# Does 4D N = 3 supersymmetry exist?

Steven Weinberg's book "The Quantum Theory of Fields", volume 3, page 46 gives the following argument against N = 3 supersymmetry:

"For global N = 4 supersymmetry there is just one supermultiplet ... This is equivalent to the global supersymmetry theory with N = 3, which has two supermultiplets: 1 supermultiplet... and the other the CPT conjugate supermultiplet... Adding the numbers of particles of each helicity in these two N = 3 supermultiplets gives the same particle content as for N = 4 global supersymmetry"

However, this doesn't directly imply (as far as I can tell) that there is no N = 3 QFT. Such a QFT would have the particle content of N = 4 super-Yang-Mills but it wouldn't have the same symmetry. Is such a QFT known? If not, is it possible to prove it doesn't exist? I guess it might be possible to examine all possible Lagrangians that would give this particle content and show none of them has N = 3 (but not N = 4) supersymmetry. However, is it possible to give a more fundumental argument, relying only on general principles such as Lorentz invariance, cluster decomposition etc. that would rule out such a model?

-

Although you do not say this explicitly, your question is about four-dimensional Poincaré supersymemtry.  Certainly in three-dimensions, there are $N=3$ theories. – José Figueroa-O'Farrill Sep 16 '11 at 18:45
Of course. I changed the title to make it more precise – Squark Sep 18 '11 at 18:38
– Yuji Oct 5 '11 at 2:51
@Yuji--- It's N=4 on shell. – Ron Maimon Oct 7 '11 at 5:11

## 2 Answers

Depending on what you mean by "exist", the answer to your question is Yes.

There is an $N=3$ Poincaré supersymmetry algebra, and there are field-theoretic realisations. In particular there is a four-dimensional $N=3$ supergravity theory. A good modern reference for the diverse flavours of supergravity theories is Toine Van Proeyen's Structure of Supergravity Theories.

Added

Weinberg's argument is essentially the following observation. Take a massless unitary representation of the $N=3$ Poincaré superalgebra with helicity $|\lambda|\leq 1$. This representation is not stable under CPT, so the CPT theorem says that to realise that in a supersymmetric quantum field theory, you have to add the CPT-conjugate representation. Once you do that, though, the $\oplus$ representation admits in fact an action of the $N=4$ Poincaré superalgebra.

The reason the supergravity theory exists (and is different from $N=4$ supergravity) is that the $N=3$ gravity multiplet, which is a massless helicity $|\lambda|=2$ unitary representation, is already CPT-self-conjugate.

-
OK, although I think that strictly speaking supergravity is not a QFT since a consistent quantization of a gravitational theory presumably requires something else than a QFT, namely superstring theory – Squark Sep 17 '11 at 18:07

1
Yes, I agree. But Weinberg's argument is purely kinematical. It's a property of the unitary representation theory of the $N=3$ Poincaré superalgebra with the additional requirement of CPT invariance. – José Figueroa-O'Farrill Sep 17 '11 at 18:26
– José Figueroa-O'Farrill Sep 17 '11 at 18:29
I feel that there are deep reasons that no QFT can be a theory of gravity (except in the holographic sense), but it is different subject. I still don't know the answer to my original question, namely is there an (honest, non-gravitational) QFT in 4D with N = 3 supersymmetry? – Squark Sep 18 '11 at 18:40
I'm accepting the answer since although quantum gravity is not a QFT, the existence of N=3 quantum gravity probably rules out the possibility for a no-go theorem along the lines of basic principles (since most of them aren't violated by gravity and the principle that is violated - locality - is only violated in a rather subtle way). – Squark Nov 12 '11 at 14:15
show 2 more comments

The discussion on pages 168-173 in Weinberg vol III looks to exclude rigid $N=3$ supersymmetric QFTs in 4d, at least those which are renormalisable and with a lagrangian description.

The first step is to note that, in order to identify the CPT-self-conjugate $N=4$ supermultiplet with the $N=3$ supermultiplet plus its CPT-conjugate, one must assume that all fields in both supermultiplets are valued in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. In $N=1$ language, the basic constituents in both supermultiplets are one gauge and three chiral supermultiplets, all adjoint-valued. The three chiral supermultiplets must transform as a triplet under the ${\mathfrak{su}}(3)$ part of the ${\mathfrak{u}}(3)$ R-symmetry of the $N=3$ superalgebra.

Any renormalisable lagrangian field theory in 4d that has a rigid $N \geq 2$ supersymmetry must take the form given by (27.9.33) in Weinberg. This just corresponds to the generic on-shell coupling of rigid $N=2$ vector and hyper multiplets, with renormalisable $N=2$ superpotential (27.9.29). For $N>2$, vector and hyper multiplets must both transform in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. ($N=2$ requires only that the hypermultiplet transforms in a real representation of the gauge group, i.e. a "non-chiral" representation in $N=1$ language.) Putting in this assumption, the $N>2$ case is easily deduced using Weinberg's analysis below (27.9.34). All terms except those in the last two lines of (27.9.33) assemble into precisely the $N=4$ supersymmetric Yang--Mills lagrangian. The remaining terms in the last two lines of (27.9.33) depend on a matrix $\mu$ which defines the quadratic term in the superpotential. As Weinberg argues, $N=4$ occurs only if these terms all vanish identically (e.g. if $\mu =0$). Whence $N=3$ can occur only if the terms in the last two lines of (27.9.33) are non-vanishing and $N=3$ supersymmetric on their own. This would require them to be invariant under the ${\mathfrak{u}}(3)$ R-symmetry of the $N=3$ superalgebra. However, only two of the three chiral superfields (coming from the hypermultiplet) appear in the $\mu$-dependent terms. Since the three chiral supermultiplets must transform as an ${\mathfrak{su}}(3)$ triplet under the R-symmetry, it is clearly impossible for the last two lines in (27.9.33) to be ${\mathfrak{u}}(3)$-invariant unless they vanish identically. Whence, $N>2$ implies $N=4$ in this context.

-
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 38, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "github"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9124261140823364, "perplexity_flag": "middle"}