

1815: \eqa

1816: \phi' (Z) = e^{\hat{X} D + \hat{Y} \del_t} \phi (Z).

1817: \eqae

1818: but we will reach our aim with $\hat{Y} =0$.  There will then still

1819: remain super-diffeomorphisms with one superfield parameter

1820: which keep $X' =0$.  They correspond to $\epsilon$ and $\xi$

1821: transformations in $x$-space.

1822: 

1823: Usually one writes a general supercoordinate transformation as

1824: \eqa

1825: \phi' (Z') = \phi (Z),\quad Z' = Z' (Z).

1826: \label{2one05}

1827: \eqae

1828: The relation between (\ref{2one05}) and (\ref{2one03}) becomes clear

1829: if one writes the latter as

1830: \eqa

1831: e^{-\hat{X} (Z) D} \phi' (Z) = \phi' (Z').

1832: \label{2one06}

1833: \eqae

1834: A particular case is $e^{- \hat{X} (Z)D} Z= Z'$. This yields the relation between 

1835: $Z'(Z)$ and $\hat{X}(Z)$. To work this out we expand

1836: \eqa

1837: && e^{\hat{X} (Z) D} = 1+ \hat{X} D + {1 \over 2} \hat{X} D \hat{X} D

1838: + {1 \over 3!} \hat{X} D \hat{X} D \hat{X} D \nn

1839: && = 1 + \hat{X} D + {1 \over 2} \hat{X} (D \hat{X} ) D + {1 \over

1840: 3!} \hat{X} (D \hat{X}) (D \hat{X} ) D + \cdots \nn

1841: && = 1 + \hat{X} \left( {e^{(D \hat{X})} -1 \over (D \hat{X})}

1842: \right) D \equiv 1 + f \hat{X} D,

1843: \eqae

1844: where $f = f ((D \hat{X})) = (e^{(D \hat{X})} -1) / (D \hat{X})$.  We

1845: used that $\hat{X} \hat{X} =0$, because $\hat{X}$ is anticommuting.  It follows that

1846: \eqa

1847: Z' = e^{- \hat{X} D} Z= (1- \bar{f} \hat{X} D) Z=Z- \bar{f} \hat{X} (DZ),

1848: \eqae

1849: where $\bar{f} \equiv f  (-(D \hat{X})) = 1- {1 \over 2} (D \hat{X} )

1850: + \cdots$.  More explicitly,

1851: \eqa

1852: \theta' = \theta - \bar{f} \hat{X} (D \theta) = \theta - \bar{f}

1853: \hat{X},\quad t' =t - \bar{f} \hat{X} (D t) = t + \bar{f} \hat{X} (i

1854: \theta).

1855: \eqae

1856: Then we find indeed (\ref{2one06})

1857: \eqa

1858:  e^{- \hat{X} D} \phi' (Z) &=& (1- \bar{f} \hat{X}D ) \phi ' = \phi '

1859: - \bar{f} \hat{X} \left( {\del \over \del \theta} - i

1860: \theta {\del \over \del t} \right) \phi ' \nn

1861: & = &\phi' ( \theta - \bar{f} \hat{X} , t +\bar{f} \hat{X} i \theta )

1862: = \phi' (Z').

1863: \eqae

1864: 

1865: Consider now a transformation with $\hat{X}$ which is such that the

1866: new field $X'$ vanishes.  In terms of

1867: \eqa

1868: \cd = ED + iX \del_t,

1869: \eqae

1870: this means that

1871: \eqa

1872: \cd' = e^{\hat{X} D} \cd e^{- \hat{X} D} = E' (Z) D.

1873: \eqae

1874: Thus in $D'$ all terms with free derivatives $i \del_t$ and $i

1875: \del_t D$ must cancel, and the coefficient of $D$ is by

1876: definition $E' (Z)$.  Requiring that the coefficients of $i \del_t$

1877: and $i \del_t D$ vanish fixes $\hat{X}$ as a function of

1878: $X$ and $E$.

1879: 

1880: The details are as follows.  We begin with

1881: \eqa

1882: e^{\hat{X} D} \cd e^{- \hat{X} D} &=& (1 + f \hat{X} D) (ED +X i

1883: \del_t)(1- \bar{f} \hat{X} D)\nn

1884: &=& E' (Z) D + X' (Z) i \del_t.

1885: \label{2one12}

1886: \eqae

1887: Somewhat laborious algebra using $DD = - i \del_t$ yields the following

1888: result for this expression,

1889: \eqa

1890: && [ \{ E+ f \hat{X} (DE) \} D+ \{ X - f \hat{X} E+ f \hat{X} (DX) \}

1891: i \del_t \nn

1892: && - f \hat{X} X i \del_t D] (1- \bar{f} \hat{X} D) \nn

1893: && = [ E + f \hat{X} (DE - ED ( \bar{f} \hat{X} ) - f \hat{X} (DE)

1894: \bar{f} (D \hat{X}) \nn

1895: && - X i \del_t (\bar{f} \hat{X} ) - f \hat{X} E \bar{f} (i \del_t

1896: \hat{X} ) - f \hat{X} (DX) \bar{f} (i \del_t \hat{X} ) ] D

1897: \nn

1898: && + [ X - f \hat{X} E + f \hat{X} (DX) - E \bar{f} \hat{X} ] i \del _t \nn

1899: && + [ - f \hat{X} X - X \bar{f} \hat{X} +f\hat{X}X\bar{f}(D\hat{X})] D i \del_t.

1900: \eqae

1901: The terms with $Di\del_t$ should vanish identically, and one can check that this is the

1902: case. The vanishing of the terms with $i \del_t$ shows that $X$ is

1903: proportional to $\hat{X}$, and then the terms with $D i \del_t$

1904: also vanish.  Hence

1905: \eqa

1906: && X = f \hat{X} E - f \hat{X} (DX) + E \bar{f} \hat{X}, \nn

1907: && (1 + f \hat{X} D) X =(f + \bar{f}) E \hat{X} ,\nn

1908: && e^{\hat{X} D} X = (f + \bar{f}) E \hat{X}, \nn

1909: && X = e^{- \hat{X} D} [(f + \bar{f} ) \hat{X} E].

1910: \eqae

1911: This relation expresses $X$ in terms of $\hat{X}$ and $E$, but we

1912: need $\hat{X}$ in terms of $X$ and $E$.  We can invert by

1913: expanding the right-hand side and then solve for $\hat{X}$ iteratively

1914: \eqa

1915: X &=& - (f + \bar{f} ) \hat{X} E + \hat{X} D [(f + \bar{f} ) \hat{X}

1916: E ] + \cdots \nn

1917: &=& - \left(2 + {1 \over 3} (D \hat{X})^2 + {1 \over 60} (D

1918: \hat{X})^4 + \cdots \right) \hat{X} E \nn

1919: && + \hat{X} D \left[ 2 \hat{X} E + {1 \over 3} (D \hat{X} )^2

1920: \hat{X} E + {1 \over 60} (D \hat{X} )^4 \hat{X}

1921: E + \cdots \right] \nn

1922: &=& -2 \hat{X} E + 2 \hat{X} (D \hat{X}) E \; .

1923: \eqae

1924: Inversion of $\hat{X} - \hat{X} (X \hat{X}) = - {1 \over 2} X/E

1925: \equiv - \tilde{X}$ yields

1926: \eqa

1927: && \hat{X} = - \tilde{X} + \tilde{X} (D \tilde{X} ) - 2 \tilde{X} (D

1928: \tilde{X})^2 \nn

1929: && \quad 5 \tilde{X} (D \tilde{X} )^3 + 14 \tilde{X} (D \tilde{X})^4

1930: + \cdots \quad {\rm with} \quad \tilde{X} \equiv {1 \over 2} {X \over E}.

1931: \eqae

1932: 

1933: This expression for $\hat{X}$ can then be used to find the new field $E'$

1934: \eqa

1935: E' &=& E + f \hat{X} (DE) - E D (\bar{f} \hat{X} ) + \cdots \nn

1936: &=& E- {X \over E} (DE) + E D ({X \over E} ).

1937: \label{2one17}

1938: \eqae

1939: If one then substitutes this $E'$ and the $\Phi'$ in (4.42) into (4.40), the result is

1940: equal to (4.41).

1941: 

1942: It may be helpful for becoming more familiar with the operator

1943: approach to diffeomorphisms to check that one gets the same

1944: results as from the usual approach.  In the usual approach one begins

1945: with supervielbeins (supervectors in supercoordinate space)

1946: $\tilde{E}_M{}^\L$ and general coordinate transformations $Z^\L

1947: \rightarrow Z^\L + \Xi^\L$ where we take $\Xi^\L$ as infinitesimal.

1948: Then

1949: \eqa

1950: \delta \tilde{E}_M{}^\L &=& \tilde\Xi^\Pi \del_\Pi \tilde{E}_M{}^\L -

1951: \tilde{E}_M{}^\Pi \del_\Pi \tilde\Xi^\L \nn

1952: &=& \Xi^\Pi D_\Pi \tilde{E}_M{}^\L - E_M{}^\Pi D_\Pi \tilde\Xi^\L,

1953: \eqae

1954: with $\del_\Pi = \left( {\del \over \del \theta} , {\del \over \del

1955: t} \right)$ and $D_\Pi = \left( \tfrac{\del}{\del \theta} - i

1956: \theta {\del \over  \del t} ,{\del \over \del t} \right)$.  From (4.15)

1957: \eqa

1958: && \tilde{E}_M{}^\theta = E_M{}^\theta,\quad \tilde{E}_M{}^t = E_M{}^t -

1959: E_M{}^\theta i \theta\nn

1960: && \tilde\Xi^\theta = \Xi^\theta,\quad \tilde\Xi^t = \Xi^t -\Xi^\theta i \theta.

