# Supersymmetric duality in superloop space

- 458 Downloads
- 2 Citations

## Abstract

In this paper we constructed superloop space duality for a four dimensional supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory with \(\mathcal {N} =1\) supersymmetry. This duality reduces to the ordinary loop space duality for the ordinary Yang–Mills theory. It also reduces to the Hodge duality for an abelian gauge theory. Furthermore, the electric charges, which are the sources in the original theory, appear as monopoles in the dual theory. Whereas, the magnetic charges, which appear as monopoles in the original theory, become sources in the dual theory.

## Keywords

Gauge Theory Wilson Loop Dual Theory Bianchi Identity Loop Space## 1 Introduction

An important concept in the electromagnetism is the existence of the Hodge duality. The symmetry and topological concepts inherent in field theories have been analysed using this duality [1, 2, 3, 4]. In fact, this duality has been thoroughly studied and many interesting physical consequences arising from this duality have also been analysed [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. It is known that electrodynamics is dual under Hodge star operation, \(^*F_{\mu \nu }= -\epsilon _{\mu \nu \tau \rho }F^{\mu \nu }/2 \). This is because the field tensor for pure electrodynamics, \(F_{\mu \nu } = \partial _\nu A_\mu - \partial _\mu A_\nu \), satisfies, \(\partial ^\nu F_{\mu \nu } =0 \). This field tensor also satisfies the Bianchi identity, \({\partial ^\nu }^* F_{\mu \nu } =0 \). This field equation for pure electrodynamics can be interpreted as the Bianchi identity for \(^*F_{\mu \nu }\), because the Hodge star operation is reflexive, \(^*(^*F_{\mu \nu }) = -F_{\mu \nu }\). So, we can express \(^* F_{\mu \nu }\), in terms of a dual potential, \(\tilde{A}\), such that \(^* F_{\mu \nu } = \partial _\nu \tilde{A}_\mu - \partial _\mu \tilde{A}_\nu \). It has also been known that the existence of magnetic monopoles is equivalent to (electric) charge quantization which in turn is equivalent to the electromagnetic gauge group being compact (i. e. *U*(1)) [14]. However, a non-abelian version of this duality and its consequences for non-abelian monopoles can only be analysed in the framework of loop space [15, 16].

For Yang–Mills theory, the field tensor, \(F_{\mu \nu } = \partial _\nu A_\mu - \partial _\mu A_\nu + ig [A_\mu , A_\nu ]\), again satisfies, \(D^\nu F_{\mu \nu } =0 \), where \(D_\mu = \partial _\mu - ig A_{\mu }\) is the covariant derivative. It also satisfies the Bianchi identity, \({D^\nu }^* F_{\mu \nu } =0 \). However, now this does not imply the existence of a dual potential because the covariant derivative in the Bianchi identity involves the potential \(A_\mu \) and not some dual potential \(\tilde{A}_\mu \), appropriate to \(^* F_{\mu \nu } =0 \). In fact, it has been demonstrated that in certain cases no such solution for such a dual potential exist even for the ordinary Yang–Mills theory [15, 16]. Thus, the Yang–Mills theory is not dual under the Hodge star operation. However, it is possible to construct a generalized duality transformation for the ordinary Yang–Mills theory in the loop space, such that for the abelian case, it reduces to the Hodge star operation [17, 18].

This duality has been used for studding ’t Hooft’s order-disorder parameters [19]. For any two spatial loops *C* and \(C'\) with the linking number *n* between them, and the gauge symmetry generated by the gauge group *su*(*N*), the order-disorder parameters satisfy, \(A(C) B(C') = B(C') A(C) exp (2\pi in/N)\). The magnetic flux through *C* is measured by *A*(*C*). So, it also creates an electric flux along *C* and is thus expressed in terms of the potential \(A_\mu \). However, *B*(*C*) measures the electric flux through *C*, and thus creates magnetic flux along *C*. So, it can only be expressed in terms of the dual potential \(\tilde{A}_\mu \) [20, 21]. A Dualized Standard Model has also been constructed using this duality [20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. In the Standard Model the fermions of the same type but different generations have widely different masses. The CKM matrix is also not an identity matrix and the off-diagonal elements of the CKM matrix vary in different magnitude [27]. These facts can be explained using the Dualized Standard Model [28, 29]. In fact, even the Neutrino oscillations [30], and the Lepton transmutations [31], have been studied in the Dualized Standard Model. Polyakov loops have been used for deriving this duality in non-abelian gauge theories [32]. In mathematical language Polyakov loops are the holonomies of closed loops in space-time. In fact, in the physics literature they are called Dirac phase factors. Even though they are defined via parameterized loops in space-time, they are independent of the parameterization chosen. They are gauge group-valued functions of the infinite-dimensional loop space. The main difference between a Polyakov loop and a Wilson loop is that in the Wilson loop a trace is taken and no such trace is taken in the Polyakov loop [32]. Thus, the Polyakov loops are by definition elements of the gauge group. It may be noted that Wilsons loops for super-Yang–Mills theory with \(\mathcal {N} =4\) supersymmetry has also been constructed in superspace formalism [33]. The Polyakov loops for three and four dimensional supersymmetric Yang–Mills theories with \(\mathcal {N} =1\) supersymmetry have also been studied [34, 35]. In this paper we will derive a supersymmetric duality for the four dimensional supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory in the Wess–Zumino gauge.

