3
$\begingroup$

We know the supersymmetry (SUSY) charge $Q$ satisfies the following relation respect to fermion parity operator $(-1)^F$: $$ (-1)^F Q + Q (-1)^F :=\{Q, (-1)^F \} =0 $$ which defines the anti-commutator to be zero.

The requirement of SUSY charge $Q$ includes that

  1. $Q$ is a Hermitian operator.

  2. $[Q,H]=0$, $Q$ commutes with the Hamiltonian $H$ operator. $H$ is also Hermitian.

  3. $Q^2$ is bounded from below. (Usually proportional to the Hamiltonian $H$ operator.)

Usually, in the literature, $Q$ is a linear and unitary operator. But can we have $Q$ to be instead antilinear and antiunitary?

My question is about the following, can we introduce a (new) SUSY charge called $Q'$ satisfy the additional less-common properties (other than satisfying the previous common properties mentioned above):

  1. $Q'$ is an antilinear operator.

  2. $Q'$ is an antiunitary operator.

Note that the (Hermitian) adjoint of the $Q'$ is also an antilinear and antiunitary operator. In fact, the (Hermitian) adjoint of the $Q'$ can be made to be the same $Q'$; thus $Q'$ can be regarded as Hermitian, or $Q'=Q'^\dagger$. See for example: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/45227/12813.

Also, the product of two antilinear and antiunitary operators $Q'^2$ become a linear and unitary operator. Such as the complex conjugation (antilinear and antiunitary) $K$, whose square $K^2=+1$ is an identity (linear and unitary). Thus obeying conditions 4. and 5., do not seem to conflict with conditions 1.2.3. earlier.

Also, are there existing or previous literature introducing SUSY charge $Q'$ to be also antilinear and antiunitary?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

Suppose you are given a super Hilbert space $\mathcal{H} = \mathcal{H}_0 \oplus \mathcal{H}_1$, with bosonic and fermionic subspaces $\mathcal{H}_0$ and $\mathcal{H}_1$ respectively. Define a new super Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}' = \mathcal{H}_0 \oplus \overline{\mathcal{H}_1}$, where you have complex-conjugated the fermionic subspace but left the bosonic subspace intact. The space of even unitary operators on $\mathcal{H}$ is $U_0(\mathcal{H}) = U(\mathcal{H}_0) \times U(\mathcal{H}_1) \cong U(\mathcal{H}_0) \times U(\overline{\mathcal{H}_1}) = U_0(\mathcal{H}')$. But an odd operator on $\mathcal{H}$ takes $\mathcal{H}_0$ to $\mathcal{H}_1$. As a result, the odd linear operators on $\mathcal{H}$ are the same as odd antilinear operators on $\mathcal{H}'$, and vice versa.

As a result, your "antilinear susy algebra" has the same representation theory as the usual linear susy algebra. There is no benefit to making the change that you suggest, no new examples, and only an emotional cost that you have to handle nonlinear operators.


I remark that $Q^2 \propto \hat H$ is never unitary in examples: it is an unbounded self-adjoint operator, with spectrum bounded below (as you say). Similarly, $Q$ is never (anti)unitary. Rather, the supersymmetry operator $Q$ should be required to be an (unbounded) odd self-adjoint operator. There are various equally-valid conventions for the meaning of "odd self-adjoint", and they affect the proportionality constant in the expectation that $Q^2 \propto \hat H$. The issue is the following conflict. We expect that the Jordan product, and in particular the square, of self adjoint operators is self-adjoint. But we also expect that the Lie product of self-adjoint operators is skew-adjoint. Well, is $Q^2$ the Jordan product of $Q$ with itself (as it would be in the even case) or the Lie product (since $[Q,Q] = QQ - (-1)^{|Q||Q|} QQ$)? For further details of the different possible conventions, I recommend Section 23 of Greg Moore's notes on Linear Algebra.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I had voted up -- can you clarify the opening question remark you made: "But we also expect that the Lie product of self-adjoint operators is skew-adjoint. Well, is $Q^2$ the Jordan product of $Q$ with itself (as it would be in the even case) or the Lie product (since $[Q,Q] = QQ - (-1)^{|Q||Q|} QQ$)? " What follows next? $\endgroup$
    – wonderich
    Commented Sep 22, 2020 at 4:28
  • $\begingroup$ @wonderich I meant the following. If you are a category theorist, then the thing that would seem most natural to you is to think of $Q^2 = \frac12[Q,Q]$ as the Lie product. The Lie product of self-adjoint operators is skew-adjoint, and $Q$ was supposed to be self-adjoint, so we should have an equation like $Q^2 = \sqrt{-1} \hat{H}$. But a physicist might prefer to work with underlying vector spaces of a super vector space. In terms of underlying vector spaces, $Q^2$ is the Jordan product. The result is that the category theorist and the physicist will adopt different conventions about ... $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 22, 2020 at 15:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ... the meaning of "odd self-adjoint operator". The conventions will be intertwined by multiplying odd operators by an 8th root of unity. Actually, you can see the convention question really early. What is the symmetry law for the Hilbert pairing? I.e. if $v,w \in \mathcal{H}$ are homogeneous odd elements, do we have $\langle w, v\rangle = (\pm1) \overline{\langle v, w\rangle}$? A category theorist would say $(-1)$, but a physicist might say $+1$. In particular, a category theorist would commit to deciding that for $v$ a homogeneous odd element, $\|v\| = \langle v, v\rangle$ is pure-imaginary! $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 22, 2020 at 15:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Again this is no fundamental difference: the two conventions are intertwined by multiplying $\langle v, w\rangle$ by $i^{|v|}$. (But be a bit careful with the Hilbert pairing on a tensor product of super Hilbert spaces!) These decisions propagate along. For example, the "spectrum" of an odd operator is a funny thing, because the eigenvectors are inhomogeneous, and so not something a category theorist can talk about directly. The category theorist chose her sign conventions so that some things would be clean, and the cost is that the spectrum of $Q$ is dirty: it is in $\sqrt[4]{-1}\mathbb{R}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 22, 2020 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks so much. Is your Lie product exactly the same or some special case o the Lie superalgebra's super bracket? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_superalgebra#Definition $\endgroup$
    – wonderich
    Commented Sep 24, 2020 at 1:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .