• 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
5,064 questions , 2,215 unanswered
5,347 answers , 22,728 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Virasoro constraints in quantization of the Polyakov action

+ 8 like - 0 dislike

The generators of the Virasoro algebra (actually two copies thereof) appear as constraints in the classical theory of the Polyakov action (after gauge fixing). However, when quantizing only "half" of the constraints are imposed.

I understand it's inconsistent to apply all of the constraints. I also understand this choice has mathematical significance in the sense of picking out highest-weight vectors. Nevertheless, on the surface it seems somewhat arbitrary. What is the physical reason it is "ok" to ignore the other constraints while mandatory to impose these? Also, are there simpler (preferably finite dimensional phase space) examples of quantization where some of the constraints must be dropped?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Dec 9, 2011 in Theoretical Physics by Squark (1,725 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Mar 7, 2014 by dimension10
Although it is inconsistent to impose $L_n v=0$ for all $n$, it is still possible to impose it for $n\geq -1$.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

2 Answers

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

You seem to be talking about the "old covariant quantization" in which $L_n$ for positive $n$ and $(L_0-a)$ annihilate physical ket states $|\psi\rangle$, right? It's analogous to the Gupta-Bleuler quantization


which was a standard procedure used already in electromagnetism. The idea is that the Hermitian conjugate condition guarantees that $L_n$ for a negative $n$ annihilates all the physical bra-vectors $\langle \psi |$. So all the matrix elements $$ \langle \psi | (L_n - a \delta_{n0}) | \phi \rangle =0 $$ vanishes for all pairs of physical states because the matrix inside annihilates either the ket vector or the bra vector. A few more conditions follow.

But I want to say that this treatment has become obsolete in the 1970s when people started to describe gauge theories – and analogously, Virasoro- or diff-symmetric gravitational theories (on the world sheet or in spacetime) – by the modern covariant quantization or BRST quantization.

In that new formalism, you have the $bc$ ghosts, the BRST charge, and physical states are cohomologies of $Q$, the BRST charge. In particular, this also allows you to demand that physical states (representatives) are annihilated by all $L_n$ for both signs of $n$.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Dec 9, 2011 by Luboš Motl (10,278 points) [ no revision ]
Most voted comments show all comments
@Squark: semi-infinite cohomology is not exactly Lie algebra cohomology. It is the derived functor of taking in a way both invariants and coinvariants. This was explained in a 1993 paper by Sasha Voronov in Inventiones: http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1223226

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Dear @Squark, right, string theory leads to a world sheet theory with gravity and diff+Weyl (or conformal) symmetry, moduli spaces, etc. But these rules are exactly what you would construct for a QFT/CFT with a dynamical metric and these extra gauge symmetries. It doesn't matter that it's also a "string theory" which is (in spacetime) "more than just a QFT". The world sheet rules are those of a QFT with some gauge symmetries including diff and Weyl, and with the dynamical metric.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Squark: otherwise the physical states obtained from the old covariant quantization; BRST quantization; or light-cone quantization can be proved to be equivalent. The BRST-oldcovariant equivalence boils down to the elimination of 2+2 unphysical modes (b, c, two X's) for each $n$ on the world sheet. The BRST symmetry equivalence may be used to eliminate 2 fields (b and one X), and the BRST closedness then eliminates the others (c and one X), and you may get an oldcovariant state as a special BRST stae if you ignore b,c. Then the Q-closedness reduces to the positive-n Virasoro constraints etc.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Let me just mention where the last sentence comes from. The BRST charge is morally $\sum c_{-n} L_n + ccb$ terms. Ignore the latter which vanishes if you eliminate positive $b,c$ excitations. You're left with the first term. It has to annihilate BRST physical states. The terms with negative $n$ do so because $c_{-n}$ annihilates them (no positive $c$ excitations after the choice); the terms with non-negative $n$ do so because $L_n$ has to annihilate them, and you reduce the BRST closedness to invariance under positive (and zero) $L_n-\delta_{n0}$.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Similarly, the old-covariant "pure gauge states" $L_{-n}\phi$ may be produced as BRST "pure gauge" states $Q \lambda$ because the required $\lambda$ may be constructed as something of the sort $b_{-n}\phi$.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Most recent comments show all comments
A $Q$-cohomology is the class of all vectors $|\psi\rangle$ that satisfy $Q|\psi\rangle=0$ and that are identified by the equivalence $|\psi\rangle \sim |\psi\rangle + Q|\phi\rangle$ for arbitrary vectors $|\phi\rangle$. In the cohomology, you may find some vectors with no "positive" excitations by the $b,c$-ghosts and a certain proper ghost number. If you take these states and ignore all the $b,c$ ghosts in them, you get states of the old covariant quantization. Also, I wanted to stress that the fact that the Hilbert space is interpreted in a stringy way plays no role: it's still a QFT.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@Lubos, I think I'm beginning to get it. When we add ghosts we get a CFT with vanishing central charge since the central charge of the ghosts cancels the central charge of the other fields (string coordinates). Hence it is perfectly consistent to impose L_n Psi = 0 for all n. But I still don't understand the precise relation between imposing these conditions and taking the cohomology of the BRST operator. Are the two equivalent?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
+ 5 like - 0 dislike

