Operator-state correpondence in CFT

  • Thread starter Thread starter physicus
  • Start date Start date
physicus
Messages
52
Reaction score
3
I am having trouble to understand a conceptionally important points of the operator-state corredondence in CFT. I am using David Tong's script on string theory, chapter 4, to learn CFT. My questions are the following:
1. Why is the state-operator map only true for conformal field theories. If I consider a general 2D QFT on the cylinder, why can't I use the same procedure to map it to the complex plane and then identify states in the far past to operator insertions at the origin of the complex plane? Is this connected to the fact that the map from the cylinder to the complex plane is conformal and, therefore, conformally invariant theories are not altered by the mapping but general QFTs are?
2. Is the correspondence only true for CFTs on the cylinder or is it also valid for boundary CFTs?

Thank you very much for your help.

physicus
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's been a while since I thought about CFT, but from what I remember you're right about point 1. Afraid I can't help you with point 2. because I don't know what a "boundary CFT" is.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
361
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
5K
Back
Top