Bagger-Lambert Again
I haven’t attempted to post more about Bagger-Lambert Theory, since my earlier post. Every time I think it might be worthwhile to pause and take stock of developments, two or three new papers on the subject appear on the arXivs, and I drop that silly idea.
Still, one thread which got a fair amount of attention was the proposal by three different groups of a whole new class of “Bagger-Lambert” algebras, obtained by relaxing the condition that the bilinear form (the “trace”) on the algebra be positive-definite.
With an indefinite bilinear form, it sure looks like the theory has ghosts. Which, to put it mildly, would not be good. A way around this difficulty was proposed by two other groups: by gauging a certain shift symmetry, one can remove the negative-norm states.
Well, along come Ezhuthachan, Mukhi and Papageorgakis, who point out that the resulting theory is on-shell equivalent to the standard , SYM — that is (for one of the classical gauge groups) to the theory on the world volume of a stack of D2 branes. In this dictionary, there is a scalar field, whose VEV is the Yang-Mills gauge coupling. For any finite value of the VEV of that scalar, the would-be R-symmetry is broken to (as is the superconformal symmetry).
The computation involves a nice application of a nonabelian duality transformation, due to de Wit, Nicolai and Samtleben. Consider
In addition to the usual Yang-Mills gauge transformations, (1) is invariant under a local shift symmetry
Using (2) to gauge away , becomes an ordinary auxiliary field, and (1) is on-shell equivalent to
Now, the observation of Ezhuthachan et al is that looks like an eighth adjoint-valued scalar, to complement the seven already present in SYM. Its coupling to , however, breaks that symmetry. To restore the symmetry, treat as the VEV of another ( vector-valued) scalar, . To ensure that is spatially-constant, they introduce a vector field, (and another scalar, ), with action and local shift symmetry
Putting all the pieces together, they show that this construction yields the gauged version of the “new” Bagger-Lambert actions. Thus, with some particular choice of VEV for , the latter is just on-shell equivalent to standard SYM.
That was fun while it lasted …
Update (6/11/2008):
As Chethan points out in the comments, it’s never a good time to try to write about this stuff.In Monday’s listings, a paper by Aharony et al appeared. They couple the standard supersymmetric Chern-Simons theory1 to matter. For a particular choice of gauge group — or , with Chern-Simons levels — and matter representations — chiral multiplets and , — they show that the resulting theory has an enhanced supersymmetry. The symmetry is enhanced to and , under which the scalars transform as a . In the particular case when the gauge group is , the is a real representation, and the is enhanced to an .
For higher , they argue that the theory (with superconformal invariance) is the correct description of M2-branes transverse to a orbifold. There is much here that bears further discussion. Perhaps fodder for another post …
1 The supersymmetric Chern-Simons action is
in Wess-Zumino gauge. Here and are scalar fields, and is a Dirac fermion, all in the adjoint. The Chern-Simons action contains an additional chiral multiplet, , in the adjoint
We can couple matter chiral multiplet(s), in representation , to (3) To get supersymmetry, the matter , and the action
Re: Bagger-Lambert Again
So what is the lesson to be learned here? Just a weird reformulation of something known, or a reformulation of intrinsic value?