## 2 Superloop space

*C*,

*s*increasing from right to left and the derivative in

*s*is taken from below. This loop space variable is a scalar superfield from the supersymmetric point of view, and can be projected to component superloops. In particular, we have \([\Phi [\xi ]]_| = \phi [\xi ]\), which in Wess–Zumino gauge is given by

*s*and then turn backwards along the same path. Thus, the phase factor for the segment of the superloop beyond

*s*did not contribute and \(H^{AB}(\xi (s) )\) was obtained because of the infinitesimal circuit generated at

*s*.

*s*and is therefore a segmental variable rather than a full loop variable. However, when this segment shrinks to a point, we have \(E^A [\xi |s] \rightarrow H^{AB} (\xi (s)) d \xi _B (s) /d s\). This limit has to be taken only after all the loop operations such as loop differentiation has been performed. This is because all these loop operations require a segment of the loop on which they can operate. Now we can define a functional curl and a functional divergence for \(E_A [\xi |s]\) as

## 3 Duality

*t*, and \( \eta (t) = (\sigma ^\mu \eta _\mu (t))^{a\dot{a}} \theta _{a}\theta _{\dot{a}} + \eta ^a(t) \theta _a + \eta (t)^{\dot{a}} \theta _{\dot{a}}\). We have used a different labels for the parameters of the superloop space, i.e.,

*t*and \(\eta (t)\) instead of

*s*and \(\xi (s)\) to distinguish the parameters that parameterizing the dual superloop space from the parameters that parameterizing the original superloop space. So, the parameters

*t*and \(\eta (t)\) parameterizing the dual superloop space and the parameters

*s*and \(\xi (s)\) parameterizing the original superloop space. This dual variable is constructed as follows,

*N*is a normalization constant. In the tensor \(\epsilon ^{ABCD}\), the variables

*A*,

*B*,

*C*,

*D*take all the possible spinor values i.e., \(A = (a\dot{a}, a, \dot{a}), B = (b\dot{b}, b, \dot{b}), C = (c\dot{c}, c, \dot{c}), D = (d\dot{d}, d, \dot{d})\). Here \( \omega [\eta (t) ] \) is a local rotational matrix which accounts for transforming the quantities from a direct frame to the dual frame. In the integral \(E_C [\xi |s]\) depends on a little segment from \(s_-\) to \(s_+\), such that the limit \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0\) is taken only after integration, where \(\epsilon = s_+ - s_- \). As we may need to calculate the loop derivative of \(\tilde{E}^A [ \eta |t]\), so we regard \(\tilde{E}^A [ \eta |t]\) as a segmental quantity depending on a segment from \(t_-\) to \(t_+\) and only after differentiation the limit \(\epsilon ' \rightarrow 0\) is taken, where \(\epsilon ' = t_+ -t_-\). This limit is taken before the limit \(\epsilon \rightarrow 0\) for the integral. Thus, we can take \(\epsilon ' < \epsilon \), and the \(\delta \)-function now ensures that \(\xi (s)\) coincides from \(s = t_-\) to \(s = t_+\) with \( \eta (t)\). After the limit is taken and the segment shrinks to a point, we have \(E^A [\eta |t] \rightarrow \tilde{H}^{AB} (\eta (t)) d \eta _B (t) /d t\). Here \(\tilde{H}^{AB}\) can be constructed from a dual potential. Thus, this superloop space duality implies the existence of a dual potential \(\tilde{\Gamma }_A = (\tilde{\Gamma }_{a\dot{a}},\tilde{\Gamma }_a, \tilde{\Gamma }_{\dot{a}})\), such that \( [\tilde{\nabla }_A, \tilde{\nabla }_B \} = \tilde{H}_{AB} \) where \( \tilde{\nabla }_A = D_A - i \tilde{\Gamma }_A\).

## 4 Sources and monopoles

*u*. Now we define \(A^A [\zeta (u) ]\) as

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper we have analysed a four dimensional pure Yang–Mills theory with \(\mathcal {N} =1\) supersymmetry in superloop space formalism. We have constructed a generalized duality in superloop space, for this theory. Under this generalized duality transformation the electric charges which appear as sources in the original theory become monopoles in the dual theory. Furthermore, the magnetic charges which appear monopoles in the original theory become sources in the dual theory. This duality reduces to the ordinary loop space duality for ordinary Yang–Mills theory. As the loop space duality for ordinary Yang–Mills theory reduces to the Hodge star operation in the abelian case, so, this generalized duality transformation also reduces to the Hodge star operation for ordinary electrodynamics.