1961: \eqae

1962: One finds by straightforward substitution

1963: \eqa

1964: \delta E_M{}^\theta &=& \delta \tilde{E}_M{}^\theta = \Xi^\Pi D_\Pi

1965: \tilde{E}_M{}^\theta - E_M{}^\Pi D_\Pi \tilde\Xi^\theta \nn

1966: &=& \Xi^\Pi D_\Pi E_M{}^\theta - E_M{}^\Pi D_\Pi \Xi^\theta.

1967: \eqae

1968: This agrees with (4.36).

1969: However, in $\delta E_M{}^t$ there are extra terms beyond those which

1970: are present in the corresponding relation for $\tilde{E}_M{}^t$.

1971: \eqa

1972: && \delta E_M{}^t = \delta ( \tilde{E}_M{}^t + E_M{}^\theta i \theta

1973: ) = \Xi^\Pi D_\Pi \tilde{E}_M{}^t -E_M{}^\Pi D_\Pi (

1974: \Xi^t - \Xi^\theta i \theta) \nn

1975: && + ( \Xi^\Pi D_\Pi E_M{}^\theta - E_M{}^\Pi  D_\Pi \Xi^\theta ) i

1976: \theta. %- E_M{}^\theta i \Xi^\theta

1977: \eqae

1978: %where we used that in the last term that $\delta \theta =

1979: %\Xi^\theta$.  

1980: Various terms cancel and one obtains

1981: \eqa

1982: \delta E_M{}^t = \Xi^\Pi D_\Pi E_M{}^t - E_M{}^\Pi D_\Pi \Xi^t - 2 i

1983: E_M{}^\theta \Xi^\theta.

1984: \eqae

1985: The last term is due to the rigid torsion $T_{\theta \theta}{}^t =

1986: -2i$.  Expanding the finite result for $E'$ and $X'$ in

1987: (\ref{2one12}) to first order in $\hat{X} = \Xi^\theta$ we find agreement.

1988: 

1989: One may also check that

1990: \eqa

1991: \delta \cd &=& ( e^{\hat{X} D} E_{\bar{\theta}}{}^\L e^{-\hat{X} D} ) D_\L +

1992: E_{\bar{\theta}}{}^\L (e^{\hat{X} D} D_\L e^{- \hat{X} D} )

1993: \nn

1994: &=& \delta E_{\bar{\theta}}{}^\L D_\L,

1995: \eqae

1996: but note that $e^{\hat{X} D} E_{\bar{\theta}}{}^\L e^{- \tilde{X} D}$ only

1997: yields the transport terms $E_{\bar{\theta}}{}^\L (Z')$, while the

1998: terms with $e^{\hat{X} D} D_\L e^{-\hat{X} D}$ yield the terms which

1999: are due to the index $\L$ of $E_{\bar{\theta}}{}^\L$.

2000: 

2001: \section{Extended rigid supersymmetries}

2002: 

2003: We can also construct models with extended $(N>1)$ susy.   We restrict ourselves to rigid supersymmetry, but $N>1$ supergravities can also be constructed.  We perform the analysis in $x$-space but one could also use $N>1$ superspace.

2004: 

2005: Consider the action

2006: \eqa

2007: L = {1 \over 2} \dot\phi \dot\phi + {i \over 2} \sum^N_{j=1} \l^j \dot\l^j.

2008: \eqae

2009: It is invariant under the following rigid susy transformations

2010: \eqa

2011: \delta \phi = i \sum^N_{j=1} \epsilon^j \l^j , \delta \l^j = -\dot\phi

2012: \epsilon^j.

2013: \eqae

2014: The proof is as before: $\delta L = \dot\phi {d \over dt} (i

2015: \epsilon^j \l^j) + i \l^j {d \over dt} (\dot\phi \epsilon^j)$

2016: vanishes after partial integration.

2017: 

2018: There is something unusal about this action: it has more fermions ($N$)

2019: than bosons (one).  Nevertheless it has the same number

2020: of fermionic and bosonic states because after quantization there are

2021: only zero modes $(\hat{x}_0$ and

2022: $\hat{\l}^j_0)$ and their conjugate momenta ($\hat{p}$ and again

2023: $\hat{\l}^j_0$).  The $\hat\l^j_0$ can be combined into $[{N \over 2}]$

2024: annihilation and creation operators $(\hat\l^1_0 \pm i

2025: \hat\l^2_0) / \sqrt{2}$, ... If $N$ is odd, the last $\hat\l^N_0$

2026: yields projection operators $P_{\pm}={1 \over 2}(1 \pm \hat\l^N_0)$ and

2027: the Hilbert space ${\mathcal H}$ split into two spaces ${\mathcal H}=P_{\pm}

2028: {\mathcal H}$. No operator can bring one from a state in ${\mathcal

2029:  H}_+$ to a

2030: state in ${\mathcal H}_-$ because operators either have no $\hat\l^N_0$, or if

2031: they have one $\hat\l^N_0$ then still $\hat\l^N_0 {\mathcal H}_+ ={\mathcal H}_+$

2032: because $\hat\l^N_0 {1 \over 2}(1+ \hat\l^N_0)= {1 \over 2} (1+

2033: \hat\l_0^N)$.

2034: The bosonic states are $e^{ip\hat{x}_0} \mid 0 \rangle = \mid

2035: p \rangle$ but also $\hat\l^1_0 \hat\l^2_0 \mid p \rangle$ etc., and

2036: the fermionic states are $\hat\l^j_0 \mid p \rangle$ but also

2037: $\hat\l^1_0 \hat\l^2_0 \hat\l^3_0 \mid p \rangle$ etc.  In fact there

2038: are $2^{N-1}$ bosonic states (with an even number of

2039: $\hat\l^j_0$) and $2^{N-1}$ fermionic states (with an odd number of

2040: $\l_0^j$).  In higher dimensions there are also oscillators,

2041: and then one can count the number of bosonic and fermionic states by

2042: looking at the number of propagating fields.%

2043: \footnote{ In $d=(1,1)$ one can divide the real scalar into a left-moving piece

2044:  $\varphi (x+t)$ and a right-moving piece $\varphi (x-t)$, 

2045: and susy requires then a two-component spinor $\l = {\l_+\choose\l_-}$ with $\l_+ (x+y)$ right-moving

2046: on-shell and $\l_- (x-t)$ left-moving.  In the zero mode sector there

2047: are always the same number of bosonic and

2048: fermionic states but in the nonzero mode sector one may drop $\l_+$

2049: (or $\l_-$) and still have susy.  Then $\l_-$ transforms

2050: into $\varphi$ and vice-versa, while $\l_+$ is inert.}  For

2051: example, in $d=(3,1)$ one has the Wess-Zumino model with one Majorana

2052: spinor $\l^\a$ (2 states) and two real propagating massless

2053: scalars (again 2 states per oscillator).

2054: 

2055: In our model similar things happen.  To close the algebra off-shell

2056: we need an equal number of bosonic and fermionic field

2057: components.  Thus for $N=2$ we need one real auxiliary field, which

2058: we call $F$.  The action reads

2059: \eqa

2060: L = {1 \over 2} \dot\varphi \dot\varphi - {i \over 2} (\l^1 \dot\l^1

2061: + \l^2 \dot\l^2) + {1 \over 2} F^2.

2062: \eqae

2063: One can view $(\varphi, \l^1)$ as one multiplet, and $(\l^2, F)$ as

2064: another.  The action for these multiplets reads in

2065: superspace

2066: \eqa

2067: L (\varphi, \l^1) &=& {1 \over 2} \dot\varphi \dot\varphi - {i \over

2068: 2} \l^1 \dot\l^1 \sim \int d \theta D \Phi \dot\Phi,\quad \Phi =

2069: \varphi + i \theta \l^1, \nn

2070: L (\l^2, F) &=& - {i \over 2} \l^2 \dot\l^2 + {1 \over 2} F^2 \sim

2071: \int d \theta \Psi D \Psi, \quad \Psi = \l^2 + \theta F.

2072: \eqae

2073: Clearly $\delta \varphi = i \epsilon^1 \l^1$ and $\delta \l^1 =

2074: \dot\varphi \epsilon^1$ form a closed susy algebra, $\{ Q, Q \}

2075: \sim P$.  Also $\delta \l^2 = F \epsilon^2$ and $\delta F = i

2076: \epsilon^2 \dot\l^2$ forms the same closed algebra.  However, in

2077: $x$-space we can write down more general rules

2078: \eqa

2079:  \delta \varphi &=& \sum^2_{j=1} i \epsilon ^j \l^j , \delta \l^j =

2080: \dot\varphi \epsilon^j + \a^{jk} \epsilon^k F, \nn

2081: \delta F &=& i \epsilon^j \beta^{jk} \dot\l^k,

2082: \eqae

2083: where $\a$ and $\beta$ are arbitrary real matrices.  Invariance of

2084: the action requires

2085: \eqa

2086: \a^T = \beta.

