I Scaling Dimension of a Field in CFT

shinobi20
Messages
277
Reaction score
20
TL;DR Summary
I'm quite unsure about how the scaling dimension of a field is devised. I need clarifications on small details in order to make sure that my concepts are clear.
I'm studying CFT, and I find the lecture notes and books really confusing and devoid of explanations (more details).

In a scale transformation ##x' = \lambda x##, the field ##\phi(x)## should also be affected by the scale transformation, i.e., ##\phi'(x') = \phi'(\lambda x) = \lambda^{-\Delta} \phi(x)##. I think this should mean that we assume that the field should scale but we do not know by how much, and ##\Delta## quantifies this unknown, which is called the scaling dimension. We put a minus sign because when we plug it in the action, this will avoid a negative dimension (see below)?

If the scale transformation is a symmetry of the theory, then the action must be invariant under this. Particularly, in a free theory,

\begin{align*}
S' & = \int d^d x' \partial'_\mu \phi'(x') \partial'^\mu \phi'(x')\\
& = \int d^d x' g^{\mu \nu} \partial'_\mu \phi'(x') \partial'_\nu \phi'(x')\\
& = \int d^d x \Bigg| \frac{\partial x'}{\partial x} \Bigg| \lambda^{-2} g^{\mu \nu} \partial_\mu \phi'(x') \partial_\nu \phi'(x')\\
& = \int d^d x \lambda^d \lambda^{-2} \partial_\mu \phi'(x') \partial^\mu \phi'(x')\\
\end{align*}

Comparing this with ##S = \int d^d x \partial_\mu \phi(x) \partial^\mu \phi(x)##,

\begin{equation*}
\int d^d x \lambda^d \lambda^{-2} \partial_\mu \phi'(x') \partial^\mu \phi'(x') = \int d^d x \partial_\mu \phi(x) \partial^\mu \phi(x)
\end{equation*}

We can infer that,

\begin{equation*}
\lambda^{\frac{d-2}{2}} \phi'(x') = \phi(x), \quad \text{OR} \quad \phi'(x') = \lambda^{\frac{-(d-2)}{2}} \phi(x)
\end{equation*}

So the scaling dimension is ##\Delta = \frac{(d-2)}{2}##. If we were to not put a minus sign from the start, i.e., ##\phi'(\lambda x) = \lambda^{\Delta} \phi(x)##, then ##\Delta = \frac{-(d-2)}{2}##.

Questions:
1. Can anyone verify if what I'm saying (my statements) above are correct?
2. Can anyone explain more about the minus sign?
3. I'm not sure if what I wrote in the second line of the action is correct, i.e., ##\partial'_\mu \phi'(x') \partial'^\mu \phi'(x') = g^{\mu \nu} \partial'_\mu \phi'(x') \partial'_\nu \phi'(x')##. Is this correct or should it be ##\partial'_\mu \phi'(x') \partial'^\mu \phi'(x') = g'^{\mu \nu} \partial'_\mu \phi'(x') \partial'_\nu \phi'(x')##? If this is the case then ##g'^{\mu \nu}## should also transform, but then I would not get the correct scaling dimension.
 
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...
Back
Top