3
$\begingroup$

I have a background quite far from vertex algebras, and it seems like a vertex algebra is holomorphic if basically there is only one irreducible module, namely itself. Why is it called holomorphic?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I don´t know the original reference for "holomorphic" being used in the context of vertex algebras. It is already there in Frenkel -- Lepowsky -- Meurman and this term is probably due to them or Dong, who proved holomorphicity of the Moonshine module. However compelling Theo´s answer is, I´m pretty sure the reason is that with very mild conditions, the character of such algebras is a holomorphic function (a modular form on SL(2,Z)). Since I don´t have the original reference in hand, this is a comment instead of an answer. $\endgroup$ Apr 20, 2021 at 10:32
  • $\begingroup$ @ReimundoHeluani I also don't have the first reference, but "holomorphic conformal field theory" was used in a manner consistent with "vertex algebra with trivial representation theory" by Dixon-Ginsparg-Harvey (section 4 of "Beauty and the Beast") in 1988. I think this supports Theo's explanation. $\endgroup$
    – S. Carnahan
    Apr 29, 2021 at 17:33

1 Answer 1

12
$\begingroup$

Those in a hurry can skip to the bottom. Those with some leisure time can read the details.

To explain the answer, it is helpful to remember what vertex algebras are. Suppose you have a quantum field theory. Then among its data is some sort of "algebra" of "point operators" aka "vertex operators", which are the operators that you can apply at points in spacetime. The general "algebra" structure on these operators is slightly subtle, because when you insert operators, their locations matter. The best way to organize the algebra structure is as some sort of factorization algebra, but I won't review that definition. Factorization algebras are basically an updated, more universal version of the Wightman and Haag–Kastler axioms. ​Another way to organize the algebra structure is to record all of the $n$-point functions, and that's the way physicists traditionally do it.

Aside for experts: What you really want is not just a factorization algebra, but (at least) a translation invariant factorization algebra. The translation invariance is extra data — how is the algebra translation invariant — and encodes to the Hamiltonian and momentum operators. Probably you should impose more, like that your algebra be Poincare invariant, which would encode the Lorentz boosts, and perhaps you want to require even the full data of the stress-energy tensor (which tells you how your algebra couples to an infinitesimal background metric).

Example: In quantum mechanics (=0+1D QFT), all operators are point operators, and the algebra thereof is the algebra of all of them is the algebra of operators on your Hilbert space. ("What regularity of operators?" I hear you ask. The answer is that you should package together the various regularities of operators — bounded, unbounded, etc. — into some sort of functional-analytic algebraic object.)

In general, the algebra of point operators does not encode the entire data of the QFT. In general, you would need also to know the extended operators: operators that are inserted along lines, surfaces, etc. Some extended operators are built as integrals aka "descendants" of point operators, but not all of them are; one can contemplate a sort of "index" of the inclusion (point operators and their descendants) $\subset$ (all operators), or more generally of the inclusion (operators of dimension $\leq k$ and their descendants) $\subset$ (all operators). I believe that the following is true, and I know a proof for topological field theories: for an $(n+1)D$ QFT, this inclusion is an iso exactly when the space of vacua is $(n-k-1)$-connected.

In particular, in 1+1D, if there is a unique vacuum, then the algebra of point operators knows the entire QFT.

Now, there is a really fundamental fact about the algebra of all operators in a QFT: its centre is trivial. This fact goes under the name Heisenberg uncertainty principle. What I'm saying is: if you have any operator $a$, and if it is not some multiple of the identity operator, then there is some other operator $b$ whose "commutator" with $a$ is nonzero. I won't try to say what is a "commutator" in general. Rather, I want you to take this as an intuition.

Actually, an even stronger statement holds than just that the centre is trivial. Consider the case of an associative algebra $A$. The centre of $A$ is the endomorphisms of the identity $A$-bimodule $_A A_A$. The stronger statement is that the full category of bimodules is trivial. (Of course, since algebras of operators are functional analytic, you will need to incorporate some analysis into the definition of "bimodule".) This stronger statement implies (and, interpreted correctly, essential is) the Noether theorem: all symmetries of your QFT are inner. (Outline of proof: given a symmetry, write down a bimodule; innerizing the symmetry is the same as trivializing the bimodule.)

