Worldsheet CFT2 and Celestial CFT2 : An AdS3-CFT2 perspective

Abstract

Celestial CFTd is the putative dual of quantum gravity in asymptotically flat (d+2) dimensional space time. We argue that a class of Celestial CFTd can be engineered via AdSd+1-CFTd correspondence. Our argument is based on the observation that if we zoom in near the boundary of (Euclidean) AdSd+1 then the conformal isometry group of EAdSd+1, which is SO(d+2,1), contracts to the Poincare group ISO(d+1,1). This suggests that the near boundary scaling limit of a theory of conformal gravity on EAdSd+1 should be dual to a boundary CFTd with ISO(d+1,1) symmetry. This dual CFTd, since the symmetries match, is an example of a Celestial CFTd. Similarly, if we have a non-conformal theory of gravity on EAdSd+1 then the near boundary scaling limit of such a theory is dual to a (boundary) Celestial CFTd with only (SO(d+1,1)) Lorentz invariance. Celestial CFTs with only Lorentz invariance have been recently studied in the literature. Now following this logic we discuss, among other things, the near boundary scaling limit of the bosonic string theory on Euclidean AdS3 in the presence of the NS-NS B field. The AdS3 part of the worldsheet theory is free in this limit and has been studied in the literature in different contexts. This limit describes a ``long string'' which wraps the (Euclidean) AdS3 boundary and it has been argued that the space-time CFT2 which describes the radial fluctuations of a long string is a Liouville CFT. According to our proposal, the dual CFT2 which describes the long string sector is an example of a Celestial CFT2 with only (SO(3,1))Lorentz invariance. We do not get a full ISO(3,1) invariant Celestial CFT2 in this way because the string theory does not have target space conformal invariance.

0

Turn this paper into a full lesson

ArcXiv compiles a staged curriculum from this paper: 8-12 lessons across beginner → advanced, synthesised section guides, visuals, flashcards, a quiz, exercises, and on-demand deep dives per section. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…