English

Supersymmetric Proximity

High Energy Physics - Theory 2020-09-29 v1

Abstract

I argue that a certain perturbative proximity exists between some supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric theories (namely, pure Yang-Mills and adjoint QCD with two flavors, adjQCDNf=2_{N_f=2}). I start with N=2{\mathcal N}=2 super-Yang-Mills theory built of two N=1{\mathcal N}=1 superfields: vector and chiral. In N=1{\mathcal N}=1 language the latter presents matter in the adjoint representation of SU(N).(N). Then I convert the matter superfield into a "{\em phantom}" one (in analogy with ghosts), breaking N=2{\mathcal N}=2 down to N=1{\mathcal N}=1. The global SU(2) acting between two gluinos in the original theory becomes graded. Exact results in thus deformed theory allows one to obtain insights in certain aspects of non-supersymmetric gluodynamics. In particular, it becomes clear how the splitting of the β\beta function coefficients in pure gluodynamics, β1=(413)N\beta_1 =(4 -\frac 13 )N and β2=(613)N2\beta_2= (6-\frac 13)N^2, occurs. Here the first terms in the braces (4 and 6, always integers) are geometry-related while the second terms (13-\frac 13 in both cases) are {\it bona fide} quantum effects. In the same sense adjQCDNf=2_{N_f=2} is close to N=2{\mathcal N}=2 SYM. Thus, I establish a certain proximity between pure gluodynamics and adjQCDNf=2_{N_f=2} with supersymmetric theories. (Of course, in both cases we loose all features related to flat directions and Higgs/Coulomb branches in N=2{\mathcal N}=2.) As a warmup exercise I use this idea in 2D CP(1) sigma model with N=(2,2){\mathcal N}=(2,2) supersymmetry, through the minimal heterotic N=(0,2){\mathcal N}=(0,2) \to bosonic CP(1).

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.2009.12654,
  title  = {Supersymmetric Proximity},
  author = {Mikhail Shifman},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.12654},
  year   = {2020}
}

Comments

17 pages, 7 figures

R2 v1 2026-06-23T18:49:02.023Z