• 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.


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

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


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,037 questions , 2,191 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,705 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  Clarification on "central charge equals number of degrees of freedom"

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

It's often stated that the central charge c of a CFT counts the degrees of freedom: it adds up when stacking different fields, decreases as you integrate out UV dof from one fixed point to another, etc... But now I am puzzled by the fact that certain fields have negative central charge, for example a b/c system has $c=-26$. How can they be seen has negatives degrees of freedom? Is it because they are fictional dof, remnant of a gauge symmetry? On their own, they would describe a non unitary theory, incoherent at the quantum level.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user Just_a_wannabe
asked Sep 26, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by Just_a_wannabe (30 points) [ no revision ]
Yes, unitary CFTs have a positive central charge. The $bc$ system has $c=-26$ but the theory is only unitary after switching to BRST cohomologies, and then only the light-cone degrees of freedom with $c=24$ survive. So the bosonic string has $24$ degrees of freedom.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/8735/2451

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
Thanks for both comments, I read the two question page you are referring to Qmechanic but I don't feel like it answers my question, maybe it wasn't clearly formulated. My point was only asking why those fields (b/c system) give a algebraically negative contribution to the "number of degrees of freedom of your theory"-number. Is it because in that case, the intuitive association central charge = number of dof is a bit abusive? Is it because the b/c are fictitious dof (accounting for a gauge symmetry)? Maybe something else?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user Just_a_wannabe
I already went through the light cone quantization of bosonic string theory, and the path integral formalism but the answer did not appear (clear) to me...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user Just_a_wannabe
Right, your question is different. I was merely linking to the (so far) only other Phys.SE post that discusses the central charge $c=-26$ for the $bc$ ghost system.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic

1 Answer

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

The central charge counts the number of degrees of freedom only for matter fields living on a flat manifold (or supermanifold in the case of superstrings). An example where this counting argument fails for matter fields is the case of strings moving on a group manifold $G$ whose central charge is given by the Gepner-Witten formula:

$c = \frac{k\mathrm{dim}(G)}{k+\kappa(G)}$

Where $k$ is the level and $\kappa$ is the dual coxeter number. Please see the following article by Juoko Mickelsson.

One of the best ways to understand this fact (and in addition the ghost sector central extension) is to follow the Bowick-Rajeev approach described in a series of papers, please see for example the following scanned preprint. I'll try to explain their apprach in a few words.

Bowick and Rajeev use the geometric quantization approach. They show that the Virasoro central charges are curvatures of line bundles over $Diff(S^1)/S^1$ called the vacuum bundles.

Bowick and Rajeev quantize the space of loops living on the matter field manifold. This is an infinite dimensional Kaehler manifold. One way to think about it is as a collection of the Fourier modes of the string, the Fourier modes corresponding to positive frequencies are the holomorphic coordinates and vice versa. In addition, in order to define an energy operator (Laplacian) on this manifold one needs a metric (this causes the distinction between the flat and curved metric cases where the dimension counting is valid or not. The reason that the counting argument works in the flat case is that the Laplacian in this case has constant coefficients).

The quantization of a given loop results Fock space in which all the negative frequency modes are under the Dirac sea. However this Fock space is not invariant under a reparametrization of the loop. One can imagine that over each point of $Diff(S^1)/S^1$, there is a Fock space labeled by this point. This is the Fock bundle whose collection of vacuum vectors is a line bundle called the vacuum bundle. Bowick and Rajeev proved that the central charge is exactly the curvature of this line bundle.

The situation for the ghosts is different. Please see the Bowick-Rajeev refence above. Their contribution to the central charge is equal to the curvature of the canonical bundle. This bundle appears in geometric quantization due to the noninvariance of the path integral measure on $Diff(S^1)/S^1$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 04:35 (UCT), posted by SE-user David Bar Moshe
answered Oct 3, 2012 by David Bar Moshe (4,355 points) [ no revision ]

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:
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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

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

Your rights