I am studying this paper of Luty, Polchinski and Rattazzi about the $a-$theorem in $d=4$ and the possibly allowed RG flow between fixed points of a theory with metric $g_{\mu\nu}$.

First of all, they cosider the theory on a metric $\hat{g}_{\mu\nu}$ which depends on $g_{\mu\nu}$ in terms of a conformal factor which embed the dilaton field $\tau(x)$ $$ \hat{g}_{\mu\nu} = e^{-2\tau}g_{\mu\nu}. $$

We define in the following $$ \Omega = e^{-\tau} = 1+\frac{\varphi}{f} $$ where $\varphi$ is the physical dilaton.

Under Weyl transformation

$$g_{\mu\nu} \rightarrow e^{2\sigma} g_{\mu\nu}\\ \mathcal{O} \rightarrow e^{-\sigma\Delta}\mathcal{O} $$

where $\mathcal{O}$ is a primary operator of dimension $\Delta$ and this transformation is realized in the theory with the redressed metric $\hat{g}_{\mu\nu}$ just by letting $\tau$ transform as a Goldston boson, namely

$$ \tau \rightarrow \tau - \sigma $$

provided we also redress the primary operators, that is we construct the theory of $\hat{\mathcal{O}}=e^{\tau\Delta}\mathcal{O}$.

The authors write the most general effective theory of the $CFT_{IR}$ + dilaton sector. They notice that in the IR, there may be relevant operators which can dominate dilaton-dilaton scattering amplitude (as well as CFT dynamics). Hence, they study these possible relevant deformations.

It is easy to see that only two possible deformations can take place are

$$ S_1[\mathcal{O}] = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g}(m\Omega)^{4-\Delta} \mathcal{O}\\ S_2[\mathcal{O}] = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g}(m\Omega)^{2-\Delta}\left( R(g)-\Omega^{-1}\square \Omega \right) \mathcal{O} $$

where $m$ is the mass scale responsible for the deformation of the $CFT_{UV}$

  • First question At page 8, they say that any $CFT_{IR}$ has at least the identity operator with dimension $\Delta=0$. This implies that $S_1[\mathcal{O}=1]$ is a cosmological constant term that gives contributions to the dilaton-dilaton scattering that are larger than the Wess-Zumino term of the effective action. They then decide to fine-tune this relevant deformation to vanish. Why do they do this fine-tuning? How can you fine-tune this term to zero? Can anyone give me an example? I see that the cosmological term can give a contribution to the $2\rightarrow 2$ scattering from the term $m^4/f^4 \varphi^4$. What's the problem with this contribution?
  • Second question They say that if $\Delta <2$, then $S_2[\mathcal{O}]$ gives a relevant coupling of the dilaton to the CFT. I agree with that. However, they state this contribution cannot be fine-tuned to zero.Actually, the presence of this term is not a problem because on-shell this contribution goes away (I agree) and the $CFT_{IR}$ dynamics in the flat space is not affected. Why can $S_2[\mathcal{O}]$ not be fine-tuned to zero?? Why is the $CFT_{IR}$ dynamics in flat-space not affected?
  • Third question Look page 9 and consider we have an operator with $\Delta< 2$; then the leading contribution of $S_2[\mathcal{O}]$ to the $2\rightarrow 2$ scattering amplitude of dilatons is $$ A(p_1,...,p_4) \sim \left( \frac{m^{2-\Delta}}{f} \right)^4 p_1^2...p_4^2 \langle \mathcal{O(p_1)}...\mathcal{O(p_4)}\rangle $$ where $\langle ... \rangle$ is to be computed with the unperturbed CFT (I agree). The authors state that this amplitude is singular in the IR but vanishes on-shell. While I agree with the fact that $A(p_1,...,p_4)=0$ on-shell, I don't see why in the IR (and off-shell) we have a singularity. Can you elucidate this point?

Thanks.

  • 2
    About the first question: the identity operator (which has dimension 0, not 1 as you write) must be tuned to zero because otherwise the IR theory is not a conformal theory in Minkowski space, or in fact you haven't in fact flowed at all to any IR and stayed in the UV. Indeed, this operator gives rise to a quartic potential $\Omega^4$. Insisting in a Minkowski vacuum and minimizing the potential you get $\Omega=0$ (for positive CC) or $\Omega=\infty$ (for negative CC), i.e. respectively to $f=0$ or $f=\infty$. More physically, one doesn't actually end in Mink. inv. vacuum when there is a CC – TwoBs Dec 15 '17 at 21:26
  • Then, also $S_2$would be tuned to zero, otherwise still the CFT IR is not conformal. But actually they say they cannot generally tune this contribution to zero. Why is $S_2$ so special? – apt45 Dec 15 '17 at 22:08
  • 2
    That $S_2$ could or should then be tuned to zero is a non-sequitur. The $S_2$ contains just deriivative interactions and it is perfectly consistent in Minkowski for any value of $f$. Besides, if you tune it to zero you would introduce a ghost in the IR theory, which can't happen if the UV theory was healthy and unitary. – TwoBs Dec 15 '17 at 23:40
  • @TwoBs Can you explain why you would introduce a ghost? – apt45 Dec 16 '17 at 0:18
  • Then, I don't see why you are talking about the value of $f$ which is not of interest, doesn't? – apt45 Dec 16 '17 at 0:31

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.