2087: \eqae

2088: The commutator algebra on $\varphi$ yields

2089: \eqa

2090: && [ \delta (\epsilon_1), \delta (\epsilon_2) ] \varphi = \sum i

2091: \epsilon^j_2 (\dot\varphi \epsilon_1^j + \a^{jk} \epsilon_1^k

2092: F) - (1 \leftrightarrow 2) \nn

2093: && = (2 i \epsilon^j_2 \epsilon^j_1 ) \dot\varphi + [ i \epsilon_2

2094: (\a + \a^T) \epsilon_1 ] F.

2095: \eqae

2096: Clearly, for $\a$ antisymmetric (hence $\a^{jk} \sim \epsilon^{jk}$)

2097: we find only a translation of $\varphi$.  For $F$ one finds

2098: \eqa

2099: && [ \delta (\epsilon_1), \delta (\epsilon_2) ] F = i \epsilon^j_2

2100: \beta^{jk} {d \over dt} (\dot\varphi \epsilon^k_1 + \a^{kl}

2101: \epsilon^l_1 F) - (1 \leftrightarrow 2) \nn

2102: && = [ i \epsilon_2 ( \a+ \a^T) \epsilon_1 ] \ddot{\varphi} + [2i

2103: \epsilon_2 \a^T \a \epsilon_1 ] \dot{F}.

2104: \eqae

2105: We now recognize various symmetries.

2106: \medskip

2107: 

2108: \noindent (i) $\delta \varphi = z F$ and $\delta F = z

2109: \ddot{\varphi}$ with $z= i \epsilon_2 (\a + \a^T) \epsilon_1$.  This

2110: is an

2111: equation of motion symmetry.  (These are symmetries of pairs of

2112: fields $f$ and $g$ of the form $\delta f = A {\delta S \over \del

2113: g}$ and $\delta g= - A {\delta S \over \delta f}$.  Obviously they

2114: leave the action invariant).\\

2115: \noindent (ii)  The usual translation. \\

2116: \noindent (iii) An extra symmetry $\delta F = \s \dot{F}$ where $\s$

2117: is $2 i \epsilon_2 \a^T \a \epsilon_1 - 2 i \epsilon_2

2118: \epsilon_1$.  This is clearly a symmetry of $L = {1 \over 2} F^2$.

2119: 

2120: For the fermions the susy commutator yields

2121: \eqa

2122: && [ \delta (\epsilon_1), \delta (\epsilon_2) ] \l^j = \delta

2123: (\epsilon_1) [ \dot\varphi \epsilon^j_2 + \a^{jk} \epsilon^k_2

2124: F] - (1 \leftrightarrow 2) \nn

2125: && = - i (\epsilon^l_1 \epsilon^j_2 - \epsilon^l_2 \epsilon^j_1 )

2126: \dot\l^l + [ (\a^{jk} \epsilon^k_2 ) ( i \epsilon^l_1

2127: \beta^{lm} \dot\l^m ) - (1 \leftrightarrow 2) ] \nn

2128: && = [2 i \epsilon_2^l \epsilon_1^l) \dot\l^j + i (\epsilon^l_2

2129: \epsilon^j_1 \dot\l^l - \epsilon^l_2 \epsilon^l_1 \dot\l^j - 

2130: (1 \leftrightarrow 2) ) + [ \cdots ].

2131: \eqae

2132: (iv) $\delta \l^j = s^{jl} \dot\l^l$ with symmetric and real

2133: $s^{jl}$.  This is again an equation of motion symmetry.

2134: 

2135: The extra symmetries do not form a closed algebra. Their commutators

2136: generate new equation of motion symmetries, etc.,

2137: etc.  However, the minimal extension of the susy rules with $F$ forms

2138: a closed algebra

2139: \eqa

2140: && \delta \varphi = i (\epsilon^1 \l^1 + \epsilon^2 \l^2 ) ,\quad \delta

2141: \l^1 = \dot\varphi \epsilon^1 - F \epsilon^2 , \quad\delta \l^2

2142: = \dot\varphi \epsilon^2 + F \epsilon^1, \nn

2143: && \delta F = i \epsilon^1 \dot\l^2 - i \epsilon^2 \dot\l^1.

2144: \eqae

2145: 

2146: We can try to construct and $N=2$ superspace by introducing

2147: \eqa

2148: && \theta = {\theta^1 + i \theta^2 \over \sqrt{2}},\quad \bar\theta =

2149: {\theta^1 - i \theta^2 \over \sqrt{2}} , \quad\bar{D} = {\del \over \del

2150: \theta} +

2151: i \bar\theta \del_t, \quad D = {\del \over \del \bar\theta} + i \theta \del_t, \nn

2152: && \bar{Q} = {\del \over \del \theta} - i \bar\theta \del_t, \quad Q =

2153: {\del \over \del \bar\theta} -i \theta \del_t , \quad \l = {\l^1 +

2154: i \l^2 \over \sqrt{2}}, \quad \bar\l = {\l^1 - i \l^2 \over \sqrt{2}} ,\nn

2155: && L = {1 \over 2} \dot\varphi \dot\varphi - i \bar\l \dot\l + {1

2156: \over 2} F^2 ,\quad \Phi = \varphi + i \bar\theta \l + i \theta \bar\l + F \bar\theta \theta, \nn

2157: && L = - \int d \theta d \bar\theta \bar{D} \Phi D \Phi = - \int d

2158: \theta d \bar\theta [ i \bar\l - F

2159: \bar\theta + i

2160: \bar\theta \dot\varphi - \bar\theta \theta \dot{\bar\l} ] [ i \l + F \theta + i \theta \dot\varphi - \theta \bar\theta

2161: \dot\l ] \nn

2162: && \quad = -i \bar\l \dot\l + i \dot{\bar\l} \l +

2163: \dot\varphi \dot\varphi + F^2.

2164: \eqae

2165: The $t$-space components of $\Phi$ are given by $\Phi_\mid = \varphi,

2166: D \Phi_\mid = i \l, \bar{D} \Phi_\mid = i \bar\l$ and ${1 \over 2} [

2167: \bar{D}, D] =F$.  The susy rules are generated by $(\bar\epsilon D +

2168: \epsilon \bar{D})$ acting on these components, using the $D$ algebra.

2169: 

2170: The $N=2$ model has a mass term and a Yukawa coupling

2171: \eqa

2172: && L = \left[ {1 \over 2} \dot\varphi^2 - {i \over 2} \l_1 \dot\l_1 -

2173: {i \over 2} \l_2 \dot\l_2 + {1 \over 2} F^2 \right] \nn

2174: && - m ( F \varphi + i \l_1 \l_2 ) + g \left( {1 \over 2} F \varphi^2

2175: + i \l_1 \l_2 \varphi \right).

2176: \eqae

2177: The corresponding action in $N=1$ superspace is

2178: \eqa

2179: && S^{(0)} = \left( {-i \over 2} \right) \int dt d \theta [ (D_\theta

2180: \phi ) \del_t \phi + i \psi D_\theta \psi ], \nn

2181: && \phi = \varphi + i \theta \l_1,\quad \psi = \l_2 + \theta F,

2182: \eqae

2183: \eqa

2184: S (m) &=& - \int dt d \theta m \phi \psi, \nn

2185: S (g) &=& \int dt d \theta {1 \over 2} g \phi \phi \psi.

2186: \eqae

2187: One can write more generally a superpotential term as

2188: \eqa

2189:  S (W) = \int dt d \theta W (\phi) \psi = \int dt (WF + i \l_1 W' \l_2 ),

2190: \eqae

2191: where $W (\phi) = - m \phi + {1 \over 2} g \phi^2 + \cdots$.

2192: 

2193: One can also write down nonlinear sigma models for the $N=1$ model

2194: \eqa

2195: && \quad S \, {\rm (nonl)} = {-i \over 2} \int dt d \theta G(\phi)

2196: D_\theta \phi \del_t \phi \nn

2197: &&= \int dt \left[ G (\varphi) \left( {1 \over 2} \dot\varphi^2 - {i

2198: \over 2} \l_1 \dot\l_1 \right) + {i \over 2} \l_1 G' (\varphi) i \l_1

2199: \dot\varphi \right] \nn

2200: && \quad = \int dt G (\varphi) \left( {1 \over 2} \dot\varphi^2  - {i

2201: \over 2} \l_1 \dot\l_1 \right).

2202: \eqae

2203: Similarly, one can find nonlinear $\s$ models with $N=2$ susy in

2204: $N=1$ superspace.  For all these $N=2$ models in $N=1$ superspace

2205: there is also a $N=2$ superspace formulation.

2206: 

2207: The action in Hamiltonian form for the $N=2$ model reads

2208: \eqa

2209: && L = \dot\varphi p + \dot\l^1 \pi^1 + \dot\l^2 \pi^2 + \dot{F} p_F

2210: - {1 \over 2} F^2 - {1 \over 2} p^2,\nn

2211: && \delta \varphi = {i \over 2} \epsilon^j \left( \l^j + {2 \over i}

2212: \pi^j \right), \quad \delta p =0,\quad \delta \pi^j = {i \over 2} p

2213: \epsilon^j ,\nn

2214: && \delta \l^1 = p^1 \epsilon^1 + F \epsilon^2,\quad \delta \l^2 = p^2

2215: \epsilon^2 - F \epsilon^1, \nn

2216: && \delta p_F = \epsilon^1 \pi^2 - \epsilon^2 \pi^1, \quad \delta F =0.

