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

206 submissions , 164 unreviewed
5,103 questions , 2,249 unanswered
5,355 answers , 22,794 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
820 active unimported users
More ...

  Wick Order and Radial Ordering in CFT

+ 4 like - 0 dislike
1276 views

I am not so much familiar with the computations tools of conformal field theory, and I just run into an exercise asking to demonstrate the following formula (related to the bosonic field case):

$$\cal{R}j(z_1)j(z_2)~=~\frac{1}{(z_1-z_2)^2}~+~:j(z_1)j(z_2):$$

with $j$ defined as

$$j(z)~=~\sum_k \alpha_k z^{-k-1}.$$

My question is should I start the calculation form the Wick ordered term and make the two others appear, because starting from the left side, I don't see how could I develop some calculus?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 11:55 (UCT), posted by SE-user toot
asked Mar 25, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by toot (445 points) [ no revision ]
retagged May 1, 2014

1 Answer

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

Here we will outline a strategy to prove the sought-for operator identity $(4)$ from the following definitions of what the commutator and the normal order of two mode operators $\alpha_m$ and $\alpha_n$ mean:

$$ [\alpha_m, \alpha_n]~=~ \hbar m~\delta_{m+n}^0, \qquad\qquad(1)$$ $$ :\alpha_m \alpha_n:~=~\Theta(n-m) \alpha_m \alpha_n ~+~ \Theta(m-n) \alpha_n \alpha_m,\qquad\qquad(2) $$

where $\Theta$ denote the Heaviside step function.

1) Note that the current $j(z)~=~j_{-}(z) + j_{+}(z)$ is a sum of a creation part $j_{-}(z)$ and an annihilation part $j_{+}(z)$.

2) Recall that the radial order ${\cal R}$ is defined as $${\cal R}(j(z)j(w)) ~=~\Theta(|z|-|w|) j(z)j(w)~+~ \Theta(|w|-|z|) j(w)j(z).\qquad\qquad(3)$$

3) Rewrite the sought-for operator identity as $$\cal{R}(j(z)j(w))~-~:j(z)j(w):~=~\frac{\hbar}{(z-w)^2}.\qquad\qquad(4)$$

4) Notice that each of the three terms in eq. $(4)$ are invariant under $z\leftrightarrow w$ symmetry. So we may assume from now on that $|z|<|w|$.

5) Show that $$j(w)j(z)~-~:j(z)j(w):~=~[j_{+}(w),j_{-}(z)].\qquad\qquad(5)$$

6) Show (under the assumption $|z|<|w|$) that $$j(w)j(z)~-~R(j(z)j(w))~\stackrel{|z|<|w|}{=}~0.\qquad\qquad(6)$$

7) Subtract eq. (6) from eq. (5):

$$\cal{R}(j(z)j(w))~-~:j(z)j(w):~\stackrel{|z|<|w|}{=}~[j_{+}(w),j_{-}(z)]. \qquad\qquad(7)$$

8) Evaluate rhs. of eq. (7):

$$[j_{+}(w),j_{-}(z)]~=~\ldots~=~\frac{\hbar}{w^2} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n \left(\frac{z}{w}\right)^{n-1}~=~\ldots~=~ \frac{\hbar}{(z-w)^2}. \qquad\qquad(8) $$ In the last step we will use that the sum is convergent under the assumption $|z|<|w|$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 11:55 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
answered Mar 25, 2012 by Qmechanic (3,120 points) [ no revision ]
Thanks a lot Qmechanic, I haven't done all the steps of you are pointing out in detail yet, but I clearly that this is just an extension of the traditional Wick theorem in QFT, for 2-points function: $T(\phi_{x_1}\phi_{x_2}) = :\phi_{x_1}\phi_{x_2}: + [\phi_{x_1},\phi_{x_2}]$ I am sorry it wasn't obvious for me earlier, now I will redo the calculations in details, trying to familiarize with it better this time. Thanks again ;)

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 11:55 (UCT), posted by SE-user toot
Yes, the method is similar to, e.g., this answer.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-05-01 11:55 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic

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$\hbar$ysicsOv$\varnothing$rflow
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
...