Is Lorentz symmetry broken if SUSY is broken?












4












$begingroup$


I have seemingly convinced myself that the entire Poincare group is spontaneously broken if one of the supersymmetric charges is spontaneously broken.



We know that if one of the supersymmetric charges is spontaneously broken, then a vacuum with zero three-momentum MUST have a nonzero energy. There is no way to re-scale the Hamiltonian since the supersymmetry algebra provides an absolute scale. Let's suppose the vacuum is an eigenstate of $P^{mu}$, then we have



$$P^{mu}|Omegarangle=p^{0}delta^{mu}_{0}|Omegarangle$$



If we lorentz transform this equation with the unitary operator $U(Lambda)$, we find that a new state $U(Lambda)|Omegarangle$ solves the eigenvalue equation:



$$P^{mu}U(Lambda)|Omegarangle=(Lambda^{-1})^{mu}_0p^0U(Lambda)|Omegarangle$$



Since $U(Lambda)P^{mu}U^{-1}(Lambda)=Lambda^{mu}_{nu}P^{nu}$.



Therefore we have a whole family of vacua which are orthogonal and related by a lorentz transformation.



Is there something I am missing here? Is this even a bad thing?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    4












    $begingroup$


    I have seemingly convinced myself that the entire Poincare group is spontaneously broken if one of the supersymmetric charges is spontaneously broken.



    We know that if one of the supersymmetric charges is spontaneously broken, then a vacuum with zero three-momentum MUST have a nonzero energy. There is no way to re-scale the Hamiltonian since the supersymmetry algebra provides an absolute scale. Let's suppose the vacuum is an eigenstate of $P^{mu}$, then we have



    $$P^{mu}|Omegarangle=p^{0}delta^{mu}_{0}|Omegarangle$$



    If we lorentz transform this equation with the unitary operator $U(Lambda)$, we find that a new state $U(Lambda)|Omegarangle$ solves the eigenvalue equation:



    $$P^{mu}U(Lambda)|Omegarangle=(Lambda^{-1})^{mu}_0p^0U(Lambda)|Omegarangle$$



    Since $U(Lambda)P^{mu}U^{-1}(Lambda)=Lambda^{mu}_{nu}P^{nu}$.



    Therefore we have a whole family of vacua which are orthogonal and related by a lorentz transformation.



    Is there something I am missing here? Is this even a bad thing?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      4












      4








      4


      2



      $begingroup$


      I have seemingly convinced myself that the entire Poincare group is spontaneously broken if one of the supersymmetric charges is spontaneously broken.



      We know that if one of the supersymmetric charges is spontaneously broken, then a vacuum with zero three-momentum MUST have a nonzero energy. There is no way to re-scale the Hamiltonian since the supersymmetry algebra provides an absolute scale. Let's suppose the vacuum is an eigenstate of $P^{mu}$, then we have



      $$P^{mu}|Omegarangle=p^{0}delta^{mu}_{0}|Omegarangle$$



      If we lorentz transform this equation with the unitary operator $U(Lambda)$, we find that a new state $U(Lambda)|Omegarangle$ solves the eigenvalue equation:



      $$P^{mu}U(Lambda)|Omegarangle=(Lambda^{-1})^{mu}_0p^0U(Lambda)|Omegarangle$$



      Since $U(Lambda)P^{mu}U^{-1}(Lambda)=Lambda^{mu}_{nu}P^{nu}$.



      Therefore we have a whole family of vacua which are orthogonal and related by a lorentz transformation.



      Is there something I am missing here? Is this even a bad thing?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I have seemingly convinced myself that the entire Poincare group is spontaneously broken if one of the supersymmetric charges is spontaneously broken.



      We know that if one of the supersymmetric charges is spontaneously broken, then a vacuum with zero three-momentum MUST have a nonzero energy. There is no way to re-scale the Hamiltonian since the supersymmetry algebra provides an absolute scale. Let's suppose the vacuum is an eigenstate of $P^{mu}$, then we have



      $$P^{mu}|Omegarangle=p^{0}delta^{mu}_{0}|Omegarangle$$



      If we lorentz transform this equation with the unitary operator $U(Lambda)$, we find that a new state $U(Lambda)|Omegarangle$ solves the eigenvalue equation:



      $$P^{mu}U(Lambda)|Omegarangle=(Lambda^{-1})^{mu}_0p^0U(Lambda)|Omegarangle$$



      Since $U(Lambda)P^{mu}U^{-1}(Lambda)=Lambda^{mu}_{nu}P^{nu}$.



      Therefore we have a whole family of vacua which are orthogonal and related by a lorentz transformation.



