Tuesday, 25 December 2018

quantum field theory - Identically vanishing trace of Tmunu and trace anomaly



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]eSddxJO


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 gμνf(x)gμν such that


(μϵν)=f(x)gμν


the action transforms like


δS=1dddxTμμρϵρ


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=aiEdciW2μνρ....



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:



  1. 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.

  2. 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

Understanding Stagnation point in pitot fluid

What is stagnation point in fluid mechanics. At the open end of the pitot tube the velocity of the fluid becomes zero.But that should result...