Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

(propose a free ad)

If you have a lagrangian for chiral superfields in 4 dimensions which is also invariant under SU(N) and you try to gauge the symmetry , You introduce a connection $\Gamma$ so as to make $\Phi^{\dagger}\Gamma \Phi$ gauge invariant under super gauge transformation. If $\Gamma$ is hermitian , you have introduced vector superfields into the lagrangian coupled with the chiral superfields. Now why don't we consider cases in which $\Gamma$ is not hermitian ?

Hopefully this comment isn't nonsense and/or unrelated. There is a theory called $\mathcal{N}=1^{*}$ which is a massive deformation of $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM in four-dimensions where you give a mass $M$ to the three chiral superfields $\Phi_{i}$ with $i=1,2,3$. And indeed, you consider terms in the Lagrangian like $M \Phi^{\dagger} \Phi$. You really want $M \in \mathbb{C}$ in general as opposed to $M \in \mathbb{R}$. And in some contexts, this inspires one to consider not merely Hermitian matrix models, but actually holomorphic matrix models. So I think you probably would want to consider more general $\Gamma$ in your case. Sorry this isn't too concrete; just a thought.

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required