a

r
X
i
v
:
1
0
0
6
.
3
4
8
0
v
2


[
h
e
p
-
t
h
]


2

A
u
g

2
0
1
0
UTTG-04-10
Six-dimensional Methods for Four-dimensional Conformal
Field Theories
Steven Weinberg

Theory Group, Department of Physics, University of Texas

Austin, TX, 78712
Abstract
The calculation of both spinor and tensor Greens functions in four-dimensional
conformally invariant eld theories can be greatly simplied by six-dimensional
methods. For this purpose, four-dimensional elds are constructed as pro-
jections of elds on the hypercone in six-dimensional projective space, satis-
fying certain transversality conditions. In this way some Greens functions
in conformal eld theories are shown to have structures more general than
those commonly found by use of the inversion operator. These methods t
in well with the assumption of AdS/CFT duality. In particular, it is trans-
parent that if elds on AdS
5
approach nite limits on the boundary of AdS
5
,
then in the conformal eld theory on this boundary these limits transform
with conformal dimensionality zero if they are tensors (of any rank), but
with conformal dimension 1/2 if they are spinors or spinor-tensors.

Electronic address: weinberg@physics.utexas.edu

1
I. INTRODUCTION
Lets rst review some well-known fundamentals. The action of confor-
mal transformations in four spacetime dimensions on a general eld
n
(x)
is given by its commutators with the generators J

of Lorentz transforma-
tions, P

of translations, K

of special conformal transformations, and S of

dilatations:
i [J

,
n
(x)] =
_
x

n
(x) i (j

)
n
m

m
(x) , (1)
i [P

,
n
(x)] =

x

n
(x) , (2)
i [K

,
n
(x)] =
_
2x

x
2

x

_

n
(x)
2ix

_
j

_
n
m

m
(x) + 2d x

n
(x) , (3)
i [S,
n
(x)] =
_
x

+d
_

n
(x) , (4)
where d is the conformal dimensionality of the eld, and j

is the appropri-
ate matrix representation of the Lie algebra of the Lorentz group, satisfying
the commutation relations
i
_
j

, j

_
=

. (5)
We can work out the consequences of conformal symmetry for Greens func-
tions of general elds by direct use of these commutation relations, but
this is complicated, especially for non-scalar elds, for which j

,= 0, and
for three-point and higher Greens functions. A widely practiced alterna-
tive[1] is to make use of invariance under the a single action of the inversion
x

/x
2
, but this is also complicated, and not necessarily valid. The
inversion is not an element of the connected part of the conformal group,
but only an outer automorphism, so that it is possible for the commutation
relations (1) through (4) to be satised without invariance under the inver-
sion. This makes no dierence for two-point functions, or for some more
complicated Greens functions involving only scalar elds, but in Section V
we will see examples of Greens functions for spinor elds that are not invari-
ant under the inversion, even when the commutation relations (1) through
(4) are satised. (These comments do not apply if one acts with the inver-
sion an even number of times, but this gets complicated, and it is not what
2
is usually done in deriving the structure of Greens function.) Here we are
going to oer a dierent method for the calculation of Greens functions in
four-dimensional conformal eld theories, based on very elementary calcula-
tions in six dimensions.
1
Though no dynamical assumptions are made here,
to achieve conformal invariance in four dimensions it is found necessary to
specify certain relations between the elds in four dimensions and in six
dimensions and to impose constraints on the six-dimensional elds, both of
which may prove useful in dynamical theories.
It is well known that the connected part of the conformal group in
four space-time dimensions form the group SO(4, 2), which can be real-
ized as linear transformations in a six-dimensional projective space. This
six-dimensional space is a hypercone,

KL
X
K
X
L
= 0 , (6)
where K, L, etc. run over the values 1, 2, 3, 0, 5, 6, and
KL
is the metric of
the six-dimensional space, a diagonal matrix with non-zero elements

11
=
22
=
33
=
55
= +1 ,
00
=
66
= 1 . (7)
It is a projective space, in the sense that X
K
is identied with X
K
for any
non-zero . The connection between six and four dimensions is provided by
the formula for the spacetime coordinates x

,
x

=
X

X
5
+X
6
, (8)
where as usual , , etc. run over the values 1, 2, 3, 0. The conformal group
consists of transformations
X
K

K
L
X
L
,
KL

K
M

L
N
=
MN
, Det = 1 (9)
1
This work was done in preparing a course on quantum eld theory given in Spring 2010.
Since the original version of this paper was posted on the hep-th archive, I have learned
of previous work in which dynamical equations are assumed for elds in six dimensions,
and then used to derive physical eld equations in four dimensions. The literature on this
goes back to Dirac[2], where electromagnetic elds and free spinor elds were considered.
Among the rst following Dirac to use this approach were Mack and Salam[3]. Other
early references are given in a historical review by Kastrup[4]. Extensive work has been
done on six dimensional eld equations (including constraints on six-dimensional elds
found here) corresponding to realistic theories in four dimensions, by Bars[5]. Related
work was done by Ferrara, Grillo, and Gatto[6] for the case of symmetric tensors, and
extended to superconformal theories by Ferrara[7]. Of course, much work on the AdS/CFT
correspondence deals with related problems[8]. In contrast to all this previous work, the
aim of the present paper is the modest one of using six dimensional eld theories to
derive only those properties of Greens functions in four dimensions that follow solely
from conformal invariance, with no dynamical assumptions.
3
which generate the group of conformal transformations on the x

given by
Eq. (8). The generators J
KL
= J
LK
of these transformations satisfy the
commutation relations
i
_
J
KL
, J
MN
_
=
ML
J
KN

