arxiv:hep-lat/ v1 26 Feb 2004

Transcription

1 Preprint typeset in JHEP style - HYPER VERSION UPRF arxiv:hep-lat/040034v1 6 Feb 004 Wess-Zumino model with exact supersymmetry on the lattice Marisa Bonini and Alessandra Feo Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Parma and INFN Gruppo Collegato di Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze, 7/A Parma, Italy bonini@pr.infn.it, feo@fis.unipr.it Abstract: A lattice formulation of the four dimensional Wess-Zumino model that uses Ginsparg-Wilson fermions and keeps exact supersymmetry is presented. The supersymmetry transformation that leaves invariant the action at finite lattice spacing is determined by performing an iterative procedure in the coupling constant. The closure of the algebra, generated by this transformation is also showed. Keywords: lattice field theory, supersymmetry, Wess-Zumino.

2 Contents 1. Introduction 1. The Wess-Zumino model 3. The supersymmetric transformation 4 4. The algebra 6 5. Conclusions 8 1. Introduction Non-perturbative studies of supersymmetric theories turn out to have remarkably rich properties which are of great physical interest. For this reason, much effort has been dedicated to formulating a lattice version of supersymmetric theories. See for example [1]- [8] and [9, 10] for recent reviews. While much is known analytically, the hope is that the lattice would provide further information and confirm the existing analytical calculations. The major obstacle in formulating a supersymmetric theory on the lattice arises from the fact that the supersymmetry algebra is actually an extension of the Poincaré algebra, which is explicitly broken by the lattice. Indeed, in an interacting theory, translation invariance is broken since the Leibniz rule is not valid for lattice derivatives [1]. Ordinary Poincaré algebra is also broken by the lattice but the hypercubic crystal symmetry forbids relevant operators which could spoil the Poincaré symmetry in the continuum limit. In the case of the super Poincaré algebra, the lattice crystal group is not enough to guarantee the absence of supersymmetry violating operators. Without exact lattice supersymmetry one might hope to construct non-supersymmetric lattice theories with a supersymmetric continuum limit. This is the case of the Wilson fermion approach for the N = 1 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory where the only operator which violates the N = 1 supersymmetry is a fermion mass term. By tunning the fermion mass to the supersymmetric limit one recovers supersymmetry in the continuum limit [8, 11]. Alternatively, using domain wall fermions [1] or overlap fermions [13], this fine tunning is not required. Recently, a new lattice construction for models with extended supersymmetry has been proposed [14]. In this case, the lattice preserves some supersymmetries which are enough to reduce or eliminate the need for fine tunning (see also [15]). In this paper, our starting point is the four dimensional lattice Wess-Zumino model, previously studied in Refs. [5, 6]. We show that it is actually possible to formulate the theory in such a way that the full action is invariant under a lattice superymmetry transformation at a fixed lattice spacing. The action and the transformation are written in 1