A modern treatment of this subject can be found in Segreev's book on the Kahler geometry of loop spaces also available online. This line of research started with the seminal work of Bowick and Rajeev: The holomorphic geometry of the closed bosonic string theory and $Diff S^1/S^1$ (Spires) (and independently Kirillov and Yuriev (Please see the reference in Sergeev's book)).

The basic idea is that loop spaces are Kahler manifolds carrying a $Diff S^1$ invariant closed two form (Kahler form). ( These manifolds are quantizeable by selection of a complex structure compatible with the Kahler form and performing Kahler (holomorphic) quantization.)

In the present problem, one seeks to define a $Diff S^1$ equivariant quantizations on them, i.e., to find a representation of $Diff S^1$ invariant functions on these loop spaces as $Diff S^1$ invariant subspace of vectors on a Hilbert space. The invariant vectors are obtained as null vectors of the quantized algebra.

Now, as many other cases in quantum mechanics, one cannot find a faithful representation at the quantum level but only a projective one. This means that the $Diff S^1$ invariant subspace can only be trivial.

This is the main reason that the original solution was found by imposition of half the constraints which is reminiscent of the Kahler quantization itself where one selects holomorphic sections.

The modern solution lies in the fact that a given complex structure on the loop space is not invariant under $Diff S^1$. Thus also a given Kahler quantization is not invariant as well.

The vacuum of the Kahler quantization Hilbert space corresponding to a given complex structure is not invariant under $Diff S^1$. The transformed vacuum is the vacuum corresponding to the Kahler quantization associated with the transformed complex structure.

This leads to the notion of the "Vacuum bundle" which is a line bundle over $Diff S^1/S^1$ comprising all the individual vacua. This bundle has a connection associated with the projective representation of $Diff S^1$, which becomes flat when one takes into account all the fields of the theory (in the case of the bosonic string at $d=26$).

The main result is that the flatness of the connection is equivalent to the unitary equivalence of the quantization Hilbert spaces under the action of $Diff S^1$, which is the required result expressing the equivariance of the quantization.

This treatment has many connections to many contemporary research areas. for example the bundle of complex structures over the loop space is a twistor space as was noticed by Bowick and Rajeev in their original work.


Sorry for never mentioning it in the original answer (It appears in the references), the loop space under consideration is $\Omega \mathbb{R}^{d-1,1}$ (based loops), (becoming $\Omega \mathbb{R}^{d-1,1}//diff S1$ after the Hamiltonian reduction).

The (unitary) equivalence of the three mentioned quantization methods Goddard Goldstone Rebbi Thorn (GGRT- half of the constraints method), BRST and the Bowick-Rajeev (twistor) can be explained as follows:

GGRT-BRST: The BRST invariance condition of the physical states is equivalent by explicit construction to the GGRT half number of constraints, please see Green Schwarz Witten equation: 3.2.31

BRST - Bowick-Rajeev: The inclusion of the ghost sector of the string is equivalent to tensoring with the anticanonical bundle to the Fock bundle of the bosonic string. This can be understood from the fact that the Ricci tensor of $Diff S1/S1$ is exactly equal to the contribution of the ghost sector to the vacuum bundle curvature (for example by a direct calculation). Thus the half form quantization is equivalent to the introduction of ghosts. This can be further seen in the fact that the physical states have a ghost number of $-\frac{1}{2}$. This is also consistent with the path integral picture, where one must divide by the redundant gauge orbit measure.

In addition to the fact that in this method, one is not required to introduce the ghost fields explicitly, the flatness of the connection establishes the equivalence between the quantizations with respect to different Kahler polarizations.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Dec 10, 2011 by David Bar Moshe (4,355 points) [ no revision ]
There is something I'm missing here. Apparently you're saying LM / diff S1 where M is spacetime is the phase space of the string. However it seems to me the phase space should consist of solutions to the classical equations of motion, rather than slices at constant worldsheet time. Or maybe M is space rather than spacetime? Or a null hypersurface? Also, I still don't understand how it leads to selecting half of the constraints. Is it the case that the complex structure can be chosen invariant under half of the generators?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Or maybe the action of Diff S1 on the loop space is not the trivial action I had in mind but the action of conformal transformations on the worldsheet continuing the loop? Btw, is it unique? Naive intuition suggests we need to assign a "momentum" to the loop in addition to its "position"

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I apologize if I'm asking really stupid questions

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
@ Squark I have posted an answer to your questions in an update to the original answer

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

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