I have a question about Witten's original 1998 paper on AdS/CFT(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9802150

Since the AdS metric diverges at the boundary, the boundary metric is only defined up to a conformal class Eq. (2.2),

[itex]ds^2 \to d\widetilde{s}^2 = f^2 ds^2[/itex]

Similarly, the solution for a massive scalar [itex]\varphi[/itex] is divergent. In order to define the scaling dimension of [itex]\varphi[/itex], Witten writes it as Eq. (2.36)

[itex]\varphi \sim f^{-\lambda}\varphi_0[/itex]

where [itex]f[/itex] is the same function used to give a finite metric in (2.2) and [itex]\varphi_0[/itex] depends only on the boundary.

Thus if we fix some appropriate [itex]f[/itex] in (2.2) then we can easily determine the scaling dimension [itex]\lambda[/itex] from (2.36).

What concerns me is why Witten is justified in using the same function [itex]f[/itex] in both (2.2) and (2.36). One would have thought that it is possible to be more general by defining say

[itex]\varphi \sim g^{-\lambda}\varphi_0[/itex]

where in general [itex]g\neq f[/itex].

Suppose, for example, that [itex]f = e^{-y}[/itex] and [itex]g = e^{-2y}[/itex], then all of the scaling dimensions will be shifted from their values had we chosen [itex]g = f[/itex]. How can the scaling dimension depend on the choice of an arbitrary function?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Scaling dimensions of operators in AdS/CFT

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**