I would like to find the OPE




from the $\beta\gamma$-system in CFT. Is it possible?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It would make this question far more accessible if you stated what you understand under a "$\beta\gamma$ - system", and why you believe the OPE of $\beta\gamma$ is sufficient to find that of $\beta\gamma^{-1}$. Additionally, is the ${}^{-1}$ the inverse as a field, i.e. $\frac{1}{\gamma}$, or the inverse as an operator? $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    Commented May 29, 2015 at 13:44

2 Answers 2

  1. Note that radial ordering ${\cal R}$ and normal-ordered/non-singular terms are implicitly implied in OP's eq. (2), see eq. (A) below.

  2. From (i) the OPEs $$\begin{align} {\cal R} [\beta(z)\gamma(w)]~=~&\frac{1}{z-w} ~+~ :\beta(z)\gamma(w):,\cr{\cal R} [\beta(z)\beta(w)]~=~& :\beta(z)\beta(w):, \cr {\cal R} [\gamma(z)\gamma(w)]~=~&:\gamma(z)\gamma(w):, \end{align}\tag{A}$$ and (ii) Wick's theorem, it follows that $$ {\cal R} [\beta(z)f(\gamma(w))]~=~\frac{f^{\prime}(\gamma(w))}{z-w} ~+~ :\beta(z)f(\gamma(w)):, \tag{B}$$ where $f$ is a differentiable function$^1$, and ${\cal R}$ denotes radial order.

  3. Now put $f(z)=z^{-1}$ in eq. (B) to calculate the sought-for expression (1).


$^1$ Here it is implicitly assumed that the operator $f(\gamma)$ is a well-defined in the given physical context.


Constructing a free CFT means you take the Verma modules of your fundamental fields, in this case \begin{equation} V \left ( h = -\frac{1}{2}, c = 11 \right ), V \left ( h = \frac{3}{2}, c = 11 \right ), \end{equation} and then add all the representations formed by taking products of those fields. I.e. where they are raised to non-negative integer powers. This procedure (possibly after summing over spin structures to get modular invariance) is the minimal one needed to get a consistent theory so it's what we mean whenever we say "the $\beta\gamma$ system".

If you're doing something to go beyond this minimal procedure, such that there actually is a local operator which can act on $\gamma(0) \left |0 \right>$ to give $\left |0 \right>$, then you can talk about $\gamma^{-1}(z)$. But otherwise, the best answer to this question is: no it's not possible. In particular, taking a form of Wick's theorem derived for analytic functions and then plugging in the non-analytic $f(z) = z^{-1}$ is not meaningful.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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