The Setup: Let's say we want to study a Euclidean CFT2 on R2 with coordinates σ1 and σ2 and metric
ds2=(dσ1)2+(dσ2)2.
It seems to me that in the usual discussion (e.g. di Francesco, Ginsparg, Polchinski), one proceeds to consider an analytic continuation of the CFT to C2 with coordinates z1,z2 and complex metric
ds2=(dz1)2+(dz2)2
and then, one performs the coordinate transformation z=z1+iz2 and ˉz=z1−iz2. In this way the coordinates z and ˉz can be considered "independent" because they are coordinates on a complex two-dimensional manifold. Also, in these coordinates the metric becomes
ds2=dzdˉz
and it becomes clear that conformal mappings consist of mappings: (z,ˉz)→(f(z),g(ˉz)).
My confusion is this: Since our original theory was on R2, books say that when we do calculations, we should consider the physical theory as living on the copy of R2 embedded in C2 given by the condition ˉz=z∗. But consider the mapping (z,ˉz)→(z2,ˉz). This is a conformal mapping on C2, but it does not map the surface ˉz=z∗ to itself; for example the point (z,ˉz)=(2,2) gets mapped to the point (z2,ˉz)=(4,2) and 2 is clearly not equal to 4∗. In particular, it seems to me that analytic continuation to a CFT on C2 enlarges the set of mappings one can have, so what relevance does it really have to the original CFT on R2?
No comments:
Post a Comment