3 terms of the Ginsparg-Wilson operator and reduce to their continuum expression in the naive continuum limit a 0. The lattice supersymmetry transformation is non-linear in the scalar fields and depends on the parameters m and g entering in the superpotential. We also show that the lattice supersymmetry transformation close the algebra, which is a necessary ingredient to guarantee the request of supersymmetry. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. we introduce the Ginsparg-Wilson fermion operator and formulate the lattice Wess-Zumino action. In Sec. 3 we show how to build up a lattice supersymmetry transformation that is an exact symmetry of this model. In Sec. 4 the closure of the algebra, crucial step to be satisfied in order to impose supersymmetry, is shown. Discussions and outlook are summarized in Sec. 5. In Appendices A and B, some details of the calculations are presented.. The Wess-Zumino model The Ginsparg-Wilson relation [16] γ 5 D + Dγ 5 = adγ 5 D (.1) implies a continuum symmetry of the fermion action which may be regarded as a lattice form of the chiral symmetry [17]. As a matter of fact, the fermion lagrangian with a Yukawa interaction L = ψdψ + g ψ(p + φ ˆP + + P φ ˆP )ψ, (.) where P ± = 1 (1 ± γ 5), ˆP± = 1 (1 ± ˆγ 5) (.3) are the lattice chiral projection operators and ˆγ 5 = γ 5 (1 ad), is invariant under the lattice chiral transformation δψ = iεˆγ 5 ψ, δ ψ = i ψγ 5 ε, δφ = iεφ. (.4) By writing ψ in terms of two Majorana fermions ψ = χ + iη, (.5) it can be seen that the interaction term in Eq. (.) couples the two Majorana fermions and therefore there is a conflict between lattice chiral symmetry and the Majorana condition [4, 5]. This is due to the fact that the projection operators ˆP ± depend on D. Moreover, it has been observed that by making the following field redefinition the Yukawa interaction becomes ψ = (1 a D)ψ, ψ = ψ, (.6) g ψ (P + φp + + P φ P )ψ (.7) and the two Majorana components of ψ decouple. Taking advantage of this property, one can define the four dimensional Wess-Zumino on the lattice with Majorana fermions [5].

4 We start with a lagrangian defined in terms of the Ginsparg-Wilson fermions on the d = 4 euclidean lattice. Our analysis is valid for all operators which satisfy Eq. (.1), however, in the following we will use the particularly simple solution given by [18] D = 1 a ( 1 X X X ), X = 1 ad w, (.8) where D w = 1 γ µ( µ + µ) a µ µ (.9) and µ φ(x) = 1 (φ(x + aˆµ) φ(x)) a µ φ(x) = 1 (φ(x) φ(x aˆµ)) (.10) a are the forward and backward lattice derivatives, respectively. Substituting Eq. (.9) in Eq. (.8) we find convenient to isolate in D the part containing the gamma matrices and write D = D 1 + D (.11) where D 1 = 1 (1 1 + a a X X µ µ ), D = 1 γ µ + µ µ X X γ µd µ. (.1) In terms of D 1 and D the Ginsparg-Wilson relation (.1) becomes D 1 D = a D 1. (.13) The action of the 4-dimensional Wess-Zumino model on the lattice has been introduced in Refs. [5, 6] and can be re-written using the above notation as S WZ = { 1 χ(1 a D 1) 1 D χ a φ D 1 φ + F (1 a D 1) 1 F + 1 m χχ x +m(fφ + (Fφ) ) + g χ(p + φp + + P φ P )χ + g(fφ + (Fφ ) ), (.14) where φ and F are scalar fields and χ is a Majorana fermion which satisfies the Majorana condition χ = χ T C (.15) and C is the charge conjugation matrix which satisfies Moreover, our conventions are C T = C, CC = 1. (.16) Cγ µ C 1 = (γ µ ) T Cγ 5 C 1 = (γ 5 ) T. (.17) 3

5 It is easy to see that in the continuum limit, a 0, Eq. (.14) reduces to the continuum Wess-Zumino action { 1 S = χ( + m)χ + φ φ + F F + m(fφ + (Fφ) ) +g χ(p + φp + + P φ P )χ + g(fφ + (Fφ ) ). (.18) 3. The supersymmetric transformation If one defines the real components by the Wess-Zumino action (.14) can be written as φ 1 (A + ib), F 1 (F ig) (3.1) S WZ = S 0 + S int, (3.) with S 0 = x { 1 χ(1 a D 1) 1 D χ 1 a (AD 1A + BD 1 B) + 1 F(1 a D 1) 1 F + 1 G(1 a D 1) 1 G, (3.3) S int = x { 1 1 m χχ + m(fa + GB) + g χ(a + iγ 5 B)χ + 1 g[f(a B ) + G(AB)]. (3.4) The free part of the action, S 0, is invariant under the lattice supersymmetry transformation δa = εχ = χε δb = i εγ 5 χ = i χγ 5 ε δχ = D (A iγ 5 B)ε (F iγ 5 G)ε δf = εd χ δg = i εd γ 5 χ. (3.5) In fact, the variation of S 0 under the this transformation is δs 0 = = x { χ(1 a [ ] D 1) 1 D D (A iγ 5 B)ε (F iγ 5 G)ε a χεd 1A + i a χγ 5εD 1 B + ( εd χ)(1 a D 1) 1 F + i( εd γ 5 χ)(1 a D 1) 1 G. 4

