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

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

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,853 answers , 20,624 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Why does dilation invariance often imply proper conformal invariance?

+ 8 like - 0 dislike
40 views

Why does a quantum field theory invariant under dilations almost always also have to be invariant under proper conformal transformations? To show your favorite dilatation invariant theory is also invariant under proper conformal transformations is seldom straightforward. Integration by parts, introducing Weyl connections and so on and so forth are needed, but yet at the end of the day, it can almost always be done. Why is that?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user user2389
asked Mar 5, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by user2389 (40 points) [ no revision ]
You can look for Polchinski's paper "Scale and Conformal Invariance in QFT" which discusses the issue in detail. Maybe there have been some developments since then, but that is a good starting point.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user user566
For 4d field theory it's still an open question whether scale invariance implies conformal invariance. There's been some recent work on this topic by Slava Rychkov and collaborators, see e.g. 1101.5385.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user Matt Reece
By the way, given that scale invariance does not imply conformal invariance, maybe the question can be rephrased.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user user566
I'd like to point to a review by Yu Nakayama, available at arxiv.org/abs/1302.0884

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user Siva

3 Answers

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

As commented in previous answers, conformal invariance implies scale invariance but the converse is not true in general. In fact, you can have a look at Scale Vs. Conformal Invariance in the AdS/CFT Correspondence. In that paper, authors explicitly construct two non trivial field theories which are scale invariant but not conformally invariant. They proceed by placing some conformal field theories in flat space onto curved backgrounds by means of the AdS/CFT correspondence.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user xavimol
answered Mar 9, 2011 by xavimol (60 points) [ no revision ]
Thanks for that, somehow I missed this one, it is really interesting.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user user566
I knew about this paper but reading this question, made it came to my mind again (fortunately, because it's very interesting)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user xavimol
+ 3 like - 0 dislike

A nice article about this: Tutorial on Scale and Conformal Symmetries in Diverse Dimensions.

The rule-of-thumb is that 'conformal ⇒ scale', but the converse is not necessarily true (some condition(s) needs to be satisfied) — but, of course, this varies with the dimensionality of the problem you're dealing.

PS: Polchinski's article: Scale and conformal invariance in quantum field theory.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user Daniel
answered Mar 7, 2011 by Daniel (685 points) [ no revision ]
Most voted comments show all comments
It's not a rule-of-thumb that conformal implies scale, it's just a fact. The conditions are mostly locality and low-order of derivatives, which is sometimes imposed by unitarity and renormalizability.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon
@RonMaimon: Conformal invariance requires scale invariance in a Poincare invariant theory simply because of the commutator $[K_\mu,P_\nu]=2i(\eta_{\mu\nu}D-M_{\mu\nu})$. The notation should be obvious.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user AndyS
@AndyS: The very existence of D in the conformal group is enough to show conformal implies scale--- it's not a rule of thumb, it's an obvious implication, that's what the comment above was trying to say. You don't need the commutator business to show this, the dilatation is a conformal transformation all by itself.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon
@RonMaimon: What you're saying is not true; you need the commutator in order to prove what you call "an obvious implication". Also, there is a clear distinction between dilatations and special conformal transformations.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user AndyS
@AndyS: What I am saying is true, and you are saying nonsense. Dilatations are to conformal invariance as rotations about the z-axis are to rotations. They are a special case. If you have rotational invariance, you have rotational invariance around the z-axis. If you have conformal invariance, you have dilatation invariance. This is not an arguable point, it is not a difficult point, and I don't know why you make the comment above.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon
Most recent comments show all comments
@RonMaimon: The question I'm answering is: "Why is a theory that is invariant under special conformal transformations automatically invariant under dilatations too?" This is very different from the moronic question: "Why is a conformal theory invariant under dilatations?".

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user AndyS
@AndyS: I see. Then I agree. But to me this seems backwards, since conformal symmetry is local dilatation symmetry, so dilatation invariance is a more primitive idea, and is assumed in advance before you show conformal invariance. But this is just a point of view.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:18 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon
+ 0 like - 0 dislike

Maybe this does it:
$\begin{array}{rccl} \textrm{Translation:}&P_\mu&=&-i\partial_\mu\\ \textrm{Rotation:}&M_{\mu\nu}&=&i(x_\mu\partial_\nu-x_\nu\partial_\mu)\\ \textrm{Dilation:}&D&=&ix^\mu\partial^\mu\\ \textrm{Special Conformal:}&C_\mu&=&-i(\vec{x}\cdot\vec{x}-2x_\mu\vec{x}\cdot\partial) \end{array}$

Then the commutation relation gives:
$[D,C_\mu] = -iC_\mu$
so $C^\mu$ acts as raising and lowering operators for the eigenvectors of the dilation operator $D$. That is, suppose:
$D|d\rangle = d|d\rangle$
By the commutation relation:
$DC_\mu - C_\mu D = -iC_\mu$
so
$DC_\mu|d\rangle = (C_\mu D -iC_\mu)|d\rangle$
and
$D(C_\mu|d\rangle) = (d-i)(C_\mu|d\rangle)$

But given the dilational eigenvectors, it's possible to define the raising and lowering operators from them alone. And so that defines the $C_\mu$.


P.S. I cribbed this from:

http://web.mit.edu/~mcgreevy/www/fall08/handouts/lecture09.pdf

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user Carl Brannen
answered Mar 5, 2011 by Carl Brannen (240 points) [ no revision ]
Let's say you cited Mr. McGreevy.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user mbq
The issue is that it just isn't true that scale invariance implies conformal invariance. The simplest counterexample is some self-interacting Levy field theory.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon
What are these $|d\rangle$ kets you refer to? Are they fields? And does $d$ correspond to the scaling dimension of the field? I realise this is an old thread, so I would appreciate comments from anyone.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-07-28 11:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user CAF

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$\hbar$ysicsOverf$\varnothing$ow
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
...