KM
J
LN

LN
J
KM
+
KN
J
ML
, (10)
with the generators of translations, special conformal transformations,and
dilatations identied as
P

= J
5
+J
6
, K

= J
5
+J
6
, S = J
65
. (11)
The inversion operation x

/x
2
is simply the reection that changes
the sign of X
6
, leaving all other X
K
unchanged. It violates the condition
Det = +1, and hence belongs to O(4, 2) but not to SO(4, 2).
Because of the simplicity of the conformal transformation rule (9), it
is very easy to work out the consequences of conformal invariance for the
Greens functions of elds in the six dimensional projective space. We can
tell by inspection whether a Greens function of elds in six dimensions
is SO(4, 2)-invariant, in much the same way that we can tell at a glance
whether a Greens function in four spacetime dimensions is Lorentz invari-
ant. The question, then, is how can we convert information about six-
dimensional Greens functions into information about the Greens functions
of elds in four-dimensional spacetime? Fields in six dimensions of course
have more components than the corresponding elds in four dimensions; for
instance, a six-dimensional tensor of rank r has 6
r
components, rather than
the 4
r
components in four dimensions, and a spinor eld in six dimensions
has eight rather than four components. In order to construct suitable four-
dimensional elds from elds in six dimensions, we need both to impose
constraints on the elds in six dimensions, and write the four-dimensional
elds as suitable projections of the six-dimensional elds.
We show how to do this for tensor elds in Section II. In Section III we
apply these methods to derive the structure of various Greens functions of
tensor elds in four-dimensions. Section IV deals with spinor elds, and in
Section V we nd some new results for spinor Greens functions.
Although the methods of this paper described in Sections II through V do
not in any way depend on assumptions about holography, they were in fact
inspired by AdS/CFT duality[9], especially as explained by Witten[10]. The
six-dimensional methods introduced here are applied to AdS/CFT duality
in Section VI, and used to nd the conformal dimensionality d of elds
4
in four-dimensional conformal eld theories that arise from elds in ve-
dimensional anti-de Sitter space that approach nite limits on the boundary
of the space. For general tensors, it has the familiar value d = 0, but for
spinor or spinor-tensor elds it is d = 1/2.
II. TENSOR FIELDS
A tensor eld T
K
1
K
2
...Kr
(X) of rank r in six dimensions has the conformal
transformation rule
T
K
1
...Kr
(X)
L
1
K
1

Lr
Kr
T
L
1
...Lr
(X) , (12)
with satisfying Eq. (9). (Indices K, L, etc. are lowered and raised with

KL
and its inverse
KL
.) For innitesimal SO(4, 2) transformations, this
can be expressed as formulas for the commutators of T
K
1
K
2
...Kr
with the
generators J
KL
of these transformations:
i
_
J
MN
, T
K
1
...Kr
(X)
_
=
_
X
N

X
M
X
M

X
N
_
T
K
1
...Kr
(X)
i
_

MN
_
K
1
...Kr
L
1
...Lr
T
L
1
...Lr
(X) , (13)
where
MN
is the tensor representation of the SO(4, 2) algebra:
i
_

MN
_
K
1
...Kr
L
1
...Lr
=
_

MK
1

N
L
1

NK
1

M
L
1
_

K
2
L
2

Kr
Lr
+. . .
+
_

MKr

N
Lr

NKr

M
Lr
_

K
1
L
1

K
r1
L
r1
. (14)
Because we identify X
K
with X
K
, T
K
1
...Kr
(X) must satisfy a scaling re-
lation
T
K
1
...Kr
(X) =
d
T
K
1
...Kr
(X) , (15)
where for the present d is just some unknown number. For reasons that will
become clear, we also require that the hypercone condition (6) must not be
aected by any of the dierential operators
T
K
1
...Kr
(X)

X
K
1
, , T
K
1
...Kr
(X)

X
Kr
,
so that T
K
1
...Kr
(X) must be transverse on each index
X
K
1
T
K
1
...Kr
(X) = 0 , , X
Kr
T
K
1
...Kr
(X) = 0 . (16)
5
Now, consider the four-dimensional eld
t

1
...r
(x) (X
5
+X
6
)
d
e

1
K
1
(x) e
r
Kr
(x) T
K
1
...Kr
(X) , (17)
with
e

(x)

, e

5
(x) e

6
(x) x

. (18)
Because of the scaling condition (15), the eld (17) is only a function of
the ratios of the X
K
, so that when we eliminate X
5
X
6
by imposing the
hypercone condition (6), the eld (17) can indeed be regarded as a function
only of the spacetime coordinate x

given by Eq. (8).

It is straightforward though tedious to use Eqs. (6), (8), (11), (13),
(15), and (16) to show directly that the four-dimensional tensor eld given
by Eqs. (17) and (18) does satisfy the conformal transformation rules (1)
through (4), with (j

1
...r

1
...r
here given by the tensor representation of the
Lorentz group:
i (j

1
...r

1
...r
=
_

1
_

2

r
r
+. . .
+
_

r

r

r
_

r1

r1
. (19)
In this paper we will instead show this by a less direct but more illuminating
method.
It is shown in the Appendix that the usual conformal transformation
rules of tensor elds just amount to the statement that under general con-
formal transformations a tensor of rank r and conformal dimensionality d
transforms as a tensor density of weight
w = (d +r)/4 . (20)
So this is the condition that must be satised by the eld (17). To show
that this condition is satised, we note by dierentiating Eq. (8) that
x

