4
$\begingroup$

In the 2007 "String Theory and M-Theory" textbook by Becker, Becker, Schwartz there is the following claim about the canonical first quantization of a bosonic string: the quantization of the mode expansion operators (Virasoro operators) for a bosonic string is $$L_{m}=\frac{1}{2} \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} :\alpha_{m-n}\cdot \alpha_{n}:$$ where $m\in \mathbb{Z}$, $:(\cdots):$ denotes the normal ordering of $(\cdots)$, meaning mode operators $\alpha_{k}$ with positive indices, which are canonical lowering operators for the number of excitations of a given mode, are moved to the right of operators with negative indices, which are canonical rising operators. The book then claims that:

  1. $L_{0}= \frac{1}{2}\alpha_{0}\alpha_{0}+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \alpha_{-n}\cdot \alpha_{n}$ is the only operator $L_{k}$ for which the normal ordering matters.

  2. An arbitrary constant could have appeared in this expression.

I don't understand these claims. Why would $L_{0}$ be the only operator for which the normal ordering matters? For example, $:\alpha_{-3+5}\cdot \alpha_{3}:$ is not the same as $\alpha_{-3+5}\cdot \alpha_{3}$. And where does the "arbitrary constant" come from? I am aware that differently ordered creation and annihilation operators differ by a constant, and that in QFT we get rid of this constant using the Wick theorem and declaring the constant difference insignificant; I don't understand why specifically in the case of the $L_{0}$ Virasoro operator we have to write down this constant explicitly, while in $L_{k}, k\ne 0$ the constant is not present.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Possible duplicate: physics.stackexchange.com/q/10804/2451 $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Mar 25 at 19:23
  • $\begingroup$ I was NOT asking about the meaning of the normal ordering, I asked specifically about where does the arbitrary constant come from in this specific case (and also why the ordering does not matter in all operators but one); this constant is not present in QFT (or, rather, we get rid of it but saying that its a constant infinity that does not matter), although in QFT we use the same operation, and I don't understand why here the arbitrary constant is present specifically in $L_{0}$ (and not in other terms). The linked question does not contain an answer to mine, only a reference to this problem. $\endgroup$ Mar 25 at 20:12

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

Starting from the classical Poisson algebra of $L_m$ quantities (which form a Witt algebra), we would like to quantize it, i.e. define operators $\hat{L}_m$. Due to the operator ordering ambiguity, the definition of the operators $\hat{L}_m$ is ambiguous up to a term $a\hbar\delta_m^0\hat{\bf 1}$ proportional to the identity operator $\hat{\bf 1}$, where $a\in\mathbb{R}$ is the so-called intercept parameter $a$. (A monomial in the quadratic expression $L_m$ contains non-Poisson-commuting $\alpha_n$-modes iff $m=0$.) We can shift the meaning of the intercept parameter $a$ (by an infinite amount) by introducing normal ordering, but the ambiguity is still there in principle, to be fixed at a later stage in the quantization process. See also this and this related Phys.SE posts.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, now, reading your comment with clear head, I can see that the original answer contained all that is needed to understand the answer to the first question, I kept missing that $\alpha_{i}$ commute in all other terms. However, I still don't quite understand why the constant can't be ignored here for the same reason it was in QFT. $\endgroup$ Mar 26 at 17:21

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.