4
$\begingroup$

The $c = \frac{1}{2}$ (non-chiral) Majorana CFT has six primary fields: the vacuum 1, the two Majorana fields $\eta, \bar \eta$ $\left( \Delta_\eta = \Delta_{\bar \eta} = \frac{1}{2}\right)$, the energy field $\varepsilon$ $\left( \Delta_\varepsilon =1\right)$, the twist field $\sigma$ $\left( \Delta_\sigma =\frac{1}{8}\right)$ and the disorder field $\mu$ $\left( \Delta_\mu =\frac{1}{8}\right)$. The latter two are non-local, whereas the rest are local. (This is relevant as it means that e.g. for anti-periodic spatial boundary conditions (APBC), the first four fields determine the finite-size energy spectrum.)

Now my question: to what extent can I think of the $c=1$ Dirac CFT as two copies of this $c = \frac{1}{2}$ CFT? I think that from a finite-size scaling point of view, this should be fine, hence I would expect both theories to have the same set of local primary fields (e.g., I guess the Dirac CFT has four primary fields with scaling dimension $\Delta =\frac{1}{2}$, is that true?). However, two copies of the $c=\frac{1}{2}$ CFT would, for example, have two twist fields $\sigma_{1,2}$, but I would be surprised if the Dirac CFT has two such fields?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Alright, let me try to answer my own question.

First off, I suspect the $c=1$ Dirac CFT can indeed be seen as a stack of two $c=\frac{1}{2}$ Majorana CFTs. However, the subtlety lies elsewhere: the stack of two such fermionic CFTs is somewhat non-trivial. Indeed, fermions are never fully decoupled: they always anti-commute. For that reason, one can (as I was implicitly doing in my question above) consider a field $\boldsymbol{\sigma \times 1}$ (where we take a twist field of one of the $c=\frac{1}{2}$ CFTs and the vacuum of the other) but it is a most curious beast: it is neither bosonic or fermionic. For example, it anti-commutes with the fermionic field $\psi \times 1$ but commutes with the fermionic field $1\times \psi$. Now, I don't have enough affinity with these matters to see whether or not this means that we should exclude it all-together (honestly, I don't strictly see why), but at the very least it means it is not a conventional twist field. Instead, we can construct (parity-odd) twist fields $\boldsymbol{\sigma \times \mu}$ and $\boldsymbol{\mu \times \sigma}$. Hence we expect two parity-odd twist fields, each with dimension $\left( \frac{1}{8}, \frac{1}{8} \right)$ ---to be contrasted to the $\left( \frac{1}{16}, \frac{1}{16} \right)$ that we would have assigned to $\sigma \times 1$ and $1\times \sigma$. (Similarly we expect the two 'disorder'/parity-even twist fields $\mu \times \mu$ and $\sigma \times \sigma$.)

Now we can check whether this is compatible from the $c=1$ Dirac CFT point of view. As for example discussed in the beautiful lecture notes by McGreevy, one can consider the primary fields $$ \mathcal V_{\alpha,\beta} (z, \bar z)= e^{\boldsymbol{\mathrm i} \left( \alpha \phi_L(z) + \beta \phi_R(\bar z) \right)} $$ for any (half-)integer $\alpha,\beta$ with the conditions $\alpha-\beta,\alpha+\beta \in \mathbb Z$. This has the conformal dimension $\left( \frac{\alpha^2}{2}, \frac{\beta^2}{2}\right)$.

Firstly, there are the four fermionic fields $\mathcal V_{\pm 1,0}, \mathcal V_{0,\pm 1}$, all with scaling dimension $\Delta = h + \bar h = \frac{1}{2}$. These operators are local (in the fermionic language) and correspond to the four fields I mentioned in the original post above (or more precisely, some linear combination thereof). So far, so good.

Then moving on to the twist fields. We have the two parity-odd $\mathcal V_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}$ and $V_{-\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2}}$. This has the conformal dimension $\left( \frac{1}{8},\frac{1}{8} \right)$. This is compatible with the two twist fields I discussed in the first paragraph of this answer. Similarly, we have the parity-even $\mathcal V_{\frac{1}{2},-\frac{1}{2}}$ and $V_{-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}$, consistent with the two 'disorder' fields derived at from the above 'stacked $c=\frac{1}{2}$' point of view.

Now, while I do suspect that the above forms the essential answer to my question, it is quite likely that there are some further subtleties that deserve mentioning (or that I simply screwed something up). I hope some people who know their CFT are willing to comment to clear such things up :)

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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