(X)
X
K
= (X
5
+X
6
)
1
e

K
(x) ,
so that the eld (17) can be written
t

1
...r
(x) (X
5
+X
6
)
d+r
x

1
(X)
X
K
1

x
r
(X)
X
Kr
T
K
1
...Kr
(X) .
Hence, under a coordinate transformation X X

=
K
L
X
L
, we have
t

1
...r
(x) (X
5
+X
6
)
d+r
x

1
(X

)
X
K
1

x
r
(X

)
X
Kr

L
1
K
1

Lr
Kr
T
L
1
...Lr
(X

) .
6
Now, for any displacement dX on the hypercone (6), we have
x

(X

)
X
L
dX
L
=
x

(X

)
X
K
dX
K
=
x

(X

)
X
K

L
K
dX
L
.
But this is only for dX
L
on the hypercone, i. e. for X

L
dX
L
= 0, so
x

(X

)
X
L

x

(X

)
X
K

L
K
X

L
.
Under the transversality condition (16) the term proportional to X

L
makes
no contribution, so we see that
x

1(X)
X
K
1

x
r
(X)
X
Kr
T
K
1
...Kr
(X) transforms
as a tensor under general conformal transformations. Furthermore, it is
straightforward to show that under general conformal transformations x
x

, the quantity X
5
+X
6
transforms as a scalar density of weight 1/4:
X
5
+X
6
X
5
+X
6
=

1/4
.
Hence t

1
...r
(x) does indeed transform under general conformal transfor-
mations as a tensor density of weight given by Eq. (20), the condition for
conformal invariance.
It may be noted that e

K
(x)X
K
= 0, so t

1
...r
(x) is unchanged if we shift
T
K
1
...Kr
(X) by an amount proportional to any of X
K
1
or X
K
2
etc. This
lowers the number of physically relevant components of T
K
1
...Kr
(X) from
6
r
to 5
r
, and the transversality conditions (16) lowers it further to 4
r
, the
appropriate number for a four-dimensional tensor of rank r.
It may also be noted, as a consequence of Eq. (16), that traces of the four-
dimensional tensor t

1
...r
(x) are proportional to the corresponding traces
of the six-dimensional tensor T
K
1
...Kr
(X). For instance,

2
t

2
...r
(x) = (X
5
+X
5
)
d
e

3
K
3
(x) e

4
K
4
(x)
K
1
K
2
T
K
1
K
2
...Kr
(X) .
In particular, the condition of being traceless carries over from a six-dimensional
tensor T
K
1
...Kr
(X) to the corresponding four-dimensional tensor t

1
...r
(x).
The same is obviously also true for conditions of symmetry or antisymme-
try. Hence six-dimensional tensors belonging to irreducible representations
of SO(4, 2) yield four-dimensional tensors belonging to the corresponding
irreducible representations of SO(3, 1).
III. TENSOR APPLICATIONS
7
We will rst apply the method described in the previous section to a few
familiar simple examples, and then turn to more complicated applications.
A. Scalar Fields
First, consider the Greens function
1
(x)
2
(y)
0
for a pair of scalar
elds
1
(x) and
2
(y) of conformal dimensionality d
1
and d
2
, with x y
spacelike. According to the scaling condition (15), the Greens function for
the corresponding six-dimensional elds
1
(X) and
2
(Y ) must be of order
d
1
in X and d
2
in Y , but it can only depend on the scalar X Y , so there
must be an equal number of factors of X and Y , and therefore d
1
= d
2
d.
As is well known, this is the one thing beyond scale invariance that we learn
in this case from conformal symmetry. To check that the Greens function
in four dimensions has the familiar form dictated by Poincare and scale
invariance, we note by using Eq. (8) that the scalar here is
X Y = X

+
1
2
(X
5
+X
6
)(Y
5
Y
6
) +
1
2
(X
5
X
6
)(Y
5
+Y
6
)
= (X
5
+X
6
)(Y
5
+Y
6
)
_
x y
x
2
2

y
2
2
_
=
1
2
(X
5
+X
6
)(Y
5
+Y
6
)(x y)
2
,
(21)
so the six dimensional Greens function is proportional to
(X Y )
d
=
_

1
2
(X
5
+X
6
)(Y
5
+Y
6
)(x y)
2
_
d
.
But according to Eq. (17), the four-dimensional scalars are related to the
six-dimensional scalars by

1
(x) = (X
5
+X
6
)
d

1
(X) ,
2
(y) = (Y
5
+Y
6
)
d

2
(Y ) , (22)
so the factors X
5
+X
6
and Y
5
+Y
6
cancel in the four-dimensional Greens
function, which we see is proportional to [(xy)
2
]
d
, the well-known result
of Poincare and scale invariance.
It is almost as easy to deal with the three-point function
1
(x)
2
(y)
3
(z)
0
.
According to the scaling condition (15), the corresponding six-dimensional
three-point function for
1
(X),
2
(Y ) , and
3
(Z) must be of order d
1
in
X, d
2
in Y , and d
2
in Z, so it must be proportional to
(X Y )
a
(Y Z)
b
(Z X)
c
,
8
where a +c = d
1
, a +b = d
2
, and b +c = d
3
, and thus must be proportional
to
(X Y )
(d
3
d
1
d
2
)/2
(Y Z)
(d
1
d
2
d
3
)/2
(Z X)
(d
2
d
1
d
3
)/2
(X
5
+X
6
)
d
1
(Y
5
+Y
6
)
d
2
(Z
5
+Z
6
)
d
3
((x y)
2
)
(d
3
d
1
d
2
)/2
((y z)
2
)
(d
1
d
2
d
3
)/2
((z x)
2
)
(d
2
d
1
d
3
)/2
.
The factors (X
5
+X
6
)
d
1
, (Y
5
+Y
6
)
d
2
, and (Z
5
+Z
6
)
d
3
are canceled by
similar factors in the relation (22) between the s and s, leaving us with
a three-point function
1
(x)
2
(y)
3
(z)
0
proportional to
((x y)
2
)
(d
3
d
1
d
2
)/2
((y z)
2
)
(d
1
d
2
d
3
)/2
((z z)
2
)
(d
2
d
1
d
3
)/2
, (23)
another known result.
B. Vector Fields
We next turn to vector elds. The two-point function of the six-vector
elds V
K
1
(X) and V
L
2
(Y ) must be a linear combination of the two tensors
that vanish when contracted with either X
K
or Y
L
:

