Introduction to conformal field theory, Lecture 9

preview_player
Показать описание
In this seminar I will, over some 10 lectures, introduce the basics of conformal field theory. The emphasis will be on the physical content, however, there will be reference to mathematical formulations throughout.

The course is based on a mixture of Ginsparg's "Applied Conformal Field Theory", hep-th/9108028 and Schottenloher's "A mathematical introduction to conformal field theory".

Prerequisites for the course comprise: advanced QM, QFT, advanced QFT, and some familiarity with symplectic methods, which you can cover by watching my previous videos.

In the 9th lecture I discuss the free boson and introduce the Virasoro algebra.
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

23:43, 28:46, 37:58, 46:04, 49:31, 54:08, 1:01:56, 1:07:15, 1:11:06, 1:15:50 oddly satisfying! Amazing lecture.

abhisheknavhal
Автор

Thank you for the lecture.
I just have a problem on deriving the OPE for both T(z)T(w) and T(z)\Phi(w)
What if we give up on normal ordering and just claim the infinite shift to be lambda. Then lambda should only be there for T(z)T(w) and then we can return back to normal ordering, so that we don't have to contract through a normal ordering, does this work? Thank you.

崔絲
Автор

Really helped me clear some misconceptions. Can you someday upload lectures on Quantum information and Information theory?

tusharrable
Автор

Thank you for your videos! But one thing I'm confused is that we need general TT OPE and T\bar{T} OPE for the derivation of Virasoro Algebra so
(1) How can we get that general expression of TT OPE?
(2) Why is T\bar{T} OPE trivial?

danielyue
Автор

Could this version of Conformal QFT be used with Plain Wave Theory, i.e. hidden variables from the point of view of Loop Quantum Gravity? i do not have a degree but it is an area of interest for me.

peterpalumbo
Автор

Thank you for your videos, and I got confused about one point. The transformation rule of the free boson field phi satisfies that in the definition of a primary field, with weights h=hbar=0, but you say phi is not primary, does the definition of a primary field exclude the case when h=hbar=0?

wenzheyang
join shbcf.ru