Recall the normal ordering of bosonic operators in QFT is defined by a re-arrangement of operators to put creation operators to the left of annihilation operators in the product. This is designed to avoid accidentally annihilating |0⟩ when looking at an expectation value in relation to the vacuum state.
:ˆb†ˆb:=ˆb†ˆb:ˆbˆb†:=ˆb†ˆb
In CFTs, I've seen defined the normal ordering of operators as the zeroth basis field of the Laurent expansion of the radial ordering product.
R(a(z)b(w))=∞∑n=−n0(z−w)nPn(w),
and select
P0(w)=:a(w)b(w):
Is there an equivalence between these two definitions? What is the CFT analog of not annihilating the vaccuum/ how do we show this definition has that property?
Answer
In Quantum Field theory, for non-interacting fields, the normal ordering can be defined by requiring that the product of the two fields doesn't have the singular part. Since for non-interacting fields the singular part is nothing but the Vacuum expactation value (and is just 1 term), it is sufficient to write: :ϕ2:=ϕ2−⟨ϕϕ⟩
In CFT we can't just do that. Take the energy momentum tensor. It's OPE is known to be: T(z)T(w)=c/2(z−w)4+2T(w)(z−w)2+∂T(w)(z−w)+regularterms if we try to take out ⟨T(z)T(w)⟩, we obtain: T(z)T(w)−⟨T(z)T(w)⟩=2T(w)(z−w)2+∂T(w)(z−w)+regularterms which is still singular.
Then, instead of subtracting only the V.A.V. , every non singular term is taken out. If we have two operators with the following OPE: A(z)B(w)=N∑n−∞{AB}n(w)(z−w)n with N positive integers (which means that the number of singular parts can be finite) and {AB}n(w) the resulting fields of the expansion. We then define the normal ordered product as: (AB)(w):={AB}0(w) In fact, we can define the Contraction as: C(A(z)B(w)):=N∑n=1{AB}n(w)(z−w)n And then the normal ordered product is just: (AB)(w)=lim since all the terms \{AB\}_n(z-w)^n with n>0 goes to zero as z\to w.
In this context, we can give an integral representation of this normal ordered product as: (AB)(z)=\oint_z\frac{dw}{2\pi i}\frac{A(w)B(z)}{w-z} where the contour integral contains the point z.
No comments:
Post a Comment