KL

Y
K
X
L
X Y
, X
K
Y
L
,
with coecients that are functions only of X Y . Because X
K
e

K
(x) = 0,
the second of these makes no contribution to the four-dimensional Greens
function, and can be ignored. Each term in the rst transverse tensor con-
tains zero net factors of X and Y , while the scaling condition (8) requires
that the two-point function be of order d
1
in X and of order d
2
in Y ,
so we see again that the two-point function vanishes unless d
1
= d
2
d, in
which case it is proportional to
(X Y )
d
_

KL

Y
K
X
L
X Y
_
,
with a constant coecient. Using Eq. (17), we see that the four-dimensional
Greens function v

(x)v

(y)
0
is proportional to
(X
5
+X
6
)
d
(Y
5
+Y
6
)
d
(X Y )
d
e

K
(x)e

L
(Y )
_

KL

Y
K
X
L
X Y
_
9
Now, we note that
e

K
(x)e

L
(y)
KL
=

, (24)
and
Y
K
e

K
(x) = Y

(Y
5
+Y
6
) = (Y
5
+Y
6
)(y

) (25)
and likewise X
K
e

K
(y) = (X
5
+X
6
)(x

). Eq. (21) then shows that the

factors (X
5
+X
6
) and (Y
5
+Y
6
) all cancel, leaving us with the result that
v

(x)v

(y)
0
is proportional to
((x y)
2
)
d
_

2
(x y)

(x y)

(x y)
2
_
. (26)
Here the conformal dimensionality d is arbitrary, but if we now impose the
further condition that these vectors are conserved currents, we nd that d
must have the canonical value d = 3.
C. Symmetric Second-Rank Tensor Fields
The two-point function of two symmetric six-tensors T
KL
I
(X) and T
MN
2
(Y )
is required by SO(4, 2) invariance and the transversality condition (16) to
be a linear combination of the transverse tensors
_

KM

Y
K
X
M
X Y
__

LN

Y
L
X
N
X Y
_
+
_

LM

Y
L
X
M
X Y
__

KN

Y
K
X
N
X Y
_
_

KL

Y
K
X
L
+Y
L
X
K
X Y
__

MN

X
M
Y
N
+Y
M
X
N
X Y
_
and
X
K
X
L
Y
M
Y
N
,
in all three cases with coecients that are functions only of the scalar X Y .
Each term in these three tensors (including their coecients) has equal
numbers of factors of X and Y , while the scaling condition (15) requires
the number of factors of X and Y to equal d
1
and d
2
, respectively,
so we must have d
1
= d
2
d, just as for scalars and vectors. Because
X
K
e

K
(x) = Y
M
e

M
(y) = 0, the third of these tensors makes no contribution
to the four-dimensional two-point function, and will therefore be ignored.
So the six-dimensional Greens function must be a linear combination of the
rst two tensors, with coecients proportional to (XY )
d
. Using Eqs. (21),
10
(24) and (25), the two-point function of the four-dimensional tensors dened
by Eq. (17) is then
t

(x)t

(y)
0
= A[r
2
]
d
_

2
r

+r

+r

+r

r
2
+ 8
r

(r
2
)
2
_
+B[r
2
]
d

, (27)
where r x y, and A and B are constants.
So far, d like A and B is an arbitrary number, but all these constants
become tightly constrained if we require that the tensor is conserved. Op-
erating on Eq. (27) with /x

gives a quantity proportional to

(2d 8)(r

+r

) (4A + 2dB)r

+A(32 8d)
r

r
2
,
so the conservation condition tells us that d = 4 and A = 2B. These
are just the properties we expect for the energy-momentum tensor in a
conformally invariant theory its canonical dimension is d = 4, while the
condition A = 2B tells us that the tensor is traceless.
IV. SPIN0R FIELDS
We now consider how to convert information about the Greens func-
tions of spinor elds on the hypercone in six-dimensional projective space
into information about the Greens functions of spinors in four-dimensional
spacetime. Lets rst recall some well-known facts about spinors in six di-
mensions.
The Cliord algebra for SO(4, 2) has a 2
6/2
= 8-dimensional irreducible
representation:

=
_
0 i
5

i
5

0
_
,
5
=
_
0
5

5
0
_
,
6
=
_
0 1
1 0
_
, (28)
which obeys the anticommutation relations
_

K
,
L
_
= 2
KL
. (29)
11
(Here

is the usual 4 4 Dirac matrix,

2
and
5
i
0

3
.) From
these matrices, we can construct the 8-component Dirac representation of
the SO(4, 2) Lie algebra

KL
=
i
4
_

K
,
L
_
(30)
for which
i
_

KL
,
M
_
=
K

LM

KM
, (31)
and so
i
_

KL
,
MN
_
=
LM

KN

KM

LN

LN

KM
+
KN

LM
. (32)
Explicitly,

=
_
j

0
0 j

_
,
5
=
1
2
_

0
0

_
,

6
=
1
2
_

5

0
0
5

_
,
56
=
i
2
_

5
0
0
5
_
, (33)
where j

is the Dirac representation of the Lorentz group Lie algebra:

j

=
i
4
_

_
. (34)
The block diagonal form of the matrices (33) indicates that this representa-
tion of the Lie algebra of SO(4, 2) is reducible, the top and bottom blocks
furnishing the two dierent irreducible four-component spinor representa-
tions of the Lie algebra of SO(4, 2).
The 8-component spinor elds in six dimensions have an SO(4, 2) trans-
formation given by the commutation relations
i[J
KL
,
n
(X)] =
_
X
L

