Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

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.

News

Please welcome our new moderators!

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

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

122 submissions , 103 unreviewed
3,497 questions , 1,172 unanswered
4,543 answers , 19,337 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
407 active unimported users
More ...

realization of: CFT generating fuction = AdS partition function

+ 12 like - 0 dislike
32 views

An important aspect of the AdS/CFT correspondence is the recipe to compute correlation functions of a boundary operator $\mathcal{O} $ in terms of the supergravity fields in the interior of the $AdS_{n+1}$ (as we approach the boundary). Namely, $\big< \exp \int_{\mathbb{S}^n} \mathcal{O} \phi_{0}\big > = \mathbb{Z}_{s} (\phi \big|_{\partial(AdS)} = \phi_0)$, where $\mathbb{Z}_s$ is the supergravity partition function.

The review papers I have found (and Witten's original paper as well) explain how to use the above formula but fail to provide a satisfactory explanation why the formula ought to work, or even how it came about.

Can anyone explain if there is a logical (and/or insightful) path that would lead to the above correspondence between the generating function of the $n$-points correlators and supergravity/string theory?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Oct 14, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by physics (80 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Apr 19, 2014 by dimension10

1 Answer

+ 13 like - 0 dislike

First, you need to reflect what, in fact, is a CFT. The abstract answer is that

It's a set of correlation functions $\langle O_i(x) O_j(y) \cdots O_k(z) \rangle$ which satisfy certain axioms, like the conformal covariance or the short distance behavior when $x\to y$.

These multi-point functions can be encoded in the generating function, so the same set of axioms can be phrased as

It's a functional $\Gamma[\phi_i]= \langle \exp\int \sum_i O_i(x)\phi_i(x) d\,^nx\rangle$ which satisfies certain set of properties.

Now, consider a gravity theory in an asymptotically AdS spacetime, and consider its partition function given the boundary values of $\phi_i$. It gives a functional

$Z_s(\phi_i|_{\partial(AdS)}=\phi_i)$

This functional automatically satisfies the properties which a CFT generating function satisfies. Conformal covariance comes from the isometry of the AdS, for example. Therefore, abstractly, it is a CFT. (A duck is what quacks like a duck, as a saying goes.)

Now this line of argument does not say why Type IIB on AdS$_5\times$ S$^5$ gives $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM. For that you need string theory. But everything above this paragraph is just about axiomatics.

So, when there is a consistent theory of gravity on AdS$_{d+1}$ other than string/M-theory, you still get CFT$_d$.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Oct 15, 2011 by Yuji (1,390 points) [ no revision ]
I meant, nothing can beat ... . English is not my first language:p

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Nothing can't beat http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9905111 .

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Thanks for this answer! is there a nice reference for the statement about N=4 SYM?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOv$\varnothing$rflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




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

Your rights
...