SciPost Submission Page
Area law and OPE blocks in conformal field theory
by Jiang Long
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Jiang Long |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | scipost_202010_00028v5 (pdf) |
| Date accepted: | 2021-08-02 |
| Date submitted: | 2021-07-08 15:01 |
| Submitted by: | Long, Jiang |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Proceedings |
| Proceedings issue: | Review of Particle Physics at PSI (PSI2020) |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Theoretical |
Abstract
This is an introduction to the relationship between area law and OPE blocks in conformal field theory.
List of changes
1) The referee is still concerned with the normalization of Q, indeed it could change the value of p_q. In this paper, I already set it to be 1 in lines 152-153.
2) I soften my statement on the p_q in lines 335-336.
3) I changed cdots to \cdots in line 223 and identity to identities in line 337.
Published as SciPost Phys. Proc. 4, 013 (2021)
Reports on this Submission
Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2021-7-15 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202010_00028v5, delivered 2021-07-15, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.3234
Strengths
1- Proposes new observables in CFT.
2- Presents concrete computations and results.
Weaknesses
1- It is unclear whether the key quantity $p_q$ is unambiguously defined for general operators.
Report
The author studied nonlocal operators in CFT known as "OPE blocks" that generalize the modular Hamiltonian, computed their correlators and extracted the universal leading logarithmic piece in the small cutoff limit. The key results were a UV/IR relation (3.16) and a cyclic identity (3.29). The former was proven by exploiting conformal symmetry, and the latter was conjectured based on evidence. The author carried out concrete calculations with suitable regularization to obtain $p_q$ for operators of integer weights, and left open whether there is an unambiguous way to define $p_q$ for general operators.
I recommend the manuscript for publication.