holographic judgement on scale vs conformal invariance
DESCRIPTION
Holographic judgement on Scale vs Conformal invariance. Yu Nakayama ( IPMU & Caltech ). Field theory part: based on appendix of arxiv/1208.4726 Holographic part: many earlier papers of mine Japanese article will appear in JSPS periodical. Q: Is N=4 SYM really conformal invariant?. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Holographic judgement on Scale vs Conformal invariance
Yu Nakayama ( IPMU & Caltech)Field theory part: based on appendix of
arxiv/1208.4726Holographic part: many earlier papers of mineJapanese article will appear in JSPS periodical
Scale vs Conformal 101The response to Weyl transform in QFT
Require Weyl invariance:
Instead require only constant Weyl inv:
May be improved to be traceless when
Obviously conformal is stronger than scale inv
: virial current
Simple counterexample: Maxwell theory Consider U(1) free Maxwell theory in d >4.
EM tensor and Virial current
Virial current is not a derivative cannot improve EM tensor to be traceless
Does not satisfy conformal Ward identity
Dilatation current is not gauge invariant,but charge is gauge invariant
Zamolodchikov-Polchinski theorem (1988): A scale invariant field theory is conformal invariant in (1+1) d when
1. It is unitary2. It is Poincare invariant (causal) 3. It has a discrete spectrum(4). Scale invariant current exists
(1+1) d old proof
According to Zamolodchikov, we define
At RG fixed point, , which means
C-theorem!
Remark on the last line
In CFT, trivially true by state-operator correspondence. Is it true in general QFTs?
Unitarity tells
Theorem: (Reeh-Schlierder)
Proof is highly non-trivial (Try it!)
Causality is essential.
By the way, in chiral version of the “theorem” by H & S, they abused the theorem. They can never prove the above statement within their assumptions… Counterexamples do exist!
Modern compensator approach (Komargodski)
• Start with the UV CFT perturbed by relevant deformations.
• Add compensator (= dilaton) to preserve the conformal invariance
• Compute the IR effective action
• Conformal anomaly matching
• Kinetic term must be positive
• The rate of the change is governed by
• Scale Conformal
d=4 (perturbative) old “Proof”
• Wess-Zumino consistency condition for RG-flow in curved background
• One of the constraint (a-theorem?)
• Assume a is constant at fixed point, scale conformal?
• Caveat: positivity of G is not shown (unlike d=2)• Perturbatively, it is positive though…
In early 90’s, the perturbative proof was done by Osborn though he did not emphasize it
Compensator approach (Komargodski-Scwhimmer, Luty-Polchinski-Rattazi)
• We start with the UV CFT perturbed by relevant deformations + dilaton compensation
• Compute the IR effective action
• Conformal anomaly matching
• Must be positive (due to causality/unitarity)
• The rate of the change is governed by
• When T is small: Scale Conformal?
“Counterexample”
Grinstein et al studied beta functions of gauge/fermions/bosons at three loops
Non-trivial exists at three loops
If , then it is scale invariant but non-conformal invariant!
The RG trajectory is cyclic
Perturbative. Clearly in contradiction.
What’s wrong? Which is correct??
Can we write by using EOM?
Resolution of the debate 1
• How do we know ? • CS-eq does not tell total derivative part
• Beta functions are ambiguous (“gauge choice”: cf scheme choice): gauge invariant B function
• What we really have to show
• Grinstein et al later computed . Lo and behold: • So their theory is actually conformal
Resolution of the debate 2
• The “proof” part (LPR) was also too quick• They didn’t introduce “partial virial current” contri
bution explicitly.– Extra contribution from or ?
• We can imagine their computation was in B-gauge (or unitary gauge in holography)
• After careful reformulation of the problem, we can show
• Still, perturbative proof, but contradiction gone.
Lessons
• Not enough to compute beta functions for conformal invariance
• Can we compute B function directly?
• With manifest SUSY preserving regularization, B = beta to all order in perturbation theory (Nakayama)
• Scale = conformal in perturbation theory, but non-perturbative regime remains open
Part 2. Holographic verdict
Holographic c-theorem revisited
Holographic realization of the debate and resolutions
Scale Conformal
Holographic c-theorem revisited
According to holographic c-theorem:
Null energy-condition leads to strong c-theorem
Suppose the matter is given by NSLM
Strict null energy-condition demands the positivity of the metric (unitarity needs positivity of the metric)
Is scale conformal??
More precise version 1Implement the operator identity:
Achieved by gauge transformation
In Poincare patch
We may have the non-zero beta functions (B gauge)
But this can be gauge equivalent to the vector condensation (virial gauge)
In both cases, the field configuration is scale inv but non-conformal (holographic cyclic RG). Is it possible?
More precise version 2Reconsider holographic RG-flow
Null energy-condition leads to strong c-theorem
Matter is given by gauged NLSM
Assume positive metric from strict NEC
Scale inv but non-conformal config forbidden
Holographic verdict • Rather trivial modification gauging• Scale Conformal under the same assumption • What was the confusion/debates then?
• Suppose we start with manifestly conformal background
• Gauge transform: apparently non-conformal but scale invariant (and it looks cyclic?)
• Just a gauge artifact!
General theorem
when
• Gravity with full diff (cf Horava gravity)
• Matter: must satisfy strict NEC– When saturate the NEC, matter must be trivial
configuration– Sufficient condition for strong c-theorem– Sufficient to protect unitarity in NLSM
• In any space-time dimension
Scale inv Conformal inv in Holography