![Page 1: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
CDD ambiguity and irrelevant CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTdeformations of 2D QFT
Tateo RobertoBased on:
M. Caselle, D. Fioravanti, F. Gliozzi, JHEP [arXiv:1305.1278] A. Cavaglià, S. Negro, I. Szécsényi, JHEP [arXiv:1608.05534]
Torino
IGST2017, Paris
![Page 2: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Other relevant referencesA.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT in two-dimensional quantum field theory, [hep-th/0401146];
S. Dubovsky, R. Flauger and V. Gorbenko, Solving the simplest theory of quantum gravity, JHEP 2012 (2012);
S. Dubovsky, V. Gorbenko and M. Mirbabayi, Natural tuning: towards a proof of concept, [hep-th/1305.6939];
F. A. Smirnov and A. B. Zamolodchikov, On space of integrable quantum field theories, Nucl.Phys. B915 (2017),[hep-th/1608.05499];
L. McGough, M. Mezei, H. Verlinde, Moving the CFT into the bulk with TT, [hep-th/1611.03470];
A. Giveon, N. Itzhaki, D. Kutasov, TT and LST, [hep- th/1701.05576];
![Page 3: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Main motivationsThe effective string theory for the quark-antiquark potential;
Emergence of singularities in RG/TBA flows with irrelevant perturbations;
Relation between irrelevant perturbations and S-matrix CDD (scalar phase factor) ambiguity;
AdS3/CFT
2 duality;
CFTUV
CFTIR
CFTIR
?
![Page 4: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Exact S-matrix and CDD ambiguity
Consider a relativistic integrable field theory with factorised scattering:
The simplest possibility, consistent with the crossing and unitarity relations is:
Castillejo-Dalitz-Dyson ambiguity:
![Page 5: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
The sine-Gordon NLIE
The finite-size properties of the sine-Gordon model are encoded in the single counting function f(θ), solution to the following nonlinear integral equation:
For the ground state and , but more more complicatedcontours appear for excited states.
and
[A. Klumper, M. T. Batchelor and P. A. Pearce; C. Destri, H. DeVega]
![Page 6: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Zero-momentum case:
which allows to compute the exact form of the t-deformed energy level once its R-dependence is known at t = 0.
replacing
we get
with
![Page 7: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
The latter equation is the implicit form of a solution of a well-known hydrodynamic equation,the invicid Burgers equation:
the deformation parameter t plays the role of “time” variable, and the undeformed energy level serves as initial condition at t = 0. For the general case:
with
Then
and
,
![Page 8: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
we now have an implicit form of the solution of the inviscid Burgers equation with a source term:
again the undeformed energy E(R,0) plays the role of initial condition at t = 0.
source term
![Page 9: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Shock singularitiesTo see the emergence of the wave-breaking phenomenon in the inviscid Burgers equation, let’s consider the P = 0 case. For a generic initial condition, E(R,0):
with
the map
has in general a number of square-root branch points in the complex R-plane. To find their location, consider the inverse map:
Then, a singularity is characterised by the condition
Indeed, around a solution of this equation, we have:
for
,
.
![Page 10: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
In typical hydrodynamic applications, the initial profile is smooth on the real-R axis, and for short times all branch points lie in the complex plane.
The time evolution however in general brings one of the singularities on the real domain in a finite time, producing a shock in the physical solution.
Therefore:
and
![Page 11: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Typical t=0 finite-volume spectrum:
R
E(R)
![Page 12: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
The energy levels display a pole at R = 0:
where, ceff
= c – 24Δ is the “effective central charge” of the UV CFT state.
This behaviour implies that, for small times t > 0, the equation
has two solutions very close to
and correspondingly the solution is singular at
In other words, as soon as t > 0, the pole at R = 0 resolves into a pair of branch points.
![Page 13: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Real part of E(R, t) for t = 0 (dashed line) and t = 0.025 (solid line), for c
eff = 1
Real part of E(R, t) for t = 0 (dashed line) andt = 0.025 (solid line), for c
eff = −1
![Page 14: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
An extra CDD factor couples left (-) with right (+) movers scattering, any NLIE or TBA equation leads to a pair of coupled algebraic equations:
ceff
= c – 24 Δ(primary), obtained by an energy-dependent shift:
which matches the form of the (D=26, cef=24) Nambu Goto spectrum, for generic
CFT, with t=1/(2, where is the string tension.
The CFT case
The total energy:
.
![Page 15: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
SU(2) at β = 16. Solid curves are continuum NG; dashed curves are NG with a ‘lattice’ dispersion relation. Thick vertical line is deconfining transition; thin vertical line is NG tachyonic transition.
Best figure from:
A. Athenodoroua and M. TeperarXiv:1602.07634
![Page 16: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Identification of the perturbing operator
Start from the equation
and use the standard relations
then
with
![Page 17: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Use Zamolodchikov's definition for the composite operator:
which fulfils the following factorization property:
Proof:
Consider that together with the conservation laws:
keeping z and z’ separated:
![Page 18: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Therefore, up to total derivatives:
Putting all this information together:
and
then
and sending we get the desired factorisation result.
which generalises the near CFT perturbative result:
![Page 19: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Classical Action: one bosonic field
Starting from:
![Page 20: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Nambu Goto action in 3D target space:
and
with
in the static gauge:
N free massless boson →Nambu Goto in (N+2) taget space:
![Page 21: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
The Lagrangian is very complicated, but we already know that its quantum spectrum is:
Single boson field with generic potential
![Page 22: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Generalisations
Many known scattering models differ only by CDD factors
CDD factors admit an expansion in terms of the spin of the local integrals of motion:
with
Thermally perturbed Ising model (c=1/2) Sinh-Gordon (c=1)
ADE minimal Scattering models Simply-Laced Affine Toda models
![Page 23: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
F. Smirnov, A. Zamolodchikov: adding CDD factors leads to well-identified effective field theories. The corresponding perturbing fields are the composite operators:
Generalised Burgers equation
(i.e. a Generalized Gibbs ensemble )
![Page 24: CDD ambiguity and irrelevant deformations of 2D QFTigst17/slides/Tateo.pdf · 2017-07-17 · 2 Other relevant references A.B. Zamolodchikov, Expectation value of composite field TT](https://reader034.vdocument.in/reader034/viewer/2022042807/5f80160524c1c84d690c5ad5/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Conclusions● Adding CDD factors generates interesting, often UV incomplete, QFTs.
● While the study of generic irrelevant perturbations in QFT remains very problematic, the perturbation appears to be surprisingly easy to treat also in non-integrable models.
● The research on this topic may clarify important aspects concerning the appearance of singularities in efective QFT (Landau pole and tachyon singularity).
● It may be useful in the efective string framework since contributions from higher-dimension integrable composite operators can be added (Virasoro, W-algebra ...).
● It may help to understand the origin of massive modes propagating on the flux tube.