X
K
X
K

X
L
_

n
(X) i
_

KL
_
n
m

m
(X) .
(35)
We note that the matrices
K
and
KL
obey reality conditions
_

K
_

= b
K
b ,
_

KL
_

= b
KL
b , b
_

0

5
0
0
0

5
_
= b
1
,
(36)
2
Our notation for Dirac matrices is the same as used in [11].
12
so the adjoint of Eq. (35) gives
i[J
KL
, (X)] =
_
X
L

X
K
X
K

X
L
_
(X) +i(X)
KL
, (37)
where
(X)

(X) b . (38)
We can therefore form six-tensors from bilinears in : For any 8 8 matrix
M, we have
i
_
J
KL
,
_
(X)M(X)
__
=
_
X
L

X
K
X
K

X
L
_
_
(X)M(X)
_
+i
_
(X) [
KL
, M](X)
_
, (39)
so for instance
_
(X)
K
(X)
_
is a vector eld,
_
(X)
KL
(X)
_
is an
antisymmetric tensor, etc.
As in the case of tensor elds, we assume that (X) obeys a scaling law,
(X) =
d+1/2
(X) (40)
so that (X
5
+X
6
)
d1/2
(X) is a function only of ratios of the X
K
. So far,
d 1/2 is just some unknown number; the reason for writing it in this form
will become apparent soon. With X
5
X
6
eliminated in favor of X
5
+X
6
and X

by use of Eq. (6), we can regard (X

5
+ X
6
)
d1/2
(X) as a
function only of the coordinate x

given by Eq. (8):

(X
5
+X
6
)
d1/2
(X) (x) (41)
It will be convenient to separate (x) and (x) into four-component seg-
ments
(x) =
_

+
(x)

(x)
_
,

(x) = (X
5
+X
6
)
d1/2

(X) . (42)
Eq. (33) shows that the

transform according to the two fundamental

spinor irreducible representations of SO(4, 2). Although the

(x) are func-

tions only of x

, neither of these four-component elds have the right con-

formal (or even translation) transformation properties (1)(4) to serve as
conventional four-dimensional spinor elds, but they will be ingredients in
the construction of such elds.
13
Using Eqs. (35) and (33), we can work out the commutators of the

elds with the generators J

of Lorentz transformations; the generators

P

= J
5
+ J
6
of translations, the generators K

= J
6
J
5
of special
conformal transformations, and the generator S = J
56
of scale transfor-
mations:
i[J

(x)] =
_
x

(x) ij

(x) , (43)
i[P

(x)] =

x

(x)
i
2
(1
5
)

(x) , (44)
i[K

(x)] =
_
2x

x
2

x

+ (2d 1)x

(x)
+
i
2
(1
5
)

(x) , (45)
i[S,

(x)] =
_
x

+d
1
2
_

(x)
1
2

(x) . (46)
The second terms in Eqs. (44) through (46) are very dierent from the
matrix terms in the commutation relations (1)(4) of general elds in four-
dimensions. In particular, the presence of a matrix term in the commutation
relation (44) shows that

(x) does not have the usual transformation rule

under translations. In order to construct suitable four-dimensional spinor
elds, we must impose a condition on (X) analogous to the transversality
condition imposed on tensors in Section II, and we must apply a projection
matrix to

(X), analogous to the quantities e

K
(x) in Eq. (17).
First, to eliminate the matrix term in Eq. (44), we dene a pair of chiral
elds

(x)
1
2
(1
5
)

(x) . (47)
Because
5
commutes with j

, multiplying Eq. (43) with (1

5
)/2 gives
the same Lorentz transformation rule:
i[J

(x)] =
_
x

(x) ij

(x) , (48)
while multiplying Eq. (44) with (1
5
)/2 gives what is now a conventional
transformation under spacetime translations:
i[P

(x)] =

x

(x) . (49)
14
When we multiply Eq. (46) with (1
5
)/2, the second term becomes just

(x)/2, canceling the 1/2 in the rst term:

i[S,

(x)] =
_
x

+d
_

(x) . (50)
This is why we wrote the scaling relation for fermions in the form (40);
Eq. (50) shows that with this form of the scaling relation, d is the conformal
dimension of the spinor elds. Finally, multiplying the commutation relation
(45) with (1
5
)/2 gives
i[K

(x)] =
_
2x

x
2

x

+ (2d 1)x

(x)
+i

(x) , (51)
where

is the opposite-chirality part of

(x)
1
2
(1
5
)

(x) . (52)
This is still very dierent from the desired transformation rule under special
conformal transformations.
To proceed, we must impose a transversality condition on the spinor
elds (X) in six dimensions. The natural such condition is
X
K

K
(X) = 0 . (53)
This manifestly respects SO(4, 2) invariance, and it is consistent with the
fact that (X )
2
= (X X) = 0, so that zero is the sole eigenvalue of
X . Eq. (53) has the immediate consequence that the vector eld (
K
)
obeys the same transversality condition X
K
(
K
) = 0 that we imposed
on vector elds in Section II. The same transversality holds for the other
vector eld (
7