It may be noted that the existence of a duality for ordinary Yang–Mills theory has many interesting physical consequences [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29]. It will be interesting to construct a supersymmetric version of these results using the results of this paper. Thus, the results of this paper can be used to construct a supersymmetric Dualized Standard Model. It will also be interesting to analyse the phenomenological consequences of this model. The supersymmetric Standard Model contains a supersymmetric matter action coupled to the supersymmetric gauge theory. Thus, we will need to couple a supersymmetric matter action to the supersymmetric gauge theory, and then use this formalism to construct a supersymmetric Dualized Standard Model. In particular, we expect to have a dual symmetry corresponding to the super-gauge symmetries of the supersymmetric Standard Model. It will also be interesting to generalize the results of this paper to theories with greater amount of supersymmetry. The results obtained in this paper can also be used for analysing monopoles in the ABJM theory [37]. It may be noted that the supersymmetry of the ABJM theory is expected to get enhanced because of monopole operators [38, 39]. Thus, the formalism developed in this paper could find application in the supersymmetry enhancement of the ABJM theory.

## References

- 1.T.T. Wu, C.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D
**14**, 437 (1976)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 2.C. Montonen, D. Olive, Phys. Lett. B
**72**, 117 (1977)Google Scholar - 3.M. Halpern, Nucl. Phys. B
**139**, 477 (1978)CrossRefADSMATHGoogle Scholar - 4.S. Deser, J. Phys, Math. Gen. A
**15**, 1053 (1982)Google Scholar - 5.S. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. B
**343**, 167 (1990)MathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 6.C.G. Callan, J.A. Harvey, A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. B
**359**, 611 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefADSMATHGoogle Scholar - 7.M.J. Duff, J.X. Lu, Nucl. Phys. B
**354**, 129 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefADSMATHGoogle Scholar - 8.M.J. Duff, J.X. Lu, Nucl. Phys. B
**357**, 534 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefADSMATHGoogle Scholar - 9.E. Alvarez, L.A. Gaume, Y. Lozano, Nucl. Phys. B
**424**, 155 (1994)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 10.J.H. Schwarz, A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B
**411**, 35 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefADSMATHGoogle Scholar - 11.D.H. Delphenich, Ann. Phys.
**14**, 347 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 12.D.C. Rodrigues, C. Wotzasek, Phys. Rev. D
**74**, 085027 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 13.A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B
**404**, 109 (1993)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 14.P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. Lond.
**A133**, 60 (1931)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 15.C.H. Gu, C.N. Yang, Sci. Sin.
**28**, 483 (1975)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar - 16.C.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D
**1**, 2360 (1970)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 17.H.M. Chan, J. Faridani, S.T. Tsou, Phys. Rev. D
**52**, 6134 (1995)MathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 18.H.M. Chan, J. Faridani, S.T. Tsou, Phys. Rev. D
**53**, 7293 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 19.G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B
**138**, 1 (1978)Google Scholar - 20.H.M. Chan, S.T. Tsou, Phys. Rev. D
**57**, 2507 (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar - 21.H.M. Chan, S.T. Tsou, Phys. Rev. D
**56**, 3646 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefADSMATHGoogle Scholar - 22.H.M. Chan, S.T. Tsou, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A
**14**, 2173 (1999)Google Scholar - 23.H.M. Chan, S.T. Tsou, Acta Phys. Pol. B
**28**, 3027 (1997)Google Scholar - 24.H.M. Chan, S.T. Tsou, Acta Phys. Pol. B
**33**, 4041 (2002)Google Scholar - 25.H.M. Chan, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A
**16**, 163 (2001)ADSMATHGoogle Scholar - 26.H.M. Chan, S.T. Tsou, Acta Phys. Pol. B
**28**, 3041 (1997)Google Scholar - 27.M. Kobayashi, T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys.
**49**, 652 (1973)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 28.J. Bordes, H.M. Chan, J. Faridani, J. Pfaudler, S.T. Tsou, Phys. Rev. D
**58**, 013004 (1998)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 29.J. Bordes, H.M. Chan, J. Faridani, J. Pfaudler, S.T. Tsou, Phys. Rev. D
**60**, 013005 (1999)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 30.J. Bordes, H.M. Chan, J. Pfaudler, S.T. Tsou, Phys. Rev. D
**58**, 053003 (1998)CrossRefADSMATHGoogle Scholar - 31.J. Bordes, H.M. Chan, S.T. Tsou, Phys. Rev. D
**65**, 093006 (2002)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 32.A.M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys.
**164**, 171 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefADSMATHGoogle Scholar - 33.N. Beisert, S. He, B.U.W. Schwab, C. Vergu, J. Phys. A
**45**, 265402 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 34.M. Faizal, Eur. Phys. Lett.
**103**, 21003 (2013)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 35.M. Faizal, S.T. Tsou, Eur. Phys. Lett.
**107**, 20008 (2014)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 36.S.J. Gates, M.T. Grisaru, M. Rocek, W. Siegel, Front. Phys.
**58**, 1 (1983)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar - 37.O. Aharony, O. Bergman, D.L. Jafferis, J. Maldacena, JHEP
**0810**, 091 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 38.O.K. Kwon, P. Oh, J. Sohn, JHEP
**0908**, 093 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar - 39.A. Gustavsson, JHEP
**1101**, 037 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

**Open Access**This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Funded by SCOAP^{3}