In 1+1D, the correct category in place of the "bimodules" are the "vertex modules". In general, any translation-invariant factorization algebra has a notion of "module" supported at a point.

Ok, now let me start to bring this all back to your actual question. Let's take a 1+1D QFT. It has a stress-energy tensor $T_{\mu\nu}$, which is a symmetric 2-tensor. (I mean: it is a vertex operator valued in symmetric 2-tensors.) In 1+1D we can polarize our coordinates into light-cone coordinates: $z = x - t$ and $\bar{z} = x + t$. If you prefer Euclidean signature, Wick-rotate to $y = it$. After polarizing, the stress-energy tensor has the components $T := T_{zz}$, $\bar{T} := T_{\bar{z},\bar{z}}$, and $\operatorname{Tr}(T) := T_{z\bar{z}}$. The field theory is conformal when $\operatorname{Tr}(T) = 0$. In this case, $T$ and $\bar{T}$ commute. Moreover, your full algebra of vertex operators has two distinguished subalgebras: the commutator of $\bar{T}$, and the commutator of $T$.

What is the commutator of $\bar{T}$? Why, it is the subalgebra of those operators $a(z,\bar{z})$ which in fact depend only holomorphically on $z$. In slogans: $[\bar{T}, -] \propto \bar\partial$. In other words, the commutator of $\bar{T}$ is the subalgebra of chiral operators. Call it $V$. Similarly, the commutator of $T$ is the subalebra of antichiral operators. Call it $\bar{W}$.

Then $V$ and $W$ (the latter being the complex conjugate of $\bar{W}$) are both vertex algebras in the sense that you know: they are algebras of operators where the algebra structure depends only holomorphically on the positions of insertions.

So we have our full algebra $A$, and it contains $V \otimes \bar{W}$. By construction, $V$ and $\bar{W}$ commute with each other and are in fact each other's centralizers. This invites you to understand $A$ by decomposing it as a sum of $V \otimes \bar{W}$ modules. Conversely, since $\operatorname{Rep}(A)$ is trivial, and since $V$ and $\bar{W}$ are each other's centralizers, $A$ provides a sort of "Schur–Weyl duality": an identification $F : \operatorname{Rep}(V) \cong \operatorname{Rep}(W)$. Conversely, you can recover $A$ from this identification: indeed, $A = \bigoplus_{M \in \operatorname{Rep}(V)} M \otimes \overline{F(M)}$. A good working definition of "2D CFT" is "pair of [unitary] vertex operator algebras with an identification between their categories of representations".

Example: When the decomposition of $A$ over $V \otimes \bar{W}$ is finite — heuristically, when $V \otimes \bar{W} \subset A$ is of "finite index" — then your CFT is called rational. When the index is infinite, there remains, as far as I know, some open mathematical questions needed to make this working definition completely rigorous.

Let me explain the reason for the name "rational". The first CFTs really well understood were the sigma models with target a circle $\mathbb{R}/2\pi r\mathbb{Z}$, or more generally a torus. In this case $V = W$. It turns out that when $r^2$ is irrational (at least I think I want $r^2$ — experts should correct me), then the only chiral operators are the free boson modes. But when $r^2 \in \mathbb{Q}$, there are more chiral operators coming from winding the string around the target, and the index of $V \otimes \bar{V} \subset A$ is basically the height of $r$. The same thing holds more generally for a torus $\mathbb{R}^n/\Lambda$, where what ends up mattering is whether $\lambda^2 \in \mathbb{Q}$ for all $\lambda \in \Lambda$ or not.

