Spectral Pairing, Ground States, and Supersymmetry Breaking
Every isolated positive-energy eigenspace of a supersymmetric Hamiltonian has equal even and odd multiplicity because the normalized maps and are inverse isometries there. Zero energy is exceptional: its even states lie in , its odd states in , and normalizability plus the operator domain decide whether either kernel contains a physical state. Supersymmetry is unbroken when at least one normalized zero-energy state exists; a vanishing difference of the two kernel dimensions does not decide the question.
Required background. Supercharges, partner Hamiltonians, and positive energy fixes the grading, normalization, and domains used below. Helpful background. Vacua, states, and representations distinguishes a normalizable vacuum vector from a formal wavefunction or a spectral threshold.
The positive-energy pairing theorem
Section titled “The positive-energy pairing theorem”Let be densely defined and closed, and let
Suppose is an eigenvalue and obeys . Then , because otherwise . Moreover,
This equation is legitimate on the stated domains: implies , and implies . Its norm is
Consequently
is an isometry. The inverse is , because and on the respective eigenspaces. Hence the two eigenspaces have the same dimension, including degeneracy. This is the domain-complete version of the familiar partner-potential argument Cooper, Khare, and Sukhatme 1995, §2, pp. 13–16 in the open version.
For continuous spectrum, generalized eigenfunctions can obey analogous intertwining relations, but they are not Hilbert-space vectors. The correct global statement uses the polar decomposition : away from zero, the partial isometry identifies the positive spectral subspaces. Threshold states, scattering normalization, and trace regularization require the separate analysis on the continuum and boundary page.
Zero energy and the supercharge kernels
Section titled “Zero energy and the supercharge kernels”At zero energy the normalization is unavailable. Positivity instead gives
Indeed, , and similarly in the odd sector. A normalized vector in either kernel is annihilated by both Hermitian supercharges and is therefore a supersymmetric ground state.
Three situations must be kept separate:
| Spectrum near zero | Normalized zero mode? | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Discrete, with | Yes | Supersymmetry is unbroken. |
| Discrete, with | No | Supersymmetry is spontaneously broken; the ground states occur in positive-energy pairs. |
| but zero is only continuous spectrum | No Hilbert-space vector | There is no normalizable supersymmetric vacuum. An infrared regulator and a specified representation are needed before importing finite-volume breaking language. |
The last line is why “the energy can approach zero” is not equivalent to “there is a zero-energy state.”
Solving the first-order equations
Section titled “Solving the first-order equations”For the one-dimensional realization
let . The zero-mode equations integrate exactly:
These are candidate states. A physical zero mode must also belong to , satisfy all boundary conditions, and lie in the chosen operator domain. On the full line:
- if at both ends fast enough, the even candidate is normalizable and the odd one is not;
- if at both ends fast enough, the odd candidate is normalizable and the even one is not;
- if has opposite signs at the two ends, neither exponential is normalizable.
“Fast enough” is essential. If , square-integrability depends on , not only on the sign. Singular points and finite endpoints likewise require the actual self-adjoint boundary condition. The first-order test and its relation to broken and unbroken supersymmetry are developed explicitly in Cooper, Khare, and Sukhatme 1995, §§2.1–2.2, pp. 18–25 in the open version.
Two contrasting superpotentials
Section titled “Two contrasting superpotentials”Linear coefficient: one unpaired vacuum
Section titled “Linear coefficient: one unpaired vacuum”For , tends to at both ends. The normalized even zero mode is
while is not square-integrable. The positive energies are the paired oscillator levels , , and supersymmetry is unbroken.
Even coefficient: no zero mode
Section titled “Even coefficient: no zero mode”Now take
As , ; as , . Therefore diverges at the left end and diverges at the right end. Neither is a state. Yet the partner potentials grow as , so the spectrum is discrete and has a lowest eigenvalue. Positivity and absence of a zero mode force : supersymmetry is broken, and even the lowest level is paired. This normalizability criterion is the one-dimensional mechanism used in Witten 1981, §2, pp. 515–523.
The two zeros of produce semiclassical wells, but local wells do not determine the exact ground-state energy. Tunneling couples their approximate states and removes the would-be zero-energy degeneracy. The Morse and tunneling page explains the geometric version of this mechanism.
What the pairing theorem does not say
Section titled “What the pairing theorem does not say”It does not say that the total dimensions of and are equal. It equates only positive-energy spectral multiplicities under the domain hypotheses.
It does not say that every formal solution of is a vacuum. Normalizability, endpoints, singularities, and self-adjoint extension data are decisive. In singular half-line models, changing the extension can preserve the full two-supercharge algebra, reduce it, or break it Falomir and Pisani 2005, abstract and §§3–4.
It also does not say that zero Witten index means broken supersymmetry. The index is a signed difference of even and odd zero modes; both can be nonzero and cancel. That inference is treated carefully on the Witten-index page.
Check your understanding
Section titled “Check your understanding”Classify the supersymmetric ground states for on , with .
Solution
Here . The even candidate is not normalizable, while the odd candidate is. There is one odd supersymmetric vacuum. This is the sector exchange of the ordinary supersymmetric oscillator; the positive spectrum is unchanged and the signed index changes from to .
References
Section titled “References”- Cooper, Fred, Avinash Khare, and Uday Sukhatme. “Supersymmetry and Quantum Mechanics.” Physics Reports 251, nos. 5–6 (1995): 267–385. doi:10.1016/0370-1573(94)00080-M. Open arXiv version.
- Falomir, H., and P. A. G. Pisani. “Self-Adjoint Extensions and SUSY Breaking in Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics.” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 38, no. 21 (2005): 4665–4683. doi:10.1088/0305-4470/38/21/011. Open arXiv version.
- Witten, Edward. “Dynamical Breaking of Supersymmetry.” Nuclear Physics B 188, no. 3 (1981): 513–554. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90006-7.