6 By using (.17) and integrating by part 1, this variation becomes x { [ χε (1 a D 1) 1 D + ] [ a D 1 A + i χγ 5 ε (1 a D 1) 1 D + ] a D 1 B χ(1 a D 1) 1 D (F iγ 5 G)ε + χd ε(1 a D 1) 1 F + i χd γ 5 ε(1 a D 1) 1 G = 0, where we have used the Ginsparg-Wilson relation (.13), which implies (1 a D 1) 1 D = a D 1. (3.6) As discussed in [6], the variation of S int under (3.5) does not vanish because of the failure of the Leibniz rule at finite lattice spacing [1]. In order to discuss the symmetry properties of the lattice Wess-Zumino model one possibility is to modify the action by adding irrelevant terms which make invariant the full action. Alternatively, one can modify the supersymmetry transformation of Eq. (3.5) in such a way that the action (3.) has an exact symmetry for a different from zero. Since the transformation (3.5) leaves invariant the free part of the action, this modification must vanish for g = 0. Therefore, we introduce the following transformation δa = εχ = χε δb = i εγ 5 χ = i χγ 5 ε δχ = D (A iγ 5 B)ε (F iγ 5 G)ε + grε δf = εd χ δg = i εd γ 5 χ (3.7) where R is a function to be determined by requiring that the variation of the action vanishes. We make the assumption that R depends on the scalar and auxiliary fields and their derivatives and not on χ. The variation of the Wess-Zumino action under the transformation (3.7) is δs WZ = x { g χ(1 a [ ] D 1) 1 D Rε m χ D (A iγ 5 B)ε + (F iγ 5 G)ε grε +m(a εd χ + F χε + ib εd γ 5 χ ig χγ 5 ε) + g χ( εχ + γ 5 ( εγ 5 χ))χ [ ] g χ(a + iγ 5 B) D (A iγ 5 B)ε + (F iγ 5 G)ε grε + g [(A B ) εd χ + FA χε + ifb χγ 5 ε ] +iab εd γ 5 χ + GB χε iga( χγ 5 ε). 1 For instance, for any scalar functionf one hasf εd χ = χd Fε. A similar attempt has been proposed by Golterman and Petcher, [3], for the -dimensional Wess-Zumino model. 5

7 By using the Fierz identity, terms with four fermions cancel as in the continuum. Moreover, g independent terms cancel out after an integration by part, and one is left with δs WZ = { [ g χ (1 a D 1) 1 D R + mr ]ε g [ χ(a + iγ 5 B)D (A iγ 5 B)ε x ] χd (A iγ 5 B) ε + g χ(a + iγ 5 B)Rε. (3.8) The function R is determined by imposing the vanishing of δs WZ. By expanding R in powers of g R = R (1) + gr () + (3.9) and imposing the symmetry condition order by order in perturbation theory, we find R (1) = ((1 a D 1) 1 D + m) 1 L (3.10) with L 1 ((A + iγ 5 B)D (A iγ 5 B) D (A iγ 5 B) ) = 1 {(AD A BD B) D (A B ) ] + iγ 5 [(AD B + BD A) D (AB). (3.11) To order g one has R () = ((1 a D 1) 1 D + m) 1 (A + iγ 5 B)((1 a D 1) 1 D + m) 1 L, (3.1) and for n R (n) = ((1 a D 1) 1 D + m) 1 (A + iγ 5 B)R (n 1). (3.13) By inserting these results in Eq. (3.9), the function R to be used in Eq. (3.7) is therefore, the formal solution of [(1 a D 1) 1 D + m + g(a + iγ 5 B)]R = L. (3.14) Notice that, from the perturbative expressions (3.10) and (3.13) one realizes that R 0 for a 0, since L vanishes in this limit. Indeed, L is different from zero because of the breaking of the Leibniz rule for a finite lattice spacing. 4. The algebra We now study the algebra associated to the lattice supersymmetry transformation (3.7) introduced in the previous section. In particular, carrying out the commutator of two supersymmetries we must find a transformation which is still a symmetry of the Wess- Zumino action, i.e. the transformations of the fields form a closed algebra, order by order 6

