3
$\begingroup$

EDIT: This question has been edited thanks to a comment. One of my definitions was wrong, so I have rewritten the whole question.


I was reading this paper about $T \bar{T}$ deformations of $2d$-QFTs in the plane. All is fine until the beginning of section 3. There they start talking about the limit of a large number of degrees of freedom. This means large central charge $c$ in a CFT and something similar for general QFTs. They say something like:

In the large $c$ limit correlation functions of $T_{ij}$ factorize ($T_{ij}$ is the energy-momentum tensor in Euclidean coordinates).

The connected contribution to an $n$-point function of energy-momentum tensors is proportional to $c$ at large $c$, so that when we compute a general correlation function and look at the contribution to it which is a product of $k$ connected components, then this will scale as $c^k$.

I will assume connected correlation functions are defined in a similar way as connected parts of the $S$-matrix in Weinberg's QFT I. For instance, for a 6 point function of the energy-mometum tensor:

$$ \langle T_1 T_2 T_3 T_4 T_5 T_6 \rangle = \langle T_1 T_2 T_3 T_4 T_5 T_6 \rangle_c \\ \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad + \langle T_1 T_2 T_3 \rangle_c \langle T_4 T_5 T_6 \rangle_c + \text{permutations} \\ \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad + \langle T_1 T_2 \rangle_c \langle T_3 T_4 \rangle_c \langle T_5 T_6 \rangle_c + \text{permutations} $$

There is no term like $\langle T_1\rangle_c \langle T_2 \rangle_c \langle T_3 \rangle_c \langle T_4 \rangle_c \langle T_5 \rangle_c \langle T_6 \rangle_c$ because $ \langle T_{ij} \rangle_c = \langle T_{ij} \rangle = 0$ ( in the plane you can set this to zero). Note that this implies $\langle T_{ij} T_{kl} \rangle_c = \langle T_{ij} T_{kl} \rangle$.

QUESTION: Why do connected $n$-point functions scale as $c$ at large $c$? I mean, why is the following true for any $n$?

$$ \langle T_{i_1 j_1} T_{i_2 j_2} ... T_{i_n j_n} \rangle_c \underset{c \rightarrow \infty}{\propto} c .$$

The only thing that comes to my mind that relates the energy-momentum tensor correlation functions and $c$ is the OPE

$$T(z) T(w) \sim \frac{c/2}{(z-w)^4} + \frac{2 T(w)}{(z-w)^2} + \frac{\partial T(w)}{z-w}. $$

This works inside correlation functions, and I don't know how would it act inside connected correlation functions. Moreover, if this was the correct approach, it would give a factor of $c$ for every pair of $T$s inside the correlator. For instance

$$ \langle T(z_1) T(z_2) T(z_3) T(z_4) \rangle \sim \frac{1/4}{(z_1-z_2)^4(z_3-z_4)^4} c^2. $$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think you have already given the answers? take a $2n$-point correlator of $T$. Then the formulas you wrote down say $\langle T_1 \cdots T_{2n} \rangle \sim \langle T_1 T_2 \rangle \langle T_3 T_4 \rangle \cdots \langle T_{2n-1} T_{2n} \rangle$. $\endgroup$ – Lorenz Mayer Jul 18 at 15:27
  • $\begingroup$ @LorenzMayer but then the correlator $\langle T_1 ... T_{2n} \rangle$ would scale as $c^n$, not as $c$ (which is what they say). $\endgroup$ – MBolin Jul 18 at 22:55
  • $\begingroup$ where do they say that? on page 7 at the bottom they say that connected $n$-point functions scale like $c^{n-1}$. i mean this doesn't help with your problems 2) and 3), but 1) should be clarified by this? $\endgroup$ – Lorenz Mayer Jul 21 at 16:01
  • $\begingroup$ I think they say $n$-point functions scale as $t^{n-2} c^{n-1}$. But the large $c$-limit in this paper is a 't Hooft-like limit, keeping $tc$ constant. So actually $t^{n-2} c^{n-1} \propto c$, as I say. They say this explicitly at the bottom of page 5. $\endgroup$ – MBolin Jul 21 at 16:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Then maybe i misunderstood what you were asking for in question 1). Sorry about that. I thought you were talking about correlators, not connected correlators. If you are unsure what is the definition of a connected correlator and why $n$-point functions should be decomposable into $k$-connected components: in Weinbergs QFT book, section 4.3, it is shown how to decompose the S-matrix (which is essentially the same) into its connected parts. Maybe this helps. I haven't checked, but the algorithm he gives there together with the OPE should give the correct scaling. $\endgroup$ – Lorenz Mayer Jul 21 at 18:56
1
$\begingroup$

I think i can give a hint for the connected $4$-point function which maybe helps to understand why it should be true for the general case. For this pick four point $z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4$, let $z_{ij} = z_i - z_j$ and $T_i = T(z_i)$. Then the four point function, in the limit $z_1 \rightarrow z_2$ and $z_3 \rightarrow z_4$:

$$ \langle T_1 T_2 T_3 T_4 \rangle \sim \langle ( \langle T_1 T_2 \rangle + 2 z_{12}^{-2} T_2)(\langle T_3 T_4 \rangle + 2z_{34}^{-2}T_4) \rangle + \text{less singular} = \\ = \langle T_1 T_2 \rangle \langle T_3 T_4 \rangle + 4 z_{12}^{-2} z_{34}^{-2} \langle T_2 T_4 \rangle + \text{less singular} \ .$$

It follows for the connected correlation function

$$ \langle T_1 T_2 T_3 T_4 \rangle_c \sim 4 z_{12}^{-2} z_{34}^{-2} \langle T_2 T_4 \rangle + \text{less singular} $$

which is of order $c$.

As the $n$-th connected correlation function is defined by induction, this might be the easiest way to prove it for general connected correlation functions.

Here is also a reference for these operator algebra calculations, in particular chapter 6.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ That could explain it. I don't see however why can you treat each $T_{ij}$ (in Euclidean coordinates) as a $T_{zz}$ (in holomorphic coordinates). I mean you are using the OPE $T_{zz} T_{zz}$, but you could equally take $T_{zz} T_{\bar{z} \bar{z}} \sim 0$, and you would get no $c$ at all. $\endgroup$ – MBolin Jul 22 at 15:47

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.