2217: \eqae

2218: As in the $N=1$ case, there are primary constraints $\pi^j - {i \over

2219: 2} \l^j =0$ and $p_F =0$, and secondary constraints

2220: $F=0$.  Since $\delta F \sim \dot\l$ in the Lagrangian formulation,

2221: but $\dot\l =0$ is the full field equation for $\l$, we

2222: cannot express $\dot\l$ in terms of $\del_x \l$ by means of its field

2223: equation, and this explains why $\delta F =0$ and

2224: $\delta p =0$.  The susy

2225: Noether charges in the Hamiltonian approach are given by

2226: \eqa

2227: Q^1_{H} &=& \left( i \pi^1 - {1 \over 2} \l^1 \right) p- iF \pi^2, \nn

2228: Q^2_{H} &=& \left( i \pi^2 - {1 \over 2} \l^2 \right) p + i F \pi^1.

2229: \eqae

2230: These changes reproduce the Hamiltonian susy laws \emph{ exactly} if

2231: one uses ordinary Poisson brackets.  The reason is that in

2232: the Hamiltonian action there are no constraints.  In the action of

2233: the Lagrangian formulation one finds Dirac brackets and the

2234: following hermitian susy charges

2235: \eqa

2236: Q_L^j = - \l^j p.

2237: \eqae

2238: The algebra reads in both cases

2239: \eqa

2240: \{ Q^i_H , Q^j_H \}_P &=& \delta^{ij} (-p^2) =- 2 \delta^{ij} H, \nn

2241: \{ Q^i_L, Q^j_L \}_D &=& \delta^{ij} (-p^2) =- 2 \delta^{ij} H.

2242: \eqae

2243: Thus $F$ and $p_F$ do not transform under $Q_L$, but $p_F$ transforms

2244: under $Q_H$.  However, the algebra on all fields is the

2245: same.  For example, $\epsilon Q_H \l \sim p \epsilon + F \epsilon

2246: =0$ and $Q_L p = \epsilon$, in agreement

2247: with $H \l =0$ for

2248: $H= H_L = H_H$.

2249: 

2250: The $N=2$ model can be used as a toy model for instanton physics. In

2251: Minkowski time $t$ the action is

2252: \eqa

2253: && L = {1 \over 2} \dot\varphi^2 - i \bar\l \dot\l - \bar\l \l (m - g

2254: \varphi) + {1 \over 2} \left( F - m \varphi + {1 \over

2255: 2} g \varphi^2 \right)^2 \nn &&\quad\quad - {1 \over 8} g^2 \left[ \left( \varphi - {m

2256: \over g} \right)^2 - \left( {m \over g} \right)^2

2257: \right]^2.

2258: \eqae

2259: This action is hermitian, and $\bar\l = (\l)^\dagger$.  In Euclidean

2260: time $\tau, \l$ and $\bar\l$ become independent complex

2261: spinors.  The Wick rotation is a complex Lorentz rotation (a $(U(1)$

2262: rotation) in the $(t, \tau)$ plane (see the joint paper with Waldron)

2263: \eqa

2264: t^1_\theta = e^{i \theta} t, \;\; t^1_{\theta = \pi/2} \equiv \tau = i t.

2265: \eqae

2266: The spinor $\l$ transforms then half as fast

2267: \eqa

2268: \l^1_\theta = e^{i \theta/2} \l, \l_{\theta = \pi/2} \equiv \l_E = \sqrt{i} \l.

2269: \eqae

2270: Making these substitutions, one automatically obtains a

2271: supersymmetric action for the Euclidean case.

2272: 

2273: It is a pleasure to thank Martin Ro\v{c}ek for discussions about the

2274: covariant approach to superspace supergravity and the field redefinition in (\ref{2one17}).

2275: 

2276: \section{BRST quantization in a Hamiltonian approach}

2277: So far we have been discussing classical actions. The classical

2278: supergravity action was a gauge action, an action with two local

2279: symmetries in out toy model: diffeomorphisms and local supersymmetry. In the

2280: quantum theory, one uses a quantum action which is obtained by

2281: adding two more terms: a gauge fixing term and a ghost action.

2282: The local symmetry is then broken, but a rigid residual symmetry

2283: remains, the so-called BRST symmetry (due to Becchi, Rouet, Stora

2284: and Tyutin). The crucial property of BRST transformations is that

2285: they are nilpotent (see below). An infinitesimal BRST

2286: transformation has as parameter a purely imaginary anticommuting

2287: constant $\L$. It is not the supersymmetry parameter (which is

2288: also anticommuting). Physicists use (at least ) two ways to

2289: formulate the BRST formalism: a Lagrangian approach and a

2290: Hamiltonian approach. The infinitesimal BRST transformation rules

2291: in the former are written as $\d_B\Phi$ (where $\Phi$ denotes any

2292: field), but in the Hamiltonian approach one uses operators and

2293: brackets. For example, the BRST transformations are generated by

2294: a BRST operatorial charge $Q$, and for every field there is a

2295: canonically conjugate field (called momentum by physicists) which

2296: satisfy equal-time canonical commutation  rules or

2297: anticommutation rules. Then one has $\d_B\Phi\sim\{\Phi,Q\}$.

2298: Nilpotency means $\d_B\d_B\Phi=0$ in the Lagrangian approach, and

2299: $\{Q,Q\}=0$ in the Hamiltonian approach. In this section we apply

2300: this general formalism to our quantum mechanical toy model. One

2301: word about terminology: we use the words real and hermitian (and

2302: purely imaginary and antihermitian) as equivalent.

2303: 

2304: To quantize the supergravity action using covariant quantization

2305: in the Lagrangian approach to BRST symmetry, we should add a gauge

2306: fixing term and a corresponding ghost action. We begin with the

2307: classical action in~(\ref{1thirtythree}) although we could also

2308: start with the classical action in~(\ref{1sixtyfoour}). We fix the

2309: gauge of general coordinate transformations by $h=0$, and the

2310: gauge of local supersymmetry by $\psi =0$. The corresponding

2311: gauge fixing terms in the action are then given by

2312: \begin{equation}\label{pod} L_{\rm fix} = dh+\Delta\psi.

2313: \end{equation}

2314: The fields $d$ and $\Delta$ are Lagrange multipliers which fix

2315: the gauges according to $h=0$ and $\psi=0$. Hermiticity of the

2316: action requires that $d$ be real and $\Delta$ antihermitian. The

2317: ghost action is then given by \eqa L {\rm (ghost)} \L = b \d_B h

2318: + \beta \d_B \psi, \eqae where $\d_B$ are the BRST transformations

2319: and $\L$ is the constant anticommuting imaginary BRST parameter.

2320: The fields $b$ and $\b$ are the antighosts; $b$ and $\b$ are

2321: antihermitian. (Mathematical physicists remove $\L$ on both sides

2322: of this equation and call it then a derivation. It is usually

2323: denoted by $s$, and the relation to $\delta_B$ is

2324: $\delta_B\phi=\Lambda s\phi$ for any field $\phi$). We obtain

2325: thus for the full quantum action \eqa\label{brsttran} && L=L {\rm

2326: (class)} + L {\rm (fix)} + L {\rm ghost)}, \nonumber \\ && L {\rm

2327: (class)} = {1 \over 2} \dot\varphi^2 + {i \over 2} \l \dot\l -h

2328: \dot\varphi^2 -i \psi \dot\varphi \l, \nonumber\\ && L {\rm (fix)}

2329: = dh + \Delta \psi,\quad L  {\rm (ghost)} \L = b \d_B h + \beta \d_B

2330: \psi. \eqae

2331: 

2332: For the classical fields ($h$ and $\psi$ and $\varphi$ and $\l$)

2333: the BRST transformations are just gauge transformations with a

2334: special choice of the parameters: $\xi = c\L$ and $\epsilon =- i

2335: \g \L$ where $c$ and $\g$ are real ghosts ($\L$ is imaginary, and

2336: $\xi$ and $\epsilon$ are real). Because $\xi$ is commuting, $c$ is anticommuting, 

2337: and because $\epsilon$ is anticommuting, $\gamma$ is commuting. 

2338: The BRST transformation rules for

2339: the classical fields follow from~(\ref{1thirtythree}),

2340: (\ref{varphi}) and~(\ref{dot}) \eqa && \d_B h = [(1-2 h) \psi \g

2341: + {1 \over 2} (1-2 h) \dot{c} + \dot{h} c ] \L, \nn && \d_B \psi =

2342: [ -i (1-2 h) \dot\g + \dot\psi c ] \L, \nn && \d_B \varphi = (- \l

2343: \g + \dot\varphi c) \L,\quad \d_B \l = [ i (1-2 h) \dot\varphi \g+

2344: \psi\l\g + \dot\l c ] \L .\label{class}\eqae

2345: The ghost action then becomes

2346: \begin{gather}

2347: L(\mathrm{ghost})=b[(1-2h)\psi\gamma +\frac{1}{2}(1-2h)\dot{c} +\dot{h}c] 

2348: + \beta[-i(1-2h)\dot{\gamma}+ \dot{\psi}c].

