Is Lorentz symmetry broken if SUSY is broken?Multiple vacua vs. vev's in qftIs broken supersymmetry compatible with a small cosmological constant?Why must SUSY be broken?Lorentz transformation of the vacuum stateSupersymmetric background and fermion variationsVacuum energy and supersymmetryCan Poincare representations be embedded in non-standard Lorentz representations?What does soft symmetry breaking physically mean?SUSY vacuum has 0 energy?What does Lorentz index structure say about a full-fledged correlator?

What is the intuition behind short exact sequences of groups; in particular, what is the intuition behind group extensions?

Can one be a co-translator of a book, if he does not know the language that the book is translated into?

Has there ever been an airliner design involving reducing generator load by installing solar panels?

Why is the 'in' operator throwing an error with a string literal instead of logging false?

A reference to a well-known characterization of scattered compact spaces

Theorems that impeded progress

Twin primes whose sum is a cube

What is going on with Captain Marvel's blood colour?

Emailing HOD to enhance faculty application

Why are electrically insulating heatsinks so rare? Is it just cost?

How to prevent "they're falling in love" trope

Is it possible to run Internet Explorer on OS X El Capitan?

Alternative to sending password over mail?

AES: Why is it a good practice to use only the first 16bytes of a hash for encryption?

Assassin's bullet with mercury

How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?

Can I use a neutral wire from another outlet to repair a broken neutral?

Arrow those variables!

Why is Collection not simply treated as Collection<?>

Why is consensus so controversial in Britain?

Can a virus destroy the BIOS of a modern computer?

How can I tell someone that I want to be his or her friend?

Fully-Firstable Anagram Sets

Can I ask the recruiters in my resume to put the reason why I am rejected?



Is Lorentz symmetry broken if SUSY is broken?


Multiple vacua vs. vev's in qftIs broken supersymmetry compatible with a small cosmological constant?Why must SUSY be broken?Lorentz transformation of the vacuum stateSupersymmetric background and fermion variationsVacuum energy and supersymmetryCan Poincare representations be embedded in non-standard Lorentz representations?What does soft symmetry breaking physically mean?SUSY vacuum has 0 energy?What does Lorentz index structure say about a full-fledged correlator?













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



$$P^mu|Omegarangle=p^0delta^mu_0|Omegarangle$$



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:



$$P^muU(Lambda)|Omegarangle=(Lambda^-1)^mu_0p^0U(Lambda)|Omegarangle$$



Since $U(Lambda)P^muU^-1(Lambda)=Lambda^mu_nuP^nu$.



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



    $$P^mu|Omegarangle=p^0delta^mu_0|Omegarangle$$



    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:



    $$P^muU(Lambda)|Omegarangle=(Lambda^-1)^mu_0p^0U(Lambda)|Omegarangle$$



    Since $U(Lambda)P^muU^-1(Lambda)=Lambda^mu_nuP^nu$.



    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



      $$P^mu|Omegarangle=p^0delta^mu_0|Omegarangle$$



      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:



      $$P^muU(Lambda)|Omegarangle=(Lambda^-1)^mu_0p^0U(Lambda)|Omegarangle$$



      Since $U(Lambda)P^muU^-1(Lambda)=Lambda^mu_nuP^nu$.



      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



      $$P^mu|Omegarangle=p^0delta^mu_0|Omegarangle$$



      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:



      $$P^muU(Lambda)|Omegarangle=(Lambda^-1)^mu_0p^0U(Lambda)|Omegarangle$$



      Since $U(Lambda)P^muU^-1(Lambda)=Lambda^mu_nuP^nu$.



      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 3 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
            1 hour 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
            1 hour 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
            1 hour 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

          46.1k11124222




          46.1k11124222











          • $begingroup$
            That makes so much sense!
            $endgroup$
            – LucashWindowWasher
            1 hour ago
















          • $begingroup$
            That makes so much sense!
            $endgroup$
            – LucashWindowWasher
            1 hour ago















          $begingroup$
          That makes so much sense!
          $endgroup$
          – LucashWindowWasher
          1 hour ago




          $begingroup$
          That makes so much sense!
          $endgroup$
          – LucashWindowWasher
          1 hour 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

          名間水力發電廠 目录 沿革 設施 鄰近設施 註釋 外部連結 导航菜单23°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.7113923°50′10″N 120°42′41″E / 23.83611°N 120.71139°E / 23.83611; 120.71139計畫概要原始内容臺灣第一座BOT 模式開發的水力發電廠-名間水力電廠名間水力發電廠 水利署首件BOT案原始内容《小檔案》名間電廠 首座BOT水力發電廠原始内容名間電廠BOT - 經濟部水利署中區水資源局

          Prove that NP is closed under karp reduction?Space(n) not closed under Karp reductions - what about NTime(n)?Class P is closed under rotation?Prove or disprove that $NL$ is closed under polynomial many-one reductions$mathbfNC_2$ is closed under log-space reductionOn Karp reductionwhen can I know if a class (complexity) is closed under reduction (cook/karp)Check if class $PSPACE$ is closed under polyonomially space reductionIs NPSPACE also closed under polynomial-time reduction and under log-space reduction?Prove PSPACE is closed under complement?Prove PSPACE is closed under union?

          Is my guitar’s action too high? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Strings too stiff on a recently purchased acoustic guitar | Cort AD880CEIs the action of my guitar really high?Μy little finger is too weak to play guitarWith guitar, how long should I give my fingers to strengthen / callous?When playing a fret the guitar sounds mutedPlaying (Barre) chords up the guitar neckI think my guitar strings are wound too tight and I can't play barre chordsF barre chord on an SG guitarHow to find to the right strings of a barre chord by feel?High action on higher fret on my steel acoustic guitar