8 in g. In this section, we explicitly check this fact up to order g 1, even though the calculation can be generalized to any order. Two supersymmetry transformations on the scalar field A give δ 1 δ A = δ 1 ( ε χ) and their commutator yields = ε [D (A iγ 5 B)ε 1 + (F iγ 5 G)ε 1 grε 1 ] [δ,δ 1 ]A = ε 1 D ε A + g( ε 1 Rε ε Rε 1 ). (4.1) The order g 1 of the second term on the r.h.s. of (4.1) reads g( ε 1 R (1) ε ε R (1) ε 1 ) = g ε m(1 a D 1) m (1 a D 1) + a D 1 [ ] D (A B ) (AD A BD B) ε 1 (4.) where we used (3.10). Then, the commutator of two supersymmetries on the scalar field A is [δ,δ 1 ]A = ε 1 γ µ ε {D µ A + g m(1 a D [ ] 1) m (1 a D 1) + a D D µ (A B ) (AD µ A BD µ B). (4.3) 1 Similarly, the commutators of two supersymmetries on the other fields, up to terms of order g 1, are (see Appendix A for some details) and [δ,δ 1 ]B = ε 1 γ µ ε {D µ B + m(1 a g D [ ] 1) m (1 a D 1) + a D D µ (AB) (AD µ B + BD µ A), (4.4) 1 [δ,δ 1 ]F = ε 1 γ µ ε {D µ F g D [ ] m (1 a D 1) + a D D µ (A B ) (AD µ A BD µ B), (4.5) 1 [δ,δ 1 ]G = ε 1 γ µ ε {D µ G D [ ] g m (1 a D 1) + a D D µ (AB) (AD µ B + BD µ A) 1 [δ,δ 1 ]χ = ε 1 γ µ ε {D µ χ g m(1 a D 1) D m (1 a D 1) + a D 1 ( D (A iγ 5 B)γ µ χ + (A + iγ 5 B)D γ µ χ (4.6) ) D [(A iγ 5 B)γ µ χ]. (4.7) 7