K
), where

7
i
0

6
=
_
1 0
0 1
_
, (54)
and also for the antisymmetric tensors ([
K
,
L
]) and (
7
[
K
,
L
]).
The only other six-dimensional tensors that can be formed from bilinears in
(X) are the totally antisymmetric tensors of third rank
(
[K

M]
) , (
7

[K

M]
) ,
15
the square brackets indicating antisymmetrization. These are not strictly
transverse; instead, Eq. (53) gives
X
K
(
[K

M]
) = X
L
(
M
) X
M
(
L
) ,
and similarly for X
K
(
7

[K

M]
). If we think of these tensors as three-
forms
(
[K

M]
)dX
K
dX
L
dX
M
, (
7

[K

M]
)dX
K
dX
L
dX
M
with anticommuting dierentials dX
K
tangent to the hypercone (6), so that
X
K
dX
K
= 0, then these 3-forms are transverse, in the sense that they
vanish if we replace any dX
K
with X
K
. But the real justication for the
transversality condition (53) is that, as we shall now see, it gives the results
we need in four dimensions.
By multiplying the transversality condition Eq. (53) with the matrix
_
1
5
0
0 1 +
5
_
we nd a simple formula for

in terms of

= ix

. (55)
Thus the last term in Eq. (51) is
i

=
_
x

+ 2ij

.
The special conformal transformation rule (51) thus reads
i[K

(x)] =
_
2x

x
2

x

+ 2dx

(x)
+ 2ij

(x) . (56)
Eqs. (48)(50) and (56) show that the elds

(x) are conventional four-

dimensional Dirac elds, satisfying the commutation relations (1)(4) with
the generators of the conformal group, and with conformal dimension d.
The other elds

have no obvious physical interpretation. Of course, we

can assemble the chiral elds

into a four-component Dirac eld

(x) =
+
(x)+

(x) = (X
5
+X
6
)
d1/2
__
1
5
2
_

+
(X) +
_
1 +
5
2
_

(X)
_
.
(57)
16
It is this form of the spinor eld that will be used to work out the conse-
quences of conformal symmetry for Greens functions involving spinor elds.
By combining the methods of this section and of Section II, we can see
that a eld
K
1
Kr
(X) with tensor indices as well as an 8-component spinor
index, if subjected to the transversality conditions,
X
K
1

K
1
Kr
(X) = . . . = X
Kr

K
1
Kr
(X) = (X )
K
1
Kr
(X) = 0
yields a spinor-tensor in four dimensions

1
r
(x) = (X
5
+X
6
)
d1/2
e

1
K
1
(x) e
r
Kr
(x)

_
(1
5
)
2

K
1
Kr
+
(X) +
(1 +
5
)
2

K
1
Kr

(X)
_
,
(where
+
and

are the upper and lower four components of , with

7
= +1 and
7
= 1, respectively), which transforms under conformal
transformations according to Eqs. (1)(4), with conformal dimensionality d.
V. SPINOR APPLICATIONS
First lets consider the Greens function
_

1
(x)
2
(y)
_
, where

5
.
Invariance under SO(4, 2) tells us that the corresponding two point function
of
1
(X) and
2
(Y ) in six dimensions must be a linear combination
A+B(X ) +C(Y ) +D[X , Y ] ,
with A, B, C, and D all functions only of the scalar X Y . (Here we
are ignoring the possibility of including terms involving the matrix
7
. We
will consider such terms presently.) The transversality condition that (X
)
1
(X) = 0 tells us that C = 0 and A = 2DX Y , while the condition
that
2
(Y )(Y ) = 0 tells us B = 0 and, again, A = 2DX Y . So the
six-dimensional Greens function must have the form
A
_
1 +
[X , Y ]
2X Y
_
=
A(X ) (Y )
(X Y )
.
Every term here has equal numbers of factors of X
K
and Y
K
(including those
in A), while the scaling condition (40) tells us that the Greens function must
17
be of order d
1
+1/2 in X
K
and of the order d
2
+1/2 in Y
K
, so we must
have d
1
= d
2
d, and the whole Greens function must be proportional to
(X Y )
1/2d
_
1 +
[X , Y ]
2X Y
_
, (58)
with a constant proportionality coecient.
From Eqs. (30) and (33), we nd
[X , Y ] = 4iX
K
Y
L

KL
= 4i
_
M
+
0
0 M

_
,
where
M

= j

+
1
2
(1
5
)

(X
5
Y

Y
5
X

(X
6
Y

Y
6
X

)
i
2

5
(X
5
Y
6
Y
5
X
6
) .
From Eq. (57), we then have
_

1
(x)
2
(y)
_
(X
5
+X
6
)
d1/2
(Y
5
+Y
6
)
d1/2
(X Y )
d1/2

_
1
5
2
_
M

_
1
5
2
_
; .
Only the vector and axial vector terms in M

survive, so this simplies to

_

1
(x)
2
(y)
_
(X
5
+X
6
)
d1/2
(Y
5
+Y
6
)
d1/2
(X Y )
d1/2

_
(X
5
+X
6
)Y

(Y
5
+Y
6
)X

_
.
From (8) and (21), we have then
_

1
(x)
2
(y)
_

_
(x y)
2
_
d1/2

(x

) . (59)
This is of course just what we should expect in a Poincare invariant and
scale invariant theory with spinor elds of equal dimensionality d.
Now let us return to the possibility of including the matrix
7
dened
by Eq. (54) in the six-dimensional Greens function. That is, we consider
the possibility of multiplying Eq. (58) with a factor (1 +
7
), with some
arbitrary , so that the Greens function in six dimensions is proportional
to
(1 +
7
)(X Y )
1/2d
_
1 +
[X , Y ]
2X Y
_
. (60)
18
The eect is to multiply the terms M

with (1 ), so that the Greens

function (59) becomes
_

1
(x)
2
(y)
_

_
(x y)
2
_
d1/2
(1
5
)

