4.4 Article

Interplay between reflection positivity and crossing symmetry in the bootstrap approach to CFT

期刊

JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS
卷 -, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/JHEP02(2022)171

关键词

Conformal Field Theory; Field Theories in Lower Dimensions; Global Symmetries

资金

  1. National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET)
  2. University of Buenos Aires

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper discusses the importance of crossing symmetry and reflection positivity as tools in the bootstrap program applied to CFT. It shows that reflection positivity can provide additional information and explains how it captures a significant part of the restrictions imposed by the full crossing symmetry equality. The paper also demonstrates the practical value of this approach through examples of general CFT models in d-dimensions.
Crossing symmetry (CS) is the main tool in the bootstrap program applied to CFT. This consists in an equality which imposes restrictions on the CFT data of a model, i.e., the OPE coefficients and the conformal dimensions. Reflection positivity (RP) has also played a role in this program, since this condition is what leads to the unitary bound and reality of the OPE coefficients. In this paper, we show that RP can still reveal more information, explaining how RP itself can capture an important part of the restrictions imposed by the full CS equality. In order to do that, we use a connection used by us in a previous work between RP and positive definiteness of a function of a single variable. This allows us to write constraints on the OPE coefficients in a concise way. These constraints are encoded in the conditions that certain functions of the cross-ratio will be positive defined and in particular completely monotonic. We will consider how the bounding of scalar conformal dimensions and OPE coefficients arise in this RP based approach. We will illustrate the conceptual and practical value of this view trough examples of general CFT models in d-dimensions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据