2349: \end{gather}

2350: It is clearly hermitian.

2351: 

2352: The BRST transformation rules of the ghosts follow from the

2353: structure constants of the classical

2354:  gauge algebra or from the nilpotency of BRST transformations.  One has uniformly on all classical

2355: fields ($\varphi , \l, h$ and $\psi$), as discussed

2356: in (3.18)

2357: \eqa && [ \d_s (\e_2) ,

2358: \d_s (\e_1) ] = \d_g (2i (1-2 h) \e_2 \e_1 ) + \d_s (-2 i \psi

2359: \e_2 \e_1 ), \nn && [ \d_g ( \xi_2 ), \d_g (\xi_1) ] = \d_g (-

2360: \xi_2 \dot{\xi_1} + \xi_1 \dot\xi_2 ), \nn && [ \d_g (\xi) , \d_s

2361: (\e) ] = \d_s  (- \xi \dot\e ). \eqae Thus the classical local

2362: gauge algebra ``closes":  the commutator of two local symmetries

2363: is a linear combination of local symmetries.  New from a

2364: mathematical point of view is the appearance of fields ($h$ and

2365: $\psi$) in the composite parameters, and thus in the structure

2366: constants.  (One should thus rather speak of ``structure

2367: functions").  One obtains \eqa \d_B c &=& -c \dot{c} \L +i (1-2

2368: h) \g \g \L ,\nn \d_B \g &=& c \dot\g \L +  \psi \g \g \L .\eqae An

2369: easier way to obtain these results is to use that the BRST

2370: variation of~(\ref{class}) should vanish. One may check that all

2371: BRST transformation rules preserve the reality properties of the

2372: fields.

2373: 

2374: The antighosts $b$ and $\beta$ transform into the auxiliary

2375: fields $d$ and $\Delta$, and the auxiliary fields are BRST

2376: invariant (``contractible pairs") \eqa\label{contr} \d_B b= \L d

2377: , \quad  \d_B \beta =\L \Delta , \quad \d_B d=0 ,\quad  \d_B \Delta =0. \eqae All

2378: BRST transformation laws are nilpotent, and they leave the action

2379: $S=\int L dt$ invariant.

2380: 

2381: In the Lagrangian approach the BRST charge $Q$ is the Noether

2382: charge for rigid BRST transformations but one does not use

2383: brackets. To obtain $Q$, one lets $\L$ become local (t-dependent),

2384: and one collects all terms in the variation of the action

2385: proportional to $\dot\L$. (We used this procedure before to

2386: construct the supersymmetry charge). The BRST transformation

2387: rules of the fields themselves for local $\L$ do not contain by

2388: definition any $\dot\L$; for example, $\d_B \psi = (1-2 h) (-i

2389: \dot\g) \L (t)+\dots$, and not $\d_B \psi = (1-2 h) {d \over dt}

2390: (-i \g \L (t))+\dots$. The classical action yields the following

2391: terms proportional to $\dot\L$ \eqa \d S {\rm (class)} = \int [ L

2392: {\rm (class)}  c \dot\L - (1-2 h) \l \dot\varphi \g \dot\L ] dt.

2393: \eqae The term with $c \dot\L$ is expected from the result $\d

2394: \cl = \del_\a ( \xi^\a \cl )$ in general relativity, while the

2395: term with $\g \dot\L$ comes from the variation with ${d \over dt}

2396: \e$ in $i \l {d \over dt} \d \l$ which is canceled by the Noether

2397: term.  The gauge fixing term produces no terms with $\dot\L$

2398: because $\d_B h$ and $\d_B \psi$ do not contain $\dot\L$ terms by

2399: definition, but the ghost action

2400:  yields further terms proportional to $\dot\L$

2401: \eqa && \d S {\rm (ghost)} =  b [ {1 \over 2} (1-2 h) ( -c

2402: \dot{c} +i (1-2 h) \g \g ) \dot\L \nn &&  \qquad + c ( (1-2h )

2403: \psi \g + {1 \over 2} (1-2 h) \dot{c} + \dot{h} c ) \dot\L ] \nn

2404: && + \beta [  (-i) (1-2h) (c \dot\g +  \psi \g \g ) \dot\L + i c

2405: (1-2h) \dot\g \dot\L ] \eqae Several terms cancel in this

2406: expression.

2407: 

2408: The BRST charge in the Lagrangian approach is thus \eqa Q &=& c L

2409: {\rm (class)} - (1-2 h) \l \dot\varphi \g \nn &+& b [  {i \over

2410: 2} (1-2 h)^2 \g \g + (1-2 h) c \psi \g ] \nn &-& i\beta (1-2 h)

2411: \psi \g \g. \label{is} \eqae

2412: 

2413: In the Hamiltonian approach the BRST charge should contain terms

2414: of the form (we discuss this in more detail later) \eqa Q = c^\a

2415: \phi_\a-\frac12c^\b c^\a f_{\a\b}{}^\g b_\g(-)^\b, \eqae with

2416: ghosts $c^\a = (c, \g)$, antighosts $b_\a = (b, \beta)$, and

2417: first class constraints $\phi_\a = (T, J)$ where $T$ is the

2418: generator of diffeomorphisms and $J$ the generator of

2419: supersymmetry. The sign $(-)^\beta$ is equal to $+1$ if the

2420: corresponding symmetry has a commuting parameter (and thus an

2421: anticommuting ghost); when the ghost is commuting $(-)^\beta$

2422: equals $-1$. However, because the structure constants contain

2423: $\dot\xi$ and $\dot \epsilon$ we expect in $Q$ terms with

2424: derivatives of $c$, namely $bc \dot{c}$ and $\b \dot\g c$ terms.

2425: On the other hand, in a truly Hamiltonian approach no time

2426: derivatives of fields are allowed in the charges. This suggests that the $b$

2427: and $\beta$ field equations have been used to eliminate $\dot{c}$

2428: \eqa \dot{c} = - 2 \psi \g - {2 \over 1-2 h} \dot{h} c;\qquad

2429: \dot\g = -\frac{i\dot\psi c}{1-2h}. \eqae However, then one

2430: obtains time derivatives of $h$ and $\psi$. Another problem is

2431: that we seem to have too many factors of $(1-2 h)$ but this could

2432: be repaired by redefining fields. To resolve these issues we

2433: first construct $Q$ by Hamiltonian methods. This is a very

2434: general approach which only uses as input the first-class

2435: constraints of the classical theory, and which provides a quantum

2436: action in phase space and a Hamiltonian BRST charge with in

2437: general many more fields than in the usual (Lagrangian)

2438: formulation. Eliminating nonpropagating fields we should regain

2439: the Lagrangian BRST charge $Q$ in~(\ref{is}). Let's see how this

2440: works out.

2441: 

2442: In the Hamiltonian framework of Fradkin and Vilkovisky (and

2443: others) the quantum action is of the form \eqa L = \dot{q}^i p_i

2444: - H + \{ Q_H, \psi_g \}, \label{Ham} \eqae where $q^i$ denotes all

2445: fields: classical fields (including the Lagrange multipliers $h$

2446: and $\psi$), ghosts and antighosts.  The $p_i$ are canonical

2447: momenta \emph{for all of them}. (So, for example, there are

2448: canonical momenta for the ghosts, and separate canonical momenta

2449: for the antighosts). The BRST charge $Q_H$ should be nilpotent

2450: \eqa \{ Q_H , Q_H \} =0. \eqae The full quantum Hamiltonian $H$ is

2451: constructed from Dirac's Hamiltonian $H_D$ such that

2452: \begin{equation}

2453: [H, Q_H] =0.

2454: \end{equation}

2455: Neither $H_D$ nor $H$ should depend on Lagrange multipliers, and

2456: will be constructed below. The BRST charge is in general given by

2457: \eqa\label{ingen} Q_H = c^\a \varphi_\a +  p^\mu (B) \pi_\mu (\l)

2458: - {1 \over 2} c^\beta c^\a f_{\a\b}{}^\g p_\g (-)^\beta ,\eqae

2459: where $\varphi_\a$ are the first-class constraints,

2460: $f_{\a\b}{}^\g$ the structure functions defined by

2461: $\{\varphi_\a,\varphi_\b\}=f_{\a\b}{}^\g\varphi_\g$, and $\l^\mu$

2462: are the Lagrange multipliers (classical fields which appears in

2463: the classical action without time derivatives), and $B$ denotes

2464: the antighosts. The structure functions should only depend on

2465: $p_i$ and $q^i$ but not on $\l^\mu$. Usually one has to take

2466: suitable linear combinations of local symmetries and add

2467: so-called equation-of-motion symmetries to achieve this. We shall

2468: demonstrate this in our model.

2469: 

2470: The BRST invariance of the action in~(\ref{Ham}) is almost

2471: obvious: each of the 3 terms is separately invariant due to the

2472: relations $\int \frac{d}{dt}Q_H dt =0$, $[Q_H,H]=0$ and

2473: $\{Q_H,Q_H\}=0$.