9 Therefore, the general expression of these commutators is [δ 1,δ ]Φ = α µ Pµ Φ (Φ), Φ = (A,B,F,G,χ), (4.8) where α µ = ε γ µ ε and P Φ µ (Φ) are polynomials in Φ defined as P Φ µ (Φ) = D µφ + O(g) (4.9) where the order g 1 contributions can be read in (4.3)-(4.7). We have verified that the closure works, i.e. the action (.14) is invariant under the transformation Φ Φ + α µ P Φ µ (Φ) (4.10) up to terms of order g 1. This calculation is sketched in Appendix B. Notice that, in the continuum limit D µ µ and the transformation (4.10) reduces to Φ Φ + α µ µ Φ (4.11) since terms in (4.3)-(4.7) of order g 1 vanish due to the restoration of the Leibniz rule as a 0. Higher orders in g of the transformation (4.10) can be determined by using the expression for R (n) given in (3.13). The proof of the invariance of the Wess-Zumino action under the transformation (3.7) at any order in g can be similarly performed. Indeed, the closure of the algebra at any order in g should hold since the supersymmetry transformation (3.7) is an exact symmetry of the lattice Wess-Zumino action. 5. Conclusions In this paper, we have presented a lattice formulation of the four dimensional Wess-Zumino model with an exact supersymmetry using Ginsparg-Wilson fermions. We have shown that it is actually possible to formulate the theory in such a way that the full action is invariant under a lattice supersymmetry transformation at a fixed lattice spacing. This supersymmetry transformation introduces a function R which is non-linear in the scalar fields and depends on the parameters m and g entering in the interaction part of the action. The action and the transformation, which have been written in terms of the Ginsparg- Wilson fermions, reduce to their continuum expression in the limit a 0. We have also shown that the lattice supersymmetry transformations close the algebra, as it is required by the supersymmetry. While the present work is confined to the proof to the order g 1, concerning the closure of the algebra, there are no obstructions to extending this procedure to higher orders in g. The Ward identity associated to the lattice supersymmetry introduced in this paper can be derived and used to verify that the lattice theory has a supersymmetric continuum limit. This generalizes the analysis performed by Golterman and Petcher in [3] for the two dimensional Wess-Zumino model. This work is under investigation. Acknowledgements We are grateful to Giuseppe Marchesini and Mario Pernici for enlightening and very useful discussions. 8

10 Appendix A In this Appendix we show some details concerning the calculation of the commutator [δ,δ 1 ]χ. Applying two supersymmetry transformations on χ one has δ 1 δ χ = D [ ε 1 χ γ 5 ( εγ 5 χ)]ε [( ε 1 D χ) + γ 5 ( ε 1 D γ 5 χ)]ε + g(δ 1 R)ε, (5.1) where (δ 1 R) is the supersymmetry variation of the function R. A similar expression is obtained for δ δ 1 χ with ε ε 1. Terms to the order g 0 can be treated as in the continuum case by using a Fierz rearrangement as well as the relations in Eq. (.17). For instance, taking the first term in Eq. (5.1) and the corresponding one with ε ε 1 one has ε 1 D µ χ(γ µ ε ) α + ε D µ χ(γ µ ε 1 ) α = 1 ( ε 1γ µ ε )(D γ µ χ) α 1 4 ( ε 1γ µν ε )(D γ µν χ) α. (5.) Using a similar rearrangement for the remaining terms order g 0, the commutator of two supersymmetry transformations on χ is [δ,δ 1 ]χ α = ε 1 γ µ ε D µ χ α + O(g). (5.3) The contribution to this commutator to the order g 1 is (δ 1 R (1) ε δ R (1) ε 1 ) = δr(1) δa ε ( ε 1 χ) + δr(1) δb ε ( ε 1 γ 5 χ) (ε 1 ε ) = ( δr (1) ) ( ε 1 γ R ε ) δa γ Rχ + δr(1) δb γ Rγ 5 χ (ε 1 ε ) (5.4) R where the sum is over the 16 independent 4 4 matrices. By using Eq. (.17) only the terms with γ R = {γ µ,γ µν survive, moreover, using the explicit form for R (1) one finds Eq. (4.7). Appendix B The prove of the invariance of the action under the transformation (4.9) to the order g 0 is immediate. In this Appendix, we explicitly calculate the variation of the fermionic part of the action (3.) to the order g 1 (the remaining part, containing only scalar fields, can be similarly treated). δ { 1 χ(1 a D 1) 1 D χ + 1 m χχ + 1 g χ(a + iγ 5 B)χ x = g x { χ ( (1 a ) m(1 D 1) 1 a D + m D 1) D m (1 a D 1) + a D 1 ( D (A iγ 5 B)γ µ χ + (A + iγ 5 B)D γ µ χ D [(A iγ 5 B)γ µ χ] χ(a + iγ 5 B)D µ χ χ(d µ A + iγ 5 D µ B)χ, (5.5) ) 9

