• 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 , 22,706 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  Correlation functions of complex operators

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

One defines the "scaling dimension" (as opposed to "engineering dimension") of an operator $\cal{O}$ as $[\cal{O}]$ such that if $\cal{O}(t^{-1}x) = t^{[\cal{O}]}\cal{O}(x)$ then the Lagrangian in which $\cal{O}$ appears would be scale invariant.

  • Unlike for "engineering dimensions" it seems that the value of scaling dimensions (even classically!) can't be derived from just looking at the operator but one seems to need to know the Lagrangian in which it appears so that the "right" $[\cal{O}]$ can be assigned to preserve scale-invariance.

For example - how else does one explain that the "engineering dimension" of $m^2\phi$ is $3$ whereas its "scaling dimension" is $1$? (same as that of $\phi$) (..the above obviously follows if I think of the term to be occurring in a $2+1$-dimensional Lagrangian and ask as to what should the scaling dimensions be so that the Lagrangian is scale-invariant..but something doesn't look very intuitive..)

  • I would like to know what is the special difficulty that is faced in defining $2-$point correlation functions of $\cal{O}$ if it is real? (..as opposed to when they are complex like in the next question - thought not that obvious either!..)

  • For complex $\cal{O}$ it "follows" that $<\cal{O}(x)\cal{O}^*(y)> \sim \vert x - y \vert ^{-2[ \cal{O}]}$ It is clearly consistent with definitions of the scaling dimension but is there a "derivation" for this? I have often seen the statement that the above short-distance behaviour follows from "reflection positivity" (..ala Wightman axioms..) I would like to know of some explanations.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-09-01 11:22 (UCT), posted by SE-user Anirbit
asked Jan 20, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by Anirbit (585 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Sep 1, 2014
Your definition of scaling dimension does not agree with the standard definition in quantum field theory and conformal field theory. The standard definition is that the "engineering" dimension is the dimension as determined by dimensional analysis of the Lagrangian, whether the Lagrangian is scale invariant or not, while the full "scaling dimension" is determined by the exact two point function (including quantum corrections). This is discussed in most QFT textbooks and a brief discussion is also available on Wikipedia under "anomalous scaling dimension."

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-09-01 11:22 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jeff Harvey
@Jeff Delighted to see a reply from you! Let me give my references, in case I am misreading something. My definition of "scaling dimension" is what is discussed on the first page of this lecture by Witten, math.ias.edu/QFT/fall/wittn2.ps What he calls as just dimensions on the first page here is what he seems to also call scaling dimension in the discussion on the first two pages of the next lecture, math.ias.edu/QFT/fall/wittn3.ps (..as say very clearly stated just above remark 2 on the second page of my second link..)I thought my terminology is consistent with these.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-09-01 11:22 (UCT), posted by SE-user Anirbit
@Jeff Ofcourse all these definitions are classical and clearly when quantized one would get new definitions of dimension and hence the notion of "anomalous" dimension. As has been pointed out in the remark just above section 3.5 on page 8 of my second link.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-09-01 11:22 (UCT), posted by SE-user Anirbit

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