2474: 

2475: We start again from the classical gauge invariant action

2476: in~(\ref{1thirtythree})

2477: \begin{equation}

2478: L=\frac12 (1-2h){\dot\varphi}^2+\frac{i}{2}\lambda {\dot \lambda} -

2479: i\psi{\dot \varphi}\lambda.

2480: \end{equation}

2481: The primary constraints are $p_h=0$, $\pi_{\psi}=0$ and

2482: $\pi_{\lambda}+ \frac{i}{2}\lambda=0$, and the naive Hamiltonian

2483: with all primary constraints added, reads

2484: \begin{equation}

2485: H_{\rm naive}=\frac{1}{1-2h}\frac12\left( p+i\psi\lambda\right)^2+

2486: ap_h+\alpha\pi_{\psi}+\eta(\pi_{\lambda}+\frac{i}{2}\lambda).

2487: \end{equation}

2488: The functions $a(t)$, $\alpha(t)$ and $\eta (t)$ are arbitrary

2489: Lagrange multipliers which enforce the primary constraints. By a

2490: redefinition of $\eta$ we can replace $\lambda$ in the first term

2491: by the field $\frac12 \lambda+i\pi_{\lambda}$ which anticommutes

2492: with the constraint $\pi_{\lambda} +\frac{i}{2}\lambda $. This

2493: will simplify the analysis.

2494: 

2495: Conservation of the 3 primary constraints yields two secondary

2496: constraints and fixes one Lagrange multiplier

2497: \begin{equation}

2498: p^2=0,\quad p(\pi_{\lambda} -\frac{i}{2}\lambda)=0,

2499: \quad \eta (t) =0.

2500: \end{equation}

2501: Both secondary constraints are preserved in time

2502: because $\pi_{\lambda} -\frac{i}{2}\lambda$ anticommutes with the constraint

2503: $\pi_{\lambda} +\frac{i}{2}\lambda$. The Hamiltonian can be rewritten as

2504: \begin{equation}

2505: H_{\rm naive}=(1+2H)\frac12 p^2+i\Psi(\frac{\lambda}{2} + i\pi_{\lambda})

2506: p+ap_h+\alpha\pi_{\psi}.

2507: \end{equation}

2508: Here

2509: \begin{equation}\frac{1}{1-2h}=1+2H \quad\text{and}\quad

2510: \frac{\psi}{1-2h}=\Psi,

2511: \end{equation}

2512: so we encounter again the fields $H$ and $\Psi$

2513: of~(\ref{dvatr}). From now on we use $G\equiv1+2H$ as

2514: gravitational field, and $\Psi$ as gravitino. Hence, the Dirac

2515: Hamiltonian  (the Hamiltonian on the constraint surface) vanishes

2516: \begin{equation}

2517: H_{D}=0.

2518: \end{equation}

2519: and there are 5 constraints: one second class constraint

2520: \begin{equation}\label{secclass}

2521: \pi_{\lambda} +\frac{i}{2}\lambda=0,

2522: \end{equation}

2523: and four first-class constraints

2524: \begin{equation}\label{four1}

2525: p_h=\pi_{\psi}=p^2=p(\pi_{\lambda} -\frac{i}{2}\lambda)=0.

2526: \end{equation}

2527: Thus the Dirac brackets in (2.19) remain valid for supergravity.

2528: 

2529: The constraint $p^2=0$ generates diffeomorphisms. One might expect

2530: that they are given by \eqa \delta\varphi=\xi{\dot \varphi}, \quad

2531: \delta p=\xi{\dot p}, \quad \delta\lambda=\xi{\dot \lambda},\quad

2532: \delta\pi=\xi{\dot \pi}, \nonumber \\

2533: \delta H= \frac{d}{dt}\left[ \frac12(1+2H)\xi\right],\quad

2534: \delta\Psi = \frac{d}{dt}(\xi\Psi),\label{delhal} \eqae because

2535: these transformations leave~(\ref{1Gaussian}) invariant. However

2536: in the Hamiltonian tranformation laws, no time derivatives are

2537: allowed. Moreover one expects that $p^2$ can only act on

2538: $\varphi$ (and perhaps $p$ and $H$), but not an $\l$, $\pi$ and

2539: $\psi$. We now perform a series of modifications of the

2540: transformation rules which cast~(\ref{delhal}) into the expected

2541: form.

2542: 

2543: By adding terms proportional to the $p$ and $\varphi$ field

2544: equations to $\d\varphi$ and $\d p$, respectively (so-called

2545: equation of motion symmetries), namely, $\delta\phi=-\xi\tfrac{\del S}{\del p}$ 

2546: and $\delta p=\xi\tfrac{\del S}{\del \phi}$, one obtains \eqa

2547: &&\delta\varphi  = (1+2H)\xi p - \xi \Psi (\pi - \frac{i}{2}\lambda),\nonumber \\

2548: &&\delta p  =0. \eqae Similarly, adding terms proportional to the $\pi$ and $\l$ field

2549: equations to $\delta \lambda$ and $\delta \pi$ yields

2550: \begin{equation}

2551: \delta\lambda = - \xi p \Psi, \quad \delta\pi_\l = \frac{i}{2}\xi

2552: p \Psi.

2553: \end{equation}

2554: As a check of these last two results note that the constraint

2555: $\pi_\l + \frac{i}{2}\lambda$ is invariant. Finally we can remove

2556: the complicated last term in $\delta\varphi$ adding a local susy

2557: transformation in~(\ref{1Gaussian}) with parameter $\epsilon =-

2558: \xi\Psi$ to {\bf all} fields. This yields \eqa\label{pdv}

2559: \delta\varphi={\hat\xi}p, \quad \delta p=0, \quad

2560: \delta\lambda=0,\quad

2561: \delta\pi_\l=0, \nonumber\\

2562: \delta\Psi=0,\quad \delta (1+2H)= \frac{d}{dt}{\hat \xi},\quad

2563: {\hat \xi} = (1+2H)\xi. \eqae These are the transformations of the

2564: matter fields generated by $\frac{1}{2}p^2$. The classical gauge

2565: fields are $(1+2H)$ and $\Psi$ and they transform in general as

2566: \begin{equation}\label{AAA}

2567:  \delta h^A = \frac{d}{dt} \epsilon^A + f^A_{\ BC} h_{\mu}^B \epsilon^C,

2568: \end{equation}

2569: where $\epsilon^A$ and $h^A_\mu$ correspond to $\hat \xi$ and

2570: $1+2H$ in the case of diffeomorphisms. The same results should be

2571: obtained by taking the brackets with $Q_H$.

2572: 

2573: Next we consider the local susy generator in~(6.20) which

2574: we already multiply with the classical susy gauge parameter

2575: $\epsilon (t)$, hence $\epsilon (\pi_{\lambda}

2576: -\frac{i}{2}\lambda)p$. It generates the following classical transformation

2577: laws, obtained using the Dirac brackets,

2578: \begin{equation}\label{pdv2}

2579: \delta\varphi =- \epsilon (\pi_{\lambda} -\frac{i}{2}\lambda),\ \ \

2580: \delta p = 0, \ \ \

2581: \delta\lambda=-p\epsilon,\ \ \

2582: \delta\pi_{\lambda}=\frac{i}{2}p\epsilon.

2583: \end{equation}

2584: These are the transformation laws of~(\ref{1Gaussian}).

2585: The gauge fields should transform according to~(\ref{AAA})

2586: \begin{equation}\label{pdv3}

2587: \delta\Psi = {\dot \epsilon },\qquad \delta (1+2H)=

2588: -2i\epsilon\Psi.

2589: \end{equation}

2590: (The factor 2 in $-2i\epsilon\Psi$ comes from the two terms in

2591: $f^{A}_{\ \ BC}h_{\mu}^B\epsilon^C$ with $h_{\mu}^B=\Psi$ and

2592: $\epsilon^C=\epsilon$, or vice-versa). Also these rules agree

2593: with~(\ref{1Gaussian}). (Note that the local classical gauge

2594: algebra based on~(\ref{pdv}), (\ref{pdv2}) and (\ref{pdv3})

2595: closes, and that only the commutator of two local supersymmetry

2596: transformations is nonzero).

2597: 

2598: The local gauge algebra of the transformation in~(\ref{pdv})

2599: and~(\ref{pdv2}),~(\ref{pdv3}) has now structure functions which

2600: are independent of the Lagrange multipliers $h$ and $\psi$ (or

2601: $H$ and $\Psi$), just as required for a Hamiltonian treatment.

2602: Having shown that the two first class constraints $\tfrac{1}{2}p^2$ and

2603: $p(\pi_{\lambda} -\frac{i}{2}\lambda)$ generate indeed the local

2604: symmetries of the classical phase space action

2605: in~(\ref{1Gaussian}), we now proceed with the construction of the

2606: BRST charge $Q_H$ and the quantum action.

