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

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

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,047 questions , 2,200 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,709 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  Operator weights in 2-D CFTs -- what is happening with the degrees of freedom?

+ 2 like - 0 dislike
1410 views

This may be overtly obvious or simple and I'm being very dense, but it's something that has been bothering me. I am confused about how correlation functions of generic spin operators work in 2-d CFTs. There is a formula that is quoted in many texts (e.g. diFrancesco's text, see section 5.1-5.2) for the four point function of operators with weights $(h_i, \bar{h}_i)$:

\(\langle \phi_1(z_1,\bar{z}_1) \phi_2(z_2,\bar{z}_2) \phi_3(z_3,\bar{z}_3) \phi_4(z_4,\bar{z}_4)\rangle = f(\eta,\bar{\eta}) \prod z_{ij}^{h/3-h_i-h_j} \bar{z}_{ij}^{\bar{h}/3-\bar{h}_i - \bar{h}_j}\)

where the product is supposed to be for $i<j$ up to 4 and $h = \sum_i h_i$. The function $f$ is allowed to depend arbitrarily on the conformally invariant cross ratio $\eta$ and its conjugate. Here lies the crux of my problem:

If we consider any tensor; for example, $D^{\mu \nu \sigma}$, which denotes the four point function of a spin-3 current and three scalars, then it is clear that under the change to the complex coordinates, we will have a tensor $D^{abc}$ where $a,b,c$ may denote either $z$ or $\bar{z}$. If the current is symmetric, then of course we may eliminate all but 4 degrees of freedom. The issue now is the following: how does the above four point function capture all of these independent components? Setting $(h_1,\bar{h}_1) = (h_1, h_1-3)$, and the rest scalars so that $\bar{h}=h$, we clearly only have an expression for one of the components. Which one is it? What happens to the other degrees of freedom? Must we assume tracelessness?

asked Jun 22, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by anonymous [ revision history ]
edited Jun 22, 2014

1 Answer

+ 1 like - 0 dislike

The vector representation of $SO(2)$ is reducible as the OP implicitly points out. Thus, one first decomposes $D^{\mu\nu\sigma}$ into irreducible components and then computes the four-point function for each irreducible component. There are as many functions of the cross-ratio as there are irreducible components. Of course, each irreducible component will have a different set of weights that one can easily compute. Let $\Delta=(h+\bar{h})$ denote the scaling dimension of the field and $s=(h-\bar{h})$ the spin (basically the $SO(2)$ charge) of the irreducible component. For instance, $D^{zz\bar{z}}$ has spin $1$ and  thus will  have conformal weight $(\Delta+1)/2,(\Delta-1)/2)$ and so on. One needs information about the scaling dimension of $D^{\mu\nu\sigma}$ to determine the conformal weights. 

A classic example is that of the energy momentum tensor: $T^{zz}$ has weight $(2,0)$ while $T^{\bar{z}z}$ has weight $(1,1)$ and $T^{\bar{z}\bar{z}}$ has weight $(0,2)$. (There is some looseness in my statement as it is not a true primary due to the conformal anomaly but nevertheless illustrates my point.)

answered Jun 22, 2014 by suresh (1,545 points) [ revision history ]
edited Jun 23, 2014 by suresh

Thanks for the answer! Could you clarify why the different irreducible components would correspond to different weights? Is this due to the transformation property of the components? Are the weights of these components always determined by how many z vs. zbar indices there are?

I had some incorrect statements in my original answer and I have corrected them. Hope that helps.

Why are we considering just the Lorentz group here?

@Galois If you consider left arnd right movers, then $(L_0-\bar{L}_0)$ is the generator of rotations while $(L_0+\bar{L}_0)$ generates dilatations.

@suresh1: Sorry I don't understand, shouldn't we consider vector representations of the global conformal group. The correlators are covariant under global conformal transformations, as also the fields, so shoudn't we consider representations of $PSL(2, \mathbb{C}) \cong SO^{+}(1,3)$

Absolutely right about the global conformal group. Rotations are also conformal transformations and so are a  part of $SL(2,C)$. Recall that $SL(2,C)$ is generated by $(L_0,L_{\pm1},\bar{L}_0,\bar{L}_{\pm1})$ (see di Francesco et al or Ginsparg's Les Houches lectures posted not the arXiv for details, if necessary). Irreps are labelled by the eigenvalues of $(L_0,\bar{L_0})$ on the highest weight state.

@suresh1: Thanks for the reply. So you are saying we want irreducibles under $SO^{+}(3,1)$ only, but as the irreps of $SO(2)$ which is a subgroup of $SO^{+}(3,1)$ are 1 dimensional, the irreps of $SO^{+}(3,1)$ will be 1 dimensional as well. (Your invariant subspace can only become smaller by going to a larger group). 

Yes.

I'd like to clarify another point: even if D itself involves a current that is spin 3 (has 3 indices), the irred. components of D themselves have different spin due to having different weights? Is that correct?

@anonymous Yes.

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$\hbar\varnothing$sicsOverflow
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
...