11 where (4.3), (4.4) and (4.7) have been used. Due to the Ginsparg-Wilson relation (.13), we have that ( (1 a ) m(1 D 1) 1 a D + m D 1) D m (1 a D 1) + a D = 1 (5.6) 1 and (5.5) becomes g { χd (A iγ 5 B)γ µ χ + χ(a + iγ 5 B)D γ µ χ χγ µ (A iγ 5 χ)d χ x χ(a + iγ 5 B)D µ χ χ(d µ A + iγ 5 D µ B)χ (5.7) where in the last term of the first line an integration by part and the relation (.17) has been used. Finally, terms containing the derivative of the scalar fields cancel out, while to prove the cancellation of the remaining ones a Fierz rearrangement is needed. References [1] P. H. Dondi and H. Nicolai, Nuovo Cim. A41 (1977) 1. [] T. Banks and P. Windey, Nucl. Phys. B198 (198) 6; S. Elitzur, E. Rabinovici, A. Schwimmer, Phys. Lett. B119 (198) 165; J. Bartels and J. B. Bronzan, Phys. Rev. D8 (1983) 818. [3] M. F. L. Golterman and D. N. Petcher, Nucl. Phys. B319 (1989) 307. [4] P. van Nieuwenhuizen, A. Waldron, Phys. Lett. B389 (1996) 9 [arxiv:hep-th/ ]. [5] K. Fujikawa and M. Ishibashi, Phys. Lett. B58 (00) 95 [arxiv:hep-lat/011050]. [6] K. Fujikawa, Nucl. Phys. B636 (00) 80 [arxiv:hep-th/005095]; [7] S. Catterall and S. Karamov, Phys. Rev D68 (003) , [arxiv:hep-lat/030500]; W. Bietenholz, Mod. Phys. Lett. A14 (1999) 51 [arxiv:hep-lat/ ]; M. Campostrini, M. Beccaria, A. Feo, hep-lat/ [8] I. Montvay, Nucl. Phys. B466 (1996) 59 [arxiv:hep-lat/951004]; I. Campos, A. Feo, R. Kirchner, S. Luckmann, I. Montvay, G. Münster, K. Spanderen, J. Westphalen, DESY-Münster collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C11 (1999) 507 [arxiv:hep-lat/ ]. [9] D. B. Kaplan, hep-lat/ [10] A. Feo, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 119 (003) 198 [arxiv:hep-lat/010015]. [11] G. Curci and G. Veneziano, Nucl. Phys. B9 (1987) 555. [1] D. B. Kaplan and M. Schmaltz, Chin. J. Phys. 38 (000) 543 [arxiv:hep-lat/000030]; G. T. Fleming, J. B. Kogut, P. M. Vranas, Phys. Rev. D64 (001) [arxiv:hep-lat/ ]. [13] P. Y. Huet, R. Narayanan, H. Neuberger, Phys. Lett. B380 (1996) 91 [arxiv:hep-th/960176]; J. Nishimura, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 63 (1998) 71 [arxiv:hep-lat/970911]. [14] D. B. Kaplan, E. Katz, M. Unsal, JHEP 0305 (003) 037 [arxiv:hep-lat/006019]. 10

12 [15] S. Catterall and S. Karamov, Phys. Rev. D65 (00) [arxiv:hep-lat/010804]; S. Catterall, JHEP 05 (003) 038 [arxiv:hep-lat/030108]; F. Sugino, JHEP 0401 (004) 015, hep-lat/ [16] P. H. Ginsparg and K. G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D5 (198) 649. [17] M. Lüscher, Phys. Lett. B48 (1998) 34 [arxiv:hep-lat/980011]; P. Hernandez, K. Jansen, M. Lüscher, Nucl. Phys. B55 (1999) 363 [arxiv:hep-lat/ ]. [18] H. Neuberger, Phys. Lett. B417 (1998) 141 [arxiv:hep-lat/97070]; H. Neuberger, Phys. Lett. B47 (1998) 353 [arxiv:hep-lat/ ]. 11