2607: 

2608: The BRST charge is given by \eqa\label{pdv4} Q_H=\frac12c p^2 -

2609: i\gamma p(\pi_{\lambda} -\frac{i}{2}\lambda)

2610: +p_bp_G+\pi_{\beta}\pi_{\Psi} - i\pi_c\gamma\gamma, \eqae where

2611: $G=1+2H$. We denote antihermitian conjugate momenta by $\pi$ as

2612: in $\pi_{\lambda}$, $\pi_{\Psi}$, $\pi_c$, $\pi_{\beta}$, but

2613: hermitian momenta by $p$ as in $p_G$, $p_b$, $p_\g$. By $p$

2614: in~(\ref{pdv4}) we mean $p_{\varphi}$, as before. (Recall that all

2615: ghosts are real, but the antighosts $b$ and $\b$ are

2616: antihermitian). The BRST charge is real and anticommuting. The

2617: first four terms contain the four first-class constraints, and

2618: the last term in~(\ref{pdv4}) comes from the last term

2619: in~(\ref{ingen}). The coefficients of the terms with $p_b$ and

2620: $\pi_\b$ are not fixed by nilpotency. It is easiest to fix the

2621: coefficients and signs by working out the transformation rules

2622: and fitting to the results obtained earlier, although in

2623: principle we need not follow this path since all terms are well

2624: defined. One can prove the nilpotency of the BRST laws by

2625: directly evaluating $\{Q_H,Q_H\}$, using the equal-time canonical

2626: (anti)commutations relations.

2627: 

2628: Defining BRST transformations by

2629: \begin{equation}\label{ptr}

2630: \delta_{B}\Phi = -i[\Lambda Q_H,\Phi]=-i[\Phi,Q_H\L],

2631: \end{equation}

2632:  for any field $\Phi$, we find the following results

2633: \begin{equation}\label{delb}

2634: \begin{array}{l}

2635: \delta_B\varphi = c p \Lambda - i (\pi_{\lambda} -\frac{i}{2}\lambda)\gamma\Lambda, \\

2636: \delta_{B}\lambda = i\gamma p \Lambda, \\

2637: \delta_{B}G = p_b \Lambda,\\

2638: \delta_{B} c = i\gamma \gamma \Lambda,\\

2639: \delta_{B}\gamma=0,\\

2640: \d_B\pi_c =-\frac12 p^2 \L\\

2641: \d_B p_G = \d_B\pi_\psi = \d_Bp_b=\d_B\pi_\b = 0,

2642: \end{array}

2643: \begin{array}{l}

2644: \delta_{B}p=0,\\

2645:  \delta_{B}\pi_{\lambda} =\frac12 \g p \L, \\

2646: \delta_B{\Psi}=-\pi_{\beta} \Lambda, \\

2647: \delta_{B}b=-{\Lambda} p_G, \\

2648: \delta_{B}\beta=\pi_\psi\Lambda, \\

2649: \d_B p_\g

2650: =2i\pi_c\g\L+ip(\pi_\l-\frac{i}{2}\l).

2651: \end{array}

2652: \end{equation}

2653: On the classical fields these rules agree with the classical gauge

2654: transformations with $\xi=c\L$ and $\epsilon=-i\g\L$. In

2655: principle one should use Dirac brackets to obtain these

2656: transformation rules. These Dirac brackets can be constructed

2657: from the second class constraint in~(\ref{secclass}), but because

2658: the second class constraint commutes with the first class

2659: constraints, the results are the same\footnote{

2660: Only in the exceptional case that the Poisson bracket of a first

2661: and a second class constraint gives a square of a second class

2662: constraint, one would get a different answer, and in that case

2663: one would need to use Dirac brackets. This situation does not

2664: occur in our model.}.

2665: 

2666: The rules in~(\ref{delb}) are nilpotent. In fact, we could have

2667: used nilpotency of $Q_H$ to derive $\delta_B c$ and

2668: $\delta_B\gamma$ from $\delta_B\varphi$, namely as follows \eqa

2669: &&\delta_B^2\varphi =0 = \delta_B\left[ cp-i\gamma(\pi_{\lambda} -

2670: \frac{i}{2}\lambda)\right]\nonumber\\

2671: &&\qquad =(\delta_B c)p - i(\delta_B\gamma)(\pi_{\lambda}

2672: -\frac{i}{2}\lambda)- i\gamma (\gamma

2673: p\Lambda)\;\Rightarrow\;\delta_B c =i\gamma\gamma\Lambda,\ \

2674: \delta_B\gamma=0. \eqae The result $\delta_B\gamma=0$ can also be

2675: derived from $\delta_B^2\lambda=0$.

2676: 

2677: Comparison of $\d_Bb$ and $\d_B\b$ in~(\ref{delb})

2678: and~(\ref{contr}) reveals that the BRST auxiliary fields are the

2679: canonical momenta of the Lagrange multipliers

2680: \begin{equation}

2681: p_G=-d,\qquad \pi_{\Psi}=-\Delta.

2682: \end{equation}

2683: 

2684: Finally we construct the quantum action in the Hamiltonian approach

2685: \begin{equation}

2686: L={\dot q}^ip_i-H+\{ Q_H,\psi_g\}.

2687: \end{equation}

2688: As ``gauge-fixing fermion'' we take the following hermitian anticommuting expression

2689: \begin{equation}\label{gaugefix}

2690: \psi_g = -i(b(G-1)+G\pi_c)+(-i\beta\Psi-\Psi p_{\gamma}).

2691: \end{equation}

2692: 

2693: The quantum Hamiltonian $H_H$ which commutes with $Q_H$ vanishes in our case

2694: (and in any gravitational theory) because $H_D=0$ (see (6.23)). We denote the gravitational field

2695: $1+2H$ by $G$, and find then for the quantum Hamiltonian

2696: \begin{equation}\label{acti}

2697: L={\dot \varphi}p +{\dot \lambda}\pi_{\lambda}+{\dot G}p_G + {\dot

2698: \Psi}\pi_{\Psi} +{\dot c}\pi_c +{\dot b}p_b+{\dot

2699: \gamma}p_{\gamma} + {\dot \beta}\pi_{\beta}+\{Q_H, \psi_g\}.

2700: \end{equation}

2701: The evaluation of $\{Q_H,\psi_g\}$ is tedious but

2702: straightforward. For any pair of canonically conjugate variables

2703: we have $[p,q]=\frac1i$ or $\{\pi ,q\}=\frac1i$. This yields

2704: \eqa\label{esse} \{Q_H,-

2705: i(b+\pi_c)G+(-i\beta-p_{\gamma})\Psi\}&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!=

2706: -p_G(G-1)-\frac12 Gp^2+(b+\pi_c)p_b-\pi_\Psi\Psi

2707:  \nonumber\\

2708: &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!- p(\pi_{\lambda} -\frac{i}{2}\lambda)\Psi -

2709: 2\pi_c\gamma\Psi+\pi_\b(-\b+ip_\g). \eqae The transformation laws

2710: $\d_BG=p_b\L$ and $\d_B\Psi=-\pi_\b\L$ which follow

2711: from~(\ref{ptr}) agree with the rules $\d_BG=({\dot

2712: c}+2\g\Psi)\L$ and $\d\Psi=-i{\dot \gamma}\L$ which we found from

2713: the classical transformation laws by substituting $\xi=c\L$ and

2714: $\epsilon=-i\g\L$, provided

2715: \begin{equation}\label{pigam}

2716: -p_b+{\dot c}+2\g\Psi=0, \qquad i\pi_\b+{\dot \g} =0.

2717: \end{equation}

2718: These should be algebraic field equations, and indeed they are

2719: the field equations of $\pi_c$ and $p_\g$. The relevant terms in

2720: the action are

2721: \begin{equation}

2722: L=(-p_b+{\dot c}+2\g\Psi)\pi_c + ({\dot \g}+i\pi_\b)p_\g.

2723: \end{equation}

2724: Integrating out $\pi_c$, $p_b$, $p_\g$ and $\pi_\b$

2725: imposes~(\ref{pigam}).

2726: 

2727: The terms $-p_G(G-1)$ and $-\pi_{\Psi}\Psi$ are the gauge fixing

2728: terms. Thus to compare with the action as obtained from the

2729: Lagrangian BRST formalism we should use $b(G-1)+\Delta\Psi$

2730: in~(\ref{brsttran}) as gauge fixing term . However, we now got

2731: terms ${\dot G}p_G-p_GG$ and ${\dot \Psi}\pi_\Psi-\pi_\Psi\Psi$

2732: in the action. In Yang-Mills gauge theories one usually takes

2733: $\psi_g=b_a\chi^a+p_{c,a}A_0^a$ where $A_0^a$ is the

2734: time-component of the classical gauge field, and

2735: $\chi^a=\partial^kA_k^a$. Then one makes a change of integration

2736: variables $p(A_0)=kp(A_0)'$ and $b_a=kb_a'$ where $k$ is a

2737: constant. The superjacobian is unity, and taking the limit

2738: $k\rightarrow 0$ one arrives at the quantum action with

2739: relativistic unweighted gauge

2740: $\partial^{\mu}A_{\mu}^a=0$~\cite{Henne}. In our case the gauge

2741: choices were $G-1=0$ and $\Psi=0$. We used the same $\psi_g$ but

2742: with both $\chi^a$ and $A^a_0$ equal to $2H$ and $\Psi$. This led

2743: to~(\ref{gaugefix}), but it is clear that we cannot rescale

2744: $A_0^a\sim(G$ and $\Psi)$ but keep fixed $\chi\sim(G$ and

2745: $\Psi)$. In fact, we could have noticed before that there is

2746: something wrong with $\psi_g$ in~(\ref{gaugefix}): the terms have

2747: different dimensions.

