In his lectures on String Theory (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string.html), Tong gives a proof of the Weyl anomaly, using equation (4.36). It seems wrong to me.
Here he uses the OPE between the stress-energy tensors TzzTww obtained when trace vanishes, i.e. Tzˉz=0: this implies that they are holomorphic functions Tzz=Tzz(z). But in this proof he starts from the fact that Tzˉz≠0 (we want to proof this thing after all) and so Tzz is not a holomorphic function anymore! In the OPE (4.36) I should have also terms with (ˉz−ˉw).
I can't also understand why he uses in the rest of the proof only the singular term (z−w)−4, neglecting the other ones (z−w)−2, (z−w)−1.
(The same proof is given in these lectures https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.04074 on conformal field theory, equation (6.9)).
I'll be really thankful if someone could explain me this proof :)
Answer
TL;DR. The main point is that Tong only needs to identify the leading singularity in order to determine the Weyl anomaly ⟨Tαα⟩ = −c12R(2). It is indeed unclear how to properly account for subleading terms in Tong's approach.
Let us introduce a regulator ε>0 in the XX OPE
RX(z,ˉz)X(w,ˉw) = −α′2ln(|z−w|2+ε) + :X(z,ˉz)X(w,ˉw):
to better identify the singular structure. The ∂X∂X OPE becomes:
R∂zX(z,ˉz)∂wX(w,ˉw) (4.22)= −α′2(ˉz−ˉw)2(|z−w|2+ε)2 + :∂zX(z,ˉz)∂wX(w,ˉw): .
The stress-energy-momentum tensor is
Tzz = −1α′:∂zX∂zX: .
The TT OPE becomes
RTzz(z,ˉz)Tww(w,ˉw) (4.23)+(4.25)= c2(ˉz−ˉw)4(|z−w|2+ε)4−2α′(ˉz−ˉw)2(|z−w|2+ε)2:∂zX(z,ˉz)∂wX(w,ˉw): + ….
We next use the energy conservation
∂zTˉzz+∂ˉzTzz = 0
to calculate1
R∂zTzˉz(z,ˉz)∂wTwˉw(w,ˉw) (4.35z)= R∂ˉzTzz(z,ˉz)∂ˉwTww(w,ˉw) (4.28)= ∂ˉz∂ˉw[c2(ˉz−ˉw)4(|z−w|2+ε)4+…] = ∂ˉw[2cε(ˉz−ˉw)3(|z−w|2+ε)5+…] = −10cε2(ˉz−ˉw)2(|z−w|2+ε)6+4cε(ˉz−ˉw)2(|z−w|2+ε)5+… = c12∂z∂w[6ε2(|z−w|2+ε)4−4ε(|z−w|2+ε)3]+… = c12∂z∂w∂z∂ˉwε(|z−w|2+ε)2+…,
which leads to the sought-for OPE
RTzˉz(z,ˉz)Twˉw(w,ˉw) (4.36)= c12∂z∂ˉwε(|z−w|2+ε)2+… (4.2d)= cπ12∂z∂ˉwδ2(z−w,ˉz−ˉw)+….
Here we use the following representation of the 2D Dirac delta distribution2
δ2(z−w,ˉz−ˉw) := δ(Re(z−w)) δ(Im(z−w)) = limε↘0+1πε(|z−w|2+ε)2.
Now proceed as in Tong's notes. ◻
References:
- D. Tong, Lectures on String Theory; Subsection 4.4.2.
--
1 Tong's trick (4.36) suggests another route: Let us instead consider the ∂Xˉ∂X OPE
R∂zX(z,ˉz)∂ˉwX(w,ˉw) = R∂ˉzX(z,ˉz)∂wX(w,ˉw) = α′2ε(|z−w|2+ε)2+… (4.2d)= α′π2δ2(z−w,ˉz−ˉw)+….
It is comforting that the regularization ε>0 correctly predicts that the leading singularity is a 2D Dirac delta distribution. Then the TˉT OPE becomes
RTzz(z,ˉz)Tˉwˉw(w,ˉw) = c2ε2(|z−w|2+ε)4+2α′ε(|z−w|2+ε)2:∂zX(z,ˉz)∂ˉwX(w,ˉw): + ….
The leading singularity is given by double contractions, which are proportional to the square of the 2D Dirac delta distribution. This is ill-defined, cf. e.g. this Phys.SE post.
Nevertheless, let us now formally apply Tong's trick: Using the energy conservation (4.35z) leads to
R∂zTzˉz(z,ˉz)∂ˉwTwˉw(w,ˉw) (4.35z)= R∂ˉzTzz(z,ˉz)∂wTˉwˉw(w,ˉw),
so that the sought-for OPE leads to the square of the 2D Dirac delta distribution as well
RTzˉz(z,ˉz)Twˉw(w,ˉw) = c2ε2(|z−w|2+ε)4+… (4.2d)= cπ22δ2(z−w,ˉz−ˉw)2+….
There might be a way to resolve the square of the 2D Dirac delta distribution, and argue that the leading singularity is given by (4.38), although we shall not pursue the matter here. ◻
2 Note that there is a factor of 2 in Tong's definition of the 2D Dirac delta distribution, cf. the end of Section 4.0.1.
No comments:
Post a Comment