Supersymmetric V-systems

Antoniou, Georgios; Feigin, Misha

doi:10.1007/jhep02(2019)115

Cited by 11 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonetheless, targeted observations of relatively rare, low metallicity late-type galaxies (e.g., Basu-Zych et al 2013aDouna et al 2015;Brorby et al 2016;Tzanavaris et al 2016) and early-type galaxies with a range of stellar ages (e.g., Kim & Fabbiano 2010;Lehmer et al 2014), have provided tantalizing evidence of variations in the scaling relations in line with those predicted by population synthesis models. New studies of XRB formation rates within very nearby galaxies (e.g., Magellanic Clouds, M33, M51, NGC 3310, and NGC 2276) have revealed similar variations with physical properties on subgalactic scales (e.g., Antoniou & Zezas 2016;Lehmer et al 2017;Garofali et al 2018;Anastasopoulou et al 2018;Antoniou et al 2019). Furthermore, X-ray stacking analyses of distant galaxy populations in deep Chandra surveys (e.g., the Chandra Deep Fields and Chandra COSMOS surveys) have claimed that there is redshift evolution in the scaling relations, potentially due to the corresponding decline in mean stellar population age and metallicity with look-back time (e.g., Lehmer et al 2007Lehmer et al , 2016Basu-Zych et al 2013b;Kaaret 2014;Aird et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

X-Ray Binary Luminosity Function Scaling Relations for Local Galaxies Based on Subgalactic Modeling

Lehmer

Eufrasio

Tzanavaris

et al. 2019

ApJS

123

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present new Chandra constraints on the X-ray luminosity functions (XLFs) of X-ray binary (XRB) populations, and their scaling relations, for a sample of 38 nearby galaxies (D = 3.4-29 Mpc). Our galaxy sample is drawn primarily from the Spitzer infrared nearby galaxy survey (SINGS), and contains a wealth of Chandra (5.8 Ms total) and multiwavelength data, allowing for star-formation rates (SFRs) and stellar masses (M ⋆ ) to be measured on subgalactic scales. We divided the 2478 X-ray detected sources into 21 subsamples in bins of specific-SFR (sSFR ≡ SFR/M ⋆ ) and constructed XLFs. To model the XLF dependence on sSFR, we fit a global XLF model, containing contributions from high-mass XRBs (HMXBs), low-mass XRBs (LMXBs), and background sources from the cosmic X-ray background (CXB) that respectively scale with SFR, M ⋆ , and sky area. We find an HMXB XLF that is more complex in shape than previously reported and an LMXB XLF that likely varies with sSFR, potentially due to an age dependence. When applying our global model to XLF data for each individual galaxy, we discover a few galaxy XLFs that significantly deviate from our model beyond statistical scatter. Most notably, relatively low-metallicity galaxies have an excess of HMXBs above ≈10 38 erg s −1 and elliptical galaxies that have relatively rich populations of globular clusters (GCs) show excesses of LMXBs compared to the global model. Additional modeling of how the XRB XLF depends on stellar age, metallicity, and GC specific frequency is required to sufficiently characterize the XLFs of galaxies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

X-Ray Binary Luminosity Function Scaling Relations for Local Galaxies Based on Subgalactic Modeling

Lehmer

Eufrasio

Tzanavaris

et al. 2019

ApJS

123

179

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Five functionally independent integrals of motion in involution are given by ( J 2 =2H, J 3 , p ξ , J 2 1 +J 2 3 , J 2 ), an additional integral is still L 2 . Concluding this section, we note that the Schwarzschild profile a 2 = 1 − 2M r of our spherically symmetric background appears to be irrelevant for obtaining the Poisson structure (10) or the su(2) realization (11). Indeed, (6) or (15) may be generalized to a generic static and spherically symmetric metric…”

Section: Spherically Symmetric Backgrounds and Reduced Su(2) Mechanicsmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Although we do not have at hand the explicit canonical transformation generated by a finite analog of (39), it is clear what to start with. For definiteness let us focus on the model (11) and (13) and assume J 2 1 + J 2 2 = 0. One can introduce the conserved rotation matrices…”

Section: Rotating the Reference Framementioning

confidence: 99%

Spinning extensions of D(2, 1; α) superconformal mechanics

Galajinsky

Lechtenfeld

2019

J. High Energ. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As is known, any realization of SU(2) in the phase space of a dynamical system can be generalized to accommodate the exceptional supergroup D(2, 1; α), which is the most general N = 4 supersymmetric extension of the conformal group in one spatial dimension. We construct novel spinning extensions of D(2, 1; α) superconformal mechanics by adjusting the SU(2) generators associated with the relativistic spinning particle coupled to a spherically symmetric Einstein-Maxwell background. The angular sector of the full superconformal system corresponds to the orbital motion of a particle coupled to a symmetric Euler top, which represents the spin degrees of freedom. This particle moves either on the two-sphere, optionally in the external field of a Dirac monopole, or in the SU(2) group manifold. Each case is proven to be superintegrable, and explicit solutions are given.

show abstract

“…The N -extended supersymmetric versions of such systems are addressed in numerous works (see, for example, [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] and the review [11]). Beyond N = 2 however, some difficulties in a direct construction of minimal extensions of n-particle models (with N n fermionic variables) were encountered (see, e.g., [12,13,14]). A different approach was put forward in [15] (see also [16,11]), where N = 1, 2, 4 supersymmetric extensions of the rational Calogero model were derived by a gauging procedure [17,18] applied to matrix superfield systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For a relation to the representations of diverse superalgebras see [32,33]. A restricted set of N = 4 Calogero-Sutherland models with purely quantum potentials was obtained recently in [14] for BC n , F 4 and G 2 root systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supersymmetric hyperbolic Calogero-Sutherland models by gauging

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Novel N = 2 and N = 4 supersymmetric extensions of the Calogero-Sutherland hyperbolic systems are obtained by gauging the U(n) isometry of matrix superfield models. The bosonic core of the N = 2 models is the standard A n−1 Calogero-Sutherland hyperbolic system, whereas the N = 4 model contains additional semi-dynamical spin variables and is an extension of the U(2) spin Calogero-Sutherland hyperbolic system. We construct two different versions of the N = 4 model, with and without the interacting center-of-mass coordinate in the bosonic sector.

show abstract

Supersymmetric V-systems

Cited by 11 publications

References 46 publications

X-Ray Binary Luminosity Function Scaling Relations for Local Galaxies Based on Subgalactic Modeling

X-Ray Binary Luminosity Function Scaling Relations for Local Galaxies Based on Subgalactic Modeling

Spinning extensions of D(2, 1; α) superconformal mechanics

Supersymmetric hyperbolic Calogero-Sutherland models by gauging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About