(x

) . (61)
This is allowed by SO(4, 2) invariance, since
7
commutes with all the gen-
erators
KL
, but it is not allowed in a theory that is invariant under O(4, 2),
since
7
changes sign under transformations (9) with Det = 1. In par-
ticular,
7
terms seem to be ruled out if we impose invariance under the
inversion x

/x
2
, which just amounts to the reection that changes
the sign of X
6
and leaves all other X
K
unchanged.
The presence of a
7
term in the six-dimensional Greens function (60)
or a
5
term in the corresponding four-dimensional Greens function (61)
does not in itself violate invariance under O(4, 2), because we can eliminate
these terms by a redenition of the fermion elds. It is only necessary to
replace with

=
_
(1 +)
1/2
_
1 +
7
2
_
+ (1 )
1/2
_
1
7
2
__
(62)
so that instead of Eq. (56) we have
(x) = (X
5
+X
6
)
d1/2
_
(1 +)
1/2
_
1
5
2
_

+
(X) + (1 )
1/2
_
1 +
5
2
_

(X)
_
.
(63)
The real sign of a breakdown of O(4, 2) to SO(4, 2) is the presence, in one
or more Greens functions, of O(4, 2)-breaking
7
terms that cannot all be
eliminated by redenition of the fermion elds.
Here is an example. Consider the Greens function
_

1
(x)
2
(y)(z)
_
0
of two fermion and one scalar eld, of dimensionality d
1
, d
2
, and d
3
, re-
spectively. Invariance under O(4, 2) would require the corresponding six-
dimensional Greens function to take the form
A+B(X ) +C(Y ) +D(Z ) +E[X , Y ]
F[Y , Z ] +G[Z , X ] +H(X ) (Z ) (Y ) ,
with A, B, etc. functions of the scalars X Y , Y Z, and Z X. (Any
other ordering of the -matrices in the last term would dier only by terms
of the same form as those already included.) This must vanish when we
multiply with X on the left; the vanishing of the terms proportional to
19
[X , Y ], [X , Z ], and X
K
Y
L
Z
M

[K

M]
gives C = 0, D = 0,
and F = 0, while the vanishing of the terms proportional to X gives
A = 2EX Y . It must also vanish when we multiply on the right with Y ;
the vanishing of the terms proportional to [X , Y ], [Y , Z ], and
X
K
Y
L
Z
M

[K

M]
gives B = 0, D = 0, and G = 0, while the vanishing of
the terms proportional to Y again gives A = 2EX Y . In both cases the
vanishing of terms proportional to the unit matrix gives nothing new. So
we conclude that the Greens function in six dimensions is of the form
A
_
1 +
[X , Y ]
2X Y
_
+H(X ) (Z ) (Y ) .
Now, according to the scaling properties of the elds, the total number of
factors of X, Y , and Z must be respectively d
1
+ 1/2, d
2
+ 1/2, d
3
, so
A (X Y )
a
(Y Z)
b
(Z X)
c
,
H (X Y )
a1/2
(Y Z)
b1/2
(Z X)
c1/2
,
where a +c = d
1
1/2, a +b = d
2
1/2, b +c = d
3
. The Greens function
for two spinors and a scalar in six dimensions thus takes the form
(X Y )
(d
3
d
1
d
2
+1)/2
(Y Z)
(d
1
d
2
d
3
)/2
(Z X)
(d
2
d
3
d
1
)/2

_
a
_
1 +
[X , Y ]
2X Y
_
+h
(X ) (Z ) (Y )
_
(X Y ) (Y Z) (Z X)
_
, (64)
where a and h are constants.
The contribution of the second term to the four-dimensional Greens
function is complicated, and is not needed for the point I wish to make, so I
will take h = 0 in what follows. Then, following the same arguments as for
the two-spinor Greens function, we have
_

1
(x)
2
(y)(z)
_
0
((x y)
2
)
(d
3
d
1
d
2
1)/2
((y z)
2
)
(d
1
d
2
d
3
)/2
((z x)
2
)
(d
2
d
3
d
1
)/2

(x y)

. (65)
But in a theory that is invariant under SO(4, 2) but not O(4, 2), we are free
to include a factor 1 +
7
multiplying the rst term in Eq. (64), so that
(for h = 0) in place of Eq. (65) we have
_

1
(x)
2
(y)(z)
_
0
((x y)
2
)
(d
3
d
1
d
2
1)/2
((y z)
2
)
(d
1
d
2
d
3
)/2
((z x)
2
)
(d
2
d
3
d
1
)/2
(1
5
)

(x y)

. (66)
20
Now, by redening the fermion elds we can eliminate the 1 +
7
factor in
the two point function, which eliminates the
5
term in Eq. (61), or we can
eliminate the 1+
7
factor in the three-point function, which eliminates the

5
term in Eq. (66), but unless = we cannot do both. We see then that
it makes a dierence whether we assume invariance under O(4, 2), which
includes the inversion x

/x
2
, or only invariance under SO(4, 2),
which does not include the inversion.
VI. AdS/CFT
In the preceeding sections the six-tensors T
K
1
Kr
(X) and eight-component
spinors (X) were ctions, merely means to the end of calculating Greens
functions for elds in four spacetime dimensions. But T
K
1
Kr
(X) and (X)
may also be regarded as actual elds on ve-dimensional anti-de Sitter space
(AdS
5
). This space is the surface of the hypersphere in six dimensions