      Is there something I am missing here? Is this even a bad thing?







      quantum-field-theory special-relativity supersymmetry lorentz-symmetry symmetry-breaking






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 4 hours ago









      LucashWindowWasherLucashWindowWasher

      1819




      1819






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          No, Lorentz symmetry is not broken if SUSY is broken. All you have to do is add a constant to the energy; then the four-momentum of the vacuum is zero, as it must be. This is a completely standard thing to do. For instance, it's how we subtract out the divergent vacuum energy contribution around the second week of a first quantum field theory course.



          I can hear you complaining that this messes up the SUSY algebra since ${Q, Q} sim H$, but who cares? The fact that SUSY is broken means there does not exist a set of operators satisfying the SUSY algebra and annihilating the vacuum. Now forget about SUSY; does there exist a set of operators satisfying the Poincare algebra and annihilating the vacuum? Yes, by adding a constant to $H$. So Lorentz symmetry is not broken here.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            That makes so much sense!
            $endgroup$
            – LucashWindowWasher
            2 hours ago












          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "151"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470609%2fis-lorentz-symmetry-broken-if-susy-is-broken%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3












          $begingroup$

          No, Lorentz symmetry is not broken if SUSY is broken. All you have to do is add a constant to the energy; then the four-momentum of the vacuum is zero, as it must be. This is a completely standard thing to do. For instance, it's how we subtract out the divergent vacuum energy contribution around the second week of a first quantum field theory course.



          I can hear you complaining that this messes up the SUSY algebra since ${Q, Q} sim H$, but who cares? The fact that SUSY is broken means there does not exist a set of operators satisfying the SUSY algebra and annihilating the vacuum. Now forget about SUSY; does there exist a set of operators satisfying the Poincare algebra and annihilating the vacuum? Yes, by adding a constant to $H$. So Lorentz symmetry is not broken here.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            That makes so much sense!
            $endgroup$
            – LucashWindowWasher
            2 hours ago
















          3












          $begingroup$

          No, Lorentz symmetry is not broken if SUSY is broken. All you have to do is add a constant to the energy; then the four-momentum of the vacuum is zero, as it must be. This is a completely standard thing to do. For instance, it's how we subtract out the divergent vacuum energy contribution around the second week of a first quantum field theory course.



          I can hear you complaining that this messes up the SUSY algebra since ${Q, Q} sim H$, but who cares? The fact that SUSY is broken means there does not exist a set of operators satisfying the SUSY algebra and annihilating the vacuum. Now forget about SUSY; does there exist a set of operators satisfying the Poincare algebra and annihilating the vacuum? Yes, by adding a constant to $H$. So Lorentz symmetry is not broken here.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            That makes so much sense!
            $endgroup$
            – LucashWindowWasher
            2 hours ago














          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          No, Lorentz symmetry is not broken if SUSY is broken. All you have to do is add a constant to the energy; then the four-momentum of the vacuum is zero, as it must be. This is a completely standard thing to do. For instance, it's how we subtract out the divergent vacuum energy contribution around the second week of a first quantum field theory course.



          I can hear you complaining that this messes up the SUSY algebra since ${Q, Q} sim H$, but who cares? The fact that SUSY is broken means there does not exist a set of operators satisfying the SUSY algebra and annihilating the vacuum. Now forget about SUSY; does there exist a set of operators satisfying the Poincare algebra and annihilating the vacuum? Yes, by adding a constant to $H$. So Lorentz symmetry is not broken here.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          No, Lorentz symmetry is not broken if SUSY is broken. All you have to do is add a constant to the energy; then the four-momentum of the vacuum is zero, as it must be. This is a completely standard thing to do. For instance, it's how we subtract out the divergent vacuum energy contribution around the second week of a first quantum field theory course.



          I can hear you complaining that this messes up the SUSY algebra since ${Q, Q} sim H$, but who cares? The fact that SUSY is broken means there does not exist a set of operators satisfying the SUSY algebra and annihilating the vacuum. Now forget about SUSY; does there exist a set of operators satisfying the Poincare algebra and annihilating the vacuum? Yes, by adding a constant to $H$. So Lorentz symmetry is not broken here.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 3 hours ago









          knzhouknzhou

          46.2k11124222




          46.2k11124222












          • $begingroup$
            That makes so much sense!
            $endgroup$
            – LucashWindowWasher
            2 hours ago


















          • $begingroup$
            That makes so much sense!
            $endgroup$
            – LucashWindowWasher
            2 hours ago
















          $begingroup$
          That makes so much sense!
          $endgroup$
          – LucashWindowWasher
          2 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          That makes so much sense!
          $endgroup$
          – LucashWindowWasher
          2 hours ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470609%2fis-lorentz-symmetry-broken-if-susy-is-broken%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Ponta tanko

          Tantalo (mitologio)

          Erzsébet Schaár