1
$\begingroup$

Recently, I read some books and articles about conformal field theory and I find there exists two completely different views about conformal transformation...

The first is that: Conformal transformation is a special coordinate transformation, or diffeomorphism, that leaves the metric invariant up to a scale change.

Francesco's Conformal Field Theory hold that view, as well as some other references such as "Applied Conformal Field Theory" by Ginsparg: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9108028

And the second one is that: Conformal transformation is only a rescale of metric and we do not transform coordinate. It can be done by a diffeomorphism followed by undoing the associated metric transformation or undoing the associated coordinate transformation.And it seems to be exactly a Weyl transformation.

Wald hold this view in his book "General Relativity". And he said a CT is not, in general, associated with a diffeomorphism.

And I get confused. Which one is correct....I can not bear it that a basic concept have two completely different, even contradictory interpretation... Or they are just my misunderstanding?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind I have seen that before..The explanations in that also mainly separate into two different opinions. One try to convince people that CT is a coordinate transformation and it is different from Weyl transformation. Another said that CT is not coordinate transformation... Why there are two completely different views. Or maybe both of them are adoptable in understanding? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 20, 2015 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ Read this answer to the question I linked. Wald uses non-standard terminology and calls a Weyl transformation a "conformal transformation". The "standard" meaning of "conformal transformation" is indeed that it is a coordinate transformation. $\endgroup$
    – ACuriousMind
    Commented Sep 20, 2015 at 14:21
  • $\begingroup$ @ACuriousMind It may take me some time to fully understand it . Apologies, I should have read that question more carefully. Thank you! $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 20, 2015 at 14:40

0