KL
X
K
X
L
= R
2
(67)
with the same metric
KL
as in Sections I through V, and arbitrary R > 0.
It is manifestly maximally symmetric, with isometry group SO(4, 2) con-
sisting of the transformations (9). Tensors T
K
1
Kr
(X) on AdS
5
transform
as in Eq. (12), and without upsetting the isometry can be subject to the
transversality condition (16). We can also introduce 8-component spinor
elds (X) on AdS
5
, with the same SO(4, 2) transformation properties as
in Section IV, but we cannot here adopt the transversality condition (53),
which requires that (X ) = 0, because on the hypersphere we have
(X )
2
= X X = R
2
,
and so the only eigenvalues of X are R and R. But we can instead
adopt the SO(4, 2)-invariant condition
X (X) = R(X) . (68)
There is no loss of generality in taking the coecient of (X) on the right-
hand side to be R rather than R, because if (X) satises Eq. (68), then

7
(X) satises the same constraint with R replaced with R.
Of course, X
K
and X
K
here can not both be on the hypersphere (67)
except for = 1, so we can not impose a scale invariance condition like
(15) here. But in the limit that some components X
K
become much larger
21
than R, with the ratios of all components held xed, the hypersphere (67) ef-
fectively becomes the hypercone (6), and the constraint (68) on spinor elds
eectively becomes the transversality condition (53). The AdS/CFT conjec-
ture deals with elds on AdS
5
that approach c-number values T
K
1
Kr

(X)
or

(X) in this limit, satisfying scaling conditions of the form

T
K
1
Kr

(X) =
a
T
K
1
Kr

(X) ,

(X) =
a

(X) . (69)
Of particular interest are massless degrees of freedom, represented by elds
with a = 0; massive degrees of freedom generally have a < 0.
We know from the work of Sections II and IV that, from such asymp-
totic elds T
K
1
Kr

(X) and

(X), we can form tensor elds (17) and

spinor elds (57) in four dimensions that transform as usual under the four-
dimensional conformal group, with conformal dimensions d = a for ten-
sors of any rank and d 1/2 = a for spinors, or spinor-tensors of any
rank. In particular, in the important case a = 0 for which elds approach
nite limits on the boundary X of AdS
5
, as well known a tensor
current on the boundary must have conformal dimension d = 0, and the
four-dimensional tensor eld with which it interacts must therefore have di-
mensionality d = 4, the expected dimensionality for the energy-momentum
tensor in conformally-invariant theories. On the other hand, a spinor or
spinor-tensor eld, which arises from a spinor or spinor-tensor eld on AdS
5
that approaches a nite value on the boundary, has d = 1/2, so the four-
dimensional spinor or spinor-tensor elds with which these elds interact
must then have dimensionality 7/2, the correct expected dimensionality for
the supersymmetry current in conformally invariant supersymmetric theo-
ries.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful for discussions with J. Distler and J. Meyers, and for corre-
spondence with I. Bars, A. Chodos, H. Kastrup, T. Okuda, S. Ferrara, and
A. Waldron. This material is based upon work supported by the National
Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-0455649 and with support from
The Robert A. Welch Foundation, Grant No. F-0014.
APPENDIX
This Appendix will justify the claim made in Section II, that the usual
conformal transformation rules of tensor elds just amount to the statement
22
that under general conformal transformations a tensor of rank r and con-
formal dimensionality d transforms as a tensor density of weight given by
Eq. (17):
t

2
r
(x)

x
x

(r+d)/4
x

1
x

1
x

2
x

2

x
r
x
r
t

2
r
(x

) , (A.1)
where [x/x

[ is the determinant of the matrix x

/x

. This is trivial
for Lorentz transformations and translations. For the scale transformation
x

= (1 +b)x

, Eq. (A.1) gives

t

N
(x) (1 +b)
d
t

N
_
(1 +b)x
_
(A.2)
which for innitesimal b is the same as the scale transformation rule (4).
Similarly, for an innitesimal special conformal transformation
x

= x

+ 2(x c)x

x
2
,
we have
x

2(x c)

2
_
x

_
,

x
x

= 1 8(x c)
so here Eq. (A.1) reads
t

2
r
(x) t

2
r
(x) + 2d(x c)t

2
r
(x)
(2x

1
c

2c

1
x

)t

2
r
(x) + (2x
r
c

2c
r
x

)t

(x)
+(2(x c)x

x
2
)

2
r
(x) . (A.3)
This is the same as the transformation rule (3) (contracted with c

), with
Lorentz transformation matrix j

given by Eq. (19).

REFERENCES
1. See, e.g., E. J. Schreier, Phys. Rev. D 3, 980 (1971). For a review,
see E. S. Fradkin and M. Ya. Nalchik, Phys. Rept. 44, 249 (1978).
2. P. A. M. Dirac, Ann. Math. 37, 429 (1936).
3. G. Mack and A. Salam, Ann. Phys. (New York) 53, 174 (1969).
4. H. A. Kastrup, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 17, 631 (2008).
23
5. I. Bars, Phys. Rev. D 62, 046007 (2000); Phys. Rev. D64, 045004
(2001); Phys. Rev. D 74, 085019 (2006); Phys. Rev D77, 125027
(2008); Phys. Rev. D79, 085021 (2009).
6. S. Ferrara, A. F. Grillo, and R. Gatto, Ann. Phys. (New York) 76,
161 (1973).
7. S. Ferrara, Nucl. Phys. B77, 413 (1974).
8. See for instance L. Cornalba, M. S. Costa, J. Penedones, and R. Schi-
appa, J. High Energy Phys. 0708, 019 (2007) (which however considers
only scalar elds).
9. J. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998).
10. E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253 (1998).
11. S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields (Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1995), Sec. 5.4.
24