0

In Becker's String theory book Conformal transformation in D dimension is given by $$\delta x^{\mu}=a^{\mu}+\omega^{\mu}_{\hspace{5pt}\nu}x^{\nu}+\lambda x^{\mu} +b^{\mu}x^2-2x^{\mu}(b\cdot x)$$ While discussing $2$ dimensional infinitesimal conformal transformation BBS used the following transformation $$z\rightarrow z'=z-\epsilon_n z^{n+1} \hspace{5pt}n\in\mathbb{Z}$$ and it's complex conjugate. For $n=-1,0,1$ this infinitesimal transformation $\delta z=-\epsilon_n z^{n+1}$ can be fitted into the general equation. We have constant, linear, and quadratic terms and as the indices change we move over $z$ or $\bar{z}$. But for $n<-1$ and $n> 1$ this transformation doesn't fit the first general equation. Why is this so?

Although on the next page when discussing the $2$ dimensional transformation using generators we are told that $-1,0,1$ are special since all other generators can be calculated using the Virasoro algebra. I don't know if this idea has any relation (or is the answer) to my question?

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
aitfel
  • 2,973
  • I'm not entirely sure what the question here is but you have likely misunderstood your source - the first equation is the general conformal transformation for $D>2$, the second for $D=2$. Since they are for different $D$, why would they need to "fit" to each other? – ACuriousMind Apr 20 '21 at 15:23
  • 5
    You do know that D=2 is special and has an infinity of generators more than in other dimensions, no? – Cosmas Zachos Apr 20 '21 at 16:04
  • @ACuriousMind I'm likely misunderstanding something. Though in the section of $D$ dimensional conformal transformation, they never say the general equation holds for $D>2$. This is the most probable cause of my issue. – aitfel Apr 20 '21 at 16:08
  • @CosmasZachos Oh! got my error. Conformal transformation of $D=2$ and $D>2$ are totally different. One is done using inversion-translation-inversion and the other is done using $z \rightarrow f(z)$ – aitfel Apr 20 '21 at 16:25
  • @ACuriousMind Thanks got your point. Indeed I totally misunderstood an explicitly mentioned point. – aitfel Apr 20 '21 at 16:26
  • Possible duplicate: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/391624/2451 – Qmechanic Apr 20 '21 at 16:55

0 Answers0