Trace anomaly of a conformally invariant quantum field in curved spacetime

Robert M. Wald
Phys. Rev. D 17, 1477 – Published 15 March 1978
PDFExport Citation

Abstract

We analyze a point-separation prescription for renormalizing the stress-energy operator Tμν of a quantum field in curved spacetime, based on the assumption that the expectation value G(x, x)=φ(x)φ(x)+φ(x)φ(x) has the form of a Hadamard elementary solution. An error is pointed out in the work of Adler, Lieberman, and Ng: The "locally determined" piece GL(x, x) and "boundary-condition-dependent" piece GB(x, x) of G(x, x) do not separately satisfy the wave equation in x, as required in their proof of the conservation of the boundary-condition-dependent contribution to Tμν. This error affects the point-separation renormalization prescription given in my previous paper describing an axiomatic approach to stress-energy renormalization. It is now seen that this prescription yields a stress-energy tensor whose divergence is not zero but is the gradient of a local curvature term. However, this deficiency can be corrected by subtracting off this local curvature term times the metric tensor; as a direct consequence the trace of Tμν becomes nonvanishing. Given this result it is shown that any prescription for renormalizing Tμν which is consistent with conservation (axiom 3), causality (axiom 4), and agreement with the formal expression for the matrix element between orthogonal states (axiom 1) must yield precisely this trace, modulo the trace of a conserved local curvature term. Hence, for consistency with the first four axioms and dimensional considerations, we find that the trace of the stress tensor of the conformally invariant scalar field must be Tμμ=(2880π2)1(CαβδγCαβδγ+RαβRαβ=13R2) plus an arbitrary constant times ααR. This confirms previous work of a number of authors on the existence of trace anomalies. For consistency with axiom 5 (no "local curvature terms containing third or higher derivatives of the matric"), the coefficient of the ααR term must be zero. However, it is argued that if the expectation value G(x, x) is of the Hadamard form in the massless case, as assumed in defining the point-separation renormalization prescription, then axiom 5 cannot be satisfied and, indeed, a completely unambiguous prescription for Tμν cannot be given without introducing a length scale.

  • Received 19 August 1977

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.17.1477

©1978 American Physical Society

Authors & Affiliations

Robert M. Wald

  • Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 17, Iss. 6 — 15 March 1978

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×
×

Images

×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review D

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×