• 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.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

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
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,726 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Conformal transformation equation

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

I am currently reading Kiritsis's string theory book, and something bugs in the CFT (fourth) chapter. He derives the equation that should satisfy an infinitesimal conformal transformation $x^{\mu} \rightarrow x^{\mu} + \epsilon^{\mu}(x)$ which is $\partial_{\mu}\epsilon_{\nu}+\partial_{\nu}\epsilon_{\mu} = \frac{2}{d}(\partial . \epsilon)\delta_{\mu\nu}$ from $g_{\mu\nu}(x)\rightarrow g'^{\mu\nu}(x')=\Omega(x)g_{\mu\nu}(x)=\frac{\partial x^{\alpha}}{\partial x'^{\mu}}\frac{\partial x^{\beta}}{\partial x'^{\nu}}g_{\alpha\beta}(x)$. I have been trying to do that with no success, is there an additional hidden hypothesis I'm missing, or am I just bad with math?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user toot
asked Jan 26, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by toot (445 points) [ no revision ]
What have you tried? It's hard to know what you might be missing without seeing at least an outline of your work.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user David Z

1 Answer

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

The quantity $\partial_\mu \epsilon_\nu +\partial_\nu\epsilon_\mu$ is just the variation of the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ under the (infinitesimal) diffeomorphism you wrote, $x^\mu\to x^\mu+\epsilon^\mu$. Your equation just says $$\partial_\mu \epsilon_\nu +\partial_\nu\epsilon_\mu = C \delta_{\mu\nu}$$ for some $C$ which means the condition that the variation of the metric under the diffeomorphism is proportional to the flat background metric (in conformal gauge) itself so it can be compensated by a Weyl scaling of the metric by some $\Omega(x)$. The equation above is indeed equivalent to yours because one may calculate $C$ (related to $\Omega-1$ which is infinitesimally small, just like $\epsilon$). Just trace my equation above over $\mu=\nu$ and you get $2\partial\cdot \epsilon$ on the left hand side and $Cd$ on the right hand side which implies $C=2(\partial\cdot\epsilon)/d$, just like your equation says.

The transformation rule for the metric, $\delta g_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu \epsilon_\nu +\partial_\nu\epsilon_\mu$, may be computed from your $g\to g'$ rule. Just Taylor-expand your formula $g'=()()g$ with respect to $\epsilon$ up to the linear terms in $\epsilon$. Use the Leibniz rule – which will produce two terms in the variation, one from the first $()$ and one from the second, and the fact that that $\partial x^{\prime\mu}/\partial x^\nu = \delta^\mu_\nu + \partial_\nu \epsilon^\mu $ which is just the derivative of $x'=x+\epsilon$ and which is how you get each term in the symmetrized sum.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
answered Jan 26, 2012 by Luboš Motl (10,278 points) [ no revision ]
Ha ha, this will probably help me too somewhere along the way (if I`m able to mend some math weak spots in a finite amount of time such that I can return to this stuff) :-)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 12:16 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton

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