Proving that e^{ikx} is primary with weight (h=\hbar = \alpha k^2/4)

  • Thread starter Thread starter LCSphysicist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Weight
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that e^{ikx} is a primary field with a specific weight, utilizing normal ordering defined by the limit of the product of two operators. The transition from the first equation to the second involves manipulating the normal ordered product of fields, specifically applying the properties of derivatives and Wick's theorem. The key step is recognizing that the derivative of the field can be expressed in terms of the normal ordered product, leading to the conclusion that the derivative acts on the fields in a specific manner. The final result shows that the derivative of the primary field relates to a singularity represented by the expression involving α' and the distance between points z and w. This discussion emphasizes the application of Wick's theorem in quantum field theory to achieve the desired result.
LCSphysicist
Messages
644
Reaction score
162
Homework Statement
I can't understand the line of reasoning used by David Tong (on its lectures of CFT).
Relevant Equations
.'
1676395218266.png


Where

##:## really means normal ordered, in the sense that ##:A(w)B(z): = \lim_{w \to z} \left ( A(w)B(z) - \langle A(w)B(z) \rangle \right )##

##\partial X(z) = \frac{\partial X(z)}{\partial z}##

How do we go form the first line to the second one?? I am not understanding it!

it seems to me that we start with
$$\partial X(z) : X(w)^n : = \partial X(z) : X(w)^{n-1} X(w) :$$
Then, for some reason

$$\partial X(z) : X(w)^{n-1} X(w) : \rightarrow n X(w)^{n-1} :\partial X(z) X(w): $$

Since

$$: \partial X(z) X(w) = \frac{-\alpha'}{2 (z-w)} $$

We got the answer, but how?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You must use Wick theorem, which is the same as in ordinary QFT.
 
  • Care
Likes LCSphysicist
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top