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.
 
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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
Back
Top