Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In CFT, when we have an OPE: $$O_1(z)O_2(w)=\frac{O_2(w)}{(z-w)^2}+\frac{\partial O_2(w)}{(z-w)}+...$$ this holds inside a time-ordered correlation function, so $O_1(z)O_2(w)=O_2(w)O_1(z)$. Does it mean that $$O_1(z)O_2(w)=\frac{O_1(z)}{(w-z)^2}+\frac{\partial O_1(z)}{(w-z)}+...$$ ?

share|cite|improve this question
If I recall correctly, OPEs in CFT aren't usually for time-ordered products. – user1504 Mar 8 '13 at 4:01
@user1504 I'm studying from Tong's notes so I guess when I said CFT It was in the context of string theory – Prastt Mar 8 '13 at 8:04
I'm not familiar with Tong's notes. But neither Polchinski nor diFrancesco use time ordered products. – user1504 Mar 8 '13 at 13:14
up vote 3 down vote accepted

I am not an expert in 2d CFT. However I hope following manipulations are valid.

Assume that your second equation follows from first one.

Then on RHS of your first equation Taylor expansion of $O_2(w)$ at point $z$ gives :

$O_2(w)=O_2(z)+(w-z)\partial_z O_2(z)+ ...$

taking derivative wrt $w$ on both sides we get


Using these two results in your first equation we get

$O_1(z)O_2(w)= \displaystyle\frac{O_2(z)}{(z-w)^2}+regular\:terms$

Subtracting it from your second equation, multiplying with $(z-w)^2$ and taking limit $w\rightarrow z$ we conclude that $O_2$ and $O_1$ should be equal. Since to begin with we didn't assume any such thing regarding fields $O_2$ and $O_1$ so in general your second equation shouldn't follow from the first one.

I think equality of $O_2(w)O_1(z)$ and $O_1(z)O_2(w)$ (assuming fields are 'bosonic') within time ordered product only implies that their OPE should be symmetric under exchange of z and w. So if your first equation for OPE can be realized for some (bosonic) fields, then by exchanging z with w on RHS you should get the same result within a regular term.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks, that's what I thought. It only implies symmetry of w and z. I asked because I was trying to solve an exercise that involved the commutation of the operators but wasn't getting the answer so I thought that perhaps the second equation was valid. But at the end I found the solution without expanding the ope. – Prastt Mar 9 '13 at 21:26
@Barefeg I made some changes. Actually you can conclude from two equations that O_2 and O_1 are equal. – user10001 Mar 10 '13 at 0:46

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.