Let us consider a theory defined by an action on a flat space S[ϕ] where ϕ denotes collectively the fields of the theory. We will study the theory on a general background gμν and then we will set the metric to be flat.
The Euclidean partition function of the theory in the presence of an external source is
Z[J]=∫[dϕ]e−S−∫ddxJO
where O can be either an elementary or a composite field (in what follows we will take it to be the trace of the energy-momentum tensor).
Now, a very well-known result is that a traceless energy momentum tensor implies conformal invariance; indeed, under a conformal transformation gμν→f(x)gμν such that
∂(μϵν)=f(x)gμν
the action transforms like
δS=1d∫ddxTμμ∂ρϵρ
Now, another well-known result states that in a generic background metric the expectation value of Tμμ is not zero but depends on the Weyl-invariant tensors and the Euler density, that is
⟨Tμμ⟩=∑aiEd−ciW2μνρ....
where ⟨Tμμ⟩ is usually defined by the variation of the connected vacuum functional W=logZ[J] under variations of the metric.
First question. Is ⟨Tμμ⟩ calculable in the usual way using the partition function? That is setting O=Tμμ in Eq.(1) we compute
⟨Tμμ⟩=δδJZ[J]|J=0
Second question. If the answer of the first question is YES, then I would expect the ⟨Tμμ⟩ computed as the variation of the connected vacuum functional W[J] is the same as the one computed in Eq.(2). Is this true?
Third question.
There are two ways the classical traceless condition can be realized:
- on-shell; then, Tμμ is not identically zero but it is so once you apply the equation of motion, e.g. λϕ4 theory in d=4.
- Tμμ is identically zero; that is, you don't need to use the equation of motion (e.g. massless scalar field in d=2 on a curved background)
In the first case, since Tμμ vanishes on the equation of motion, I agree that it may receive quantum corrections through the coupling of the theory to a curved space; everything is ok.
In the second case instead, namely Tμμ identically zero, I am unable to compute its expectation value from Eq.(1) and Eq.(2) since O=0 identically; that is, the RHS of Eq.(2) is zero, since Z[J] is actually J-independent. This would imply ⟨Tμμ⟩=0.
Is it still true that the theory enjoys an anomaly on a curved space background? I would say YES, since the anomaly depends only on the central charges. How to resolve this apparent contradiction?
No comments:
Post a Comment