2748: 

2749: The resolution is also clear: drop the terms with $b$ and $\b$

2750: in~(\ref{gaugefix}). This removes the offending terms

2751: $-p_GG-\pi_\Psi\Psi$ and also the terms $bp_b$ and

2752: $-\pi_\beta\beta$ in~(\ref{esse}). The action now becomes after

2753: eliminating $\pi_c$, $p_b$, $\pi_\g$ and $\pi_b$ \eqa

2754: \label{theac} L&\!\!=&\!\!{\dot \varphi} p + {\dot \l} \pi_\l

2755: -\frac12

2756: Gp^2-p(\pi_\l-\frac{i}{2} \l)\Psi\nonumber \\

2757: &+&\!\! {\dot G}p_G+{\dot \Psi}\pi_\Psi\\

2758: &+&\!\! {\dot b} ({\dot c}+2\g\Psi)+{\dot\b}(i{\dot \g}).

2759: \nonumber\eqae The first line is~(\ref{1Gaussian}), the second

2760: line is the gauge fixing term, and the third line the ghost

2761: action. So the action in~(\ref{acti}) from the Hamiltonian BRST

2762: formalism indeed agrees with the action from the Lagrangian BRST

2763: formalism if one chooses ${\dot G}$ and ${\dot \Psi}$ instead of

2764: $G$ and $\Psi$ as gauge fixing terms.

2765: 

2766: We have seen that there is a Lagrangian and a Hamiltonian

2767: approach. The latter contains conjugate momenta for all

2768: variables, hence brackets can be defined and charges constructed.

2769: We saw that the gauges $G-1=0$ and $\Psi=0$ in the Hamiltonian

2770: approach led to the same results after solving the algebraic

2771: field equations for the canonical momenta as the gauge ${\dot

2772: G}=0$ and ${\dot  \Psi}=0$ in the Lagrangian approach. (We recall

2773: that $G=1+2H=\frac{1}{1-2h}$ and $\Psi=\frac{\psi}{1-2h}$.) One

2774: might ask whether the Hamiltonian approach can also lead to the

2775: gauge $G-1=0$ and $\Psi=0$ in the Lagrangian approach

2776: (corresponding to $h=0$ and $\psi =0$ in~(\ref{pod})). This is

2777: indeed possible. One chooses as gauge fermion $\psi_g=0$. The

2778: action becomes then very simple \begin{equation}\label{simpac}

2779: L=\dot{\varphi}p+\dot{\l}\pi_\l+\dot{G}p_G+\dot{\Psi}p_{\Psi}+

2780: \dot{c}\pi_{c}+\dot{b}p_b+\dot{\g}p_\g + \dot{\b}\pi_\b.

2781: \end{equation}

2782: Next one factorizes the path integral into a minimal part with the

2783: fields $(p,\varphi)$, $(\l,\pi)$, $(c,\pi_c)$ and $(\g,p_\g)$,

2784: and a nonminimal part with the pairs $(G,p_G)$, $(\Psi,\pi_\Psi)$,

2785: $(b,p_b)$ and $(\b,\pi_\b)$. Finally one discards the latter, and

2786: \emph{reinterprets} the momenta $\pi_c$ and $p_\g$ as the

2787: Lagrangian antighosts $b$ and $\b$, respectively. This yields

2788: then the action in~(\ref{brsttran}) with $d$, $\Delta$, $h$ and

2789: $\psi$ integrated out (removed by their algebraic field

2790: equations).

2791: 

2792: This concludes our discussion of BRST formalism applied to our

2793: simple model. We obtained one result which is a bit surprising

2794: (or interesting): the differentiated gauge choices

2795: $\dot{G}=\dot{\Psi}=0$ in the Lagrangian approach correspond

2796: directly to the gauge choices $G-1=\Psi=0$ in the Hamiltonian

2797: approach. On the other hand, the gauge choices $G-1=\Psi=0$ in

2798: the Lagrangian approach did not correspond in a direct way to the

2799: Hamiltonian approach (we had to discard a sector). String theory

2800: uses Lagrangian gauge choices corresponding to $G-1=\Psi=0$.

2801: Perhaps the corresponding differentiated gauge choices have

2802: advantages in certain respects.

2803: 

2804: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2805: \bibitem{Berezinfa}  F.A. Berezin, The method of second quantization, Academic Press 1966.  In this book

2806: manipulations with Grassmann variables are defined.  See also F.A. Berezin, Introduction to Super Analysis,

2807: Reidel, 1987.

2808: \bibitem{rfeynman} R. Feynman and A. Hibbs, Quantum mechanics and path integrals, McGraw Hill 1965.

2809: Feynman pioneered the path integral in physics, and this is the standard reference.

2810: 

2811: \bibitem{twoi} Two introductory texts which the reader may try to tackle after reading these lectures are J. Bagger and J. Wess, Supersymmetry and Supergravity, Princeton University Press, 

2812: 1992, and M.F. Sohnius, Introducing supersymmetry, {\it Phys.\ Rep.} {\bf 128} (1985) 39.

2813: More advanced introductions are

2814:  P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Supergravity, {\it Phys.\ Rep.}  {\bf 68} (1981) 189, and

2815: S.J. Gates, M.T. Grisaru, M. Ro\v{c}ek and W. Siegel, Superspace, One thousand and one lessons in supersymmetry.

2816: \bibitem{Henne} For a discussion of the Hamiltonian form of BRST symmetry, see

2817: M. Henneaux, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 126} (1985) 1. A good

2818: introduction for mathematicians to BRST symmetry and general

2819: properties of gauge systems is M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim,

2820: Quantization of Gauge Systems, Princeton University Press 1992.

2821: We used sections 16.5.6, 16.54b, 19.1.7 and 19.1.8 for discussions

2822: at the very end of chapter~6.

2823: \bibitem{spinning} Spinning point particles have been discussed in L. Brink, S. Deser, 

2824: B. Zumino, P. Di Vecchia and P. Howe, {\it Phys.\ Lett.} {\bf 64B} (1976) 435; see also 

2825: F.A. Berezin and M.S. Marinov, {\it Ann. \ Phys. (N.Y.)} {\bf 104} (1977) 336. A Hamiltonian

2826: path integral treatment of relativistic supersymmetric particles is given in M. Henneaux and

2827: C. Teitelboim, {\it Ann. \ Phys. (N.Y.)} {\bf 143} (1982) 127.

2828: \end{thebibliography}

2829: \end{document}

2830: 

2831: \begin{array}{lllll}

2832: && [ G_a , G_b ] = f_{ab}{}^c G_c & G_a = (p (h), p (\psi) ; T, J) \nn

2833: && [ \varphi_a , \varphi_b ] = f_{ab}{}^c G_c & \eta^a = (p (b) , - p(\beta) ; c, \g ) \nn

2834: && [ p_\a , \varphi_b ] = f_{ab}{}^c G_c & p_a = ( b, \beta ; p(c) , p(\g) ) \end{array} \nn

2835: && f_{AB}{}^c G_c = \left( \begin{array}{ccccc} 0 & 0 & {2 \over 1-2 h}T & {2J \over 1-2 h} \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ & & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right) \nn

2836: && \d_\varphi = {2 pc \over 1-2 h} = 2c \left( \dot\varphi + {i \psi \l \over 1-2 h} \right)

2837: \eqae

2838: 

2839: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5

2840: 

2841: One is left with

2842: \begin{equation}

2843: L={\dot \varphi}p +{\dot \lambda}\pi_{\lambda}+ {\dot c}\pi_c +

2844: {\dot \gamma}p_{\gamma} -p_HG+i\pi_{\Psi}\Psi+\frac12Gp^2-p

2845: (\pi_{\lambda} -\frac{i}{2}\lambda)\Psi

2846: +\pi_cp_b-2\pi_c\gamma\Psi+i\pi_{\beta} p_{\gamma}

2847: \end{equation}

2848: Integration over $\pi_c,p_b$ and over $\pi_{\beta},p_{\gamma}$

2849: yields for the ghost sector \eqa

2850:  {\dot c}\pi_c +{\dot \gamma}p_{\gamma}+\pi_cp_b- 2\pi_c\gamma\Psi+i\pi_{\beta} p_{\gamma}

2851: =(\pi_c)(p_b-{\dot c}-2\gamma\Psi)+(i\pi_{\beta}+{\dot

2852: \gamma})p_{\gamma} \nonumber\\+ {\dot \gamma}({\dot

2853: c}-2\gamma\Psi)-{\dot \gamma}p_{\gamma} \eqae

2854: 

2855: 

2856: %\eqa

2857: %Q_H = \left( c {p^2 \over 1-2 h} + i \g {\l p \over 1-2 h} \right) + p (b) p(h) -

2858: %p (\beta) p ( \psi)

2859: %\eqae

2860: 

2861: One should now go on, and work out the explicit form of the

2862: quantum Hamiltonian in (\ref{Ham}).  Then one could eliminate

2863: several nonpropagating fields (fields without derivatives) and

2864: show that the results agree with the Lagrangian results in

2865: (\ref{is}) and (\ref{class}).  We leave these steps as

2866: exercises.  The reader who has come to this point should be able

2867: to read the physics literature~\cite{twoi}.

2868: 

2869: