0
$\begingroup$

Consider the Fourier transform of a conformal primary $O$ $$\tilde{O}(k) = \int d^dx e^{ik\cdot x} O(x)$$

Now consider the transformation of the momenta $k \to \lambda k$, so that the above reads $$\tilde{O}(\lambda k) = \int d^dx e^{i\lambda k\cdot x} O(x) = \lambda^{-d}\int d^dx'e^{ik\cdot x'} O(x'/\lambda)$$ where $x' = \lambda x$. Now by using the properties of the conformal primary $O(x/\lambda) = \lambda^{\Delta} O(x)$ we obtain, $$\tilde{O}(\lambda k) = \int d^dx e^{i\lambda k\cdot x} O(x) = \lambda^{\Delta-d}\int d^dx'e^{ik\cdot x'} O(x') = \lambda^{\Delta-d}\tilde{O}(k)$$ Hence, in the momentum space the conformal primary behaves as $$ \tilde{O}(\lambda k) = \lambda^{\Delta-d}\tilde{O}(k)$$, however, the two-point function in the momentum space goes like $$\langle\tilde{O}\tilde{O}\rangle \sim k^{2\Delta-d}$$ which is inconsistent. How does one resolve this enigma ?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Consider the two point function

$$\langle \tilde{\mathcal{O}}(-k) \tilde{\mathcal{O}}(k) \rangle = \int d^d x e^{i k \cdot (x_1-x_2) }\left\langle\mathcal{O}(x_1) \mathcal{O}(x_2)\right\rangle,$$

where the integral is over the differences $x=x_1-x_2$. Performing the rescaling $k\rightarrow \lambda k$ we have

$$\left\langle \tilde{\mathcal{O}}\left(-k \lambda \right) \tilde{\mathcal{O}}\left(\lambda k\right) \right\rangle = \int d^d x e^{i \lambda k \cdot (x_1-x_2) }\left\langle\mathcal{O}(x_1) \mathcal{O}(x_2)\right\rangle=\lambda^{-d} \int d^d x e^{i k \cdot (x_1-x_2) }\left\langle\mathcal{O}\left( \frac{ x_1}{\lambda}\right) \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{x_2}{\lambda}\right)\right\rangle\\ =\lambda^{2\Delta-d} \int d^d x e^{i k \cdot (x_1-x_2) }\left\langle\mathcal{O}(x_1) \mathcal{O}(x_2)\right\rangle=\lambda^{2\Delta-d} \left\langle \tilde{\mathcal{O}}\left(-k \right) \tilde{\mathcal{O}}\left(k\right) \right\rangle.$$

From here we can deduce that $$\left\langle \tilde{\mathcal{O}} \tilde{\mathcal{O}} \right\rangle \sim k^{2\Delta -d}.$$

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I agree. I thought so as well. But I think there is a way to resolve the two by including the momentum conserving delta-function in the correlator with the understanding that the momentum-conserving delta-function is a scalar of conformal dimension $-d$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 17, 2020 at 10:33
  • $\begingroup$ You mean something like $\left\langle \tilde{\mathcal{O}}(k_1) \tilde{\mathcal{O}}(k_2) \right\rangle \sim k_1^{\Delta -d} k_2^{\Delta-d} \delta(k_1+k_2)$ ? $\endgroup$
    – Stratiev
    Commented Jun 17, 2020 at 10:35
  • $\begingroup$ Or rather like $ \delta(k_1+k_2) \left\langle \tilde{\mathcal{O}}(k_1) \tilde{\mathcal{O}}(k_2) \right\rangle \sim k_1^{\Delta -d} k_2^{\Delta-d}$? $\endgroup$
    – Stratiev
    Commented Jun 17, 2020 at 10:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The first one with $\langle\tilde{O}\tilde{O}\rangle\sim k^{2\Delta-d}\delta(k_1+k_2)$. Now, scale all the momenta pretending the delta-function to be a scalar of conformal dimension $-d$ and use my formula on the LHS. Now it seems it's consistent. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 17, 2020 at 10:58

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.