Finally, there is a very special class of 2D conformal field theories: the holomorphic conformal field theories. These are the 2D CFTs where not just $\operatorname{Tr}(T) = T_{z\bar{z}}$ but also $\bar{T} = T_{\bar{z}\bar{z}}$ vanishes. Equivalently, these are the CFTs where all operators are chiral aka holomorphic. Note that in this case the algebra I am calling $\bar{W}$ must be trivial, and $V \subset A$ must be an isomorphism. But I told you that $\operatorname{Rep}(A)$ was trivial. So $\operatorname{Rep}(V)$ is trivial.

Aside for experts: Actually, you don't really need $\operatorname{Tr}(T)$ and $\bar{T}$ to vanish. You just need them to be central, which is to say you need them to be multiples of the identity. This is because we really only ever care about their commutators. The values of $\operatorname{Tr}(T)$ and $\bar{T}$, as multiples of the identity, are some sort of "anomalies" or "central charges."

TL;DR: Vertex algebras arise as (sub)algebras of operators in lots of contexts, most importantly in 2D QFT. A very special type of 2D QFT is a holomorphic CFT, which is a 2D QFT where all operators depend only holomorphically (after Wick rotation) on their locations of insertion. Necessary and sufficient conditions for a (unitary) vertex (operator) algebra to arise from a holomorphic CFT is that its category of vertex modules be trivial (i.e. completely reducible and the only irrep is the vacuum module). This is why those vertex algebras are called holomorphic.

$\endgroup$
16
  • $\begingroup$ That's a very insightful response! One question: when you talk about triviality of centers of operators in QFT, that seems to me a version of saying your classical phase spaces are all [shifted] symplectic, rather than Poisson -- is this restriction necessary? or would you use some words like "degenerate" to apply to "Poisson" QFTs? (TBH I'm confused if this is the analog of symplectic or of Poisson with dense symplectic leaf, so no Casimirs) $\endgroup$ Apr 17, 2021 at 23:19
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidBen-Zvi I should emphasize the caveat that my opinions on the matter continue to evolve. So I might disagree with myself in a few years. With that said, yes, classically, I would use a word like “degenerate” for non symplectic phase spaces. Here is a test: a Noether theorem should hold. Classically, Noether’s theorem is the statement that all symplectic vector fields are Hamiltonian. Maybe this succeeds for Poisson-with-dense-leaf if you insist on smooth vector fields, but i think it fails derivedly? Equivalently, there should be a sheaf of Casimir functions, and I think this sheaf ... $\endgroup$ Apr 19, 2021 at 2:04
  • $\begingroup$ ... has cohomology even if you have a dense leaf. Well, it always has cohomology equal to the de Rham cohomology — I really mean to subtract that off, and work with the sheaf Casimirs/Constants. (And if we’re hanging out late in the evening at the conference hotel bar, then I might tell you that I want to do something to collapse the de Rham stack to a point. But I would be wrong, because this is only supposed to be (semi)classical, and in particular perturbative, so I shouldn’t care about “large” automorphisms.) $\endgroup$ Apr 19, 2021 at 2:09
  • $\begingroup$ Quantumly, what I think the true definition of QFT should be is ... well, it should have the following form. There should be some combination of factorization algebra, higher categories of extended operators, and functional analysis, at the end of which you should know what is a “von Neumann n-algebra”. (Compare: a multifusion category is a finite semisimple 2-algebra.) Then a qft should be a von Neumann n-algebra, plus some Poincare symmetry data (Hamiltonian operator, etc), plus that it is a type I factor. $\endgroup$ Apr 19, 2021 at 2:12
  • $\begingroup$ It helps to remember why von Neumann invented his algebras. The Hilbert space is obviously not physical. States aren’t vectors or even lines: only pure states are. What is obviously physical are the operators, and it’s reasonable to think that they form a C* algebra. von Neumann knew that if he could show that the algebra of operators was abstractly isomorphic to B(H), then the Hilbert space would be uniquely determined. And so he gave a good argument that the algebra should be weak-closed, ie von Neumann. $\endgroup$ Apr 19, 2021 at 2:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.