You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘pseudoconformal symmetry’ tag.
Consider the free Schrödinger equation in spatial dimensions, which I will normalise as
is the unknown field and
is the spatial Laplacian. To avoid irrelevant technical issues I will restrict attention to smooth (classical) solutions to this equation, and will work locally in spacetime avoiding issues of decay at infinity (or at other singularities); I will also avoid issues involving branch cuts of functions such as
(if one wishes, one can restrict
to be even in order to safely ignore all branch cut issues). The space of solutions to (1) enjoys a number of symmetries. A particularly non-obvious symmetry is the pseudoconformal symmetry: if
solves (1), then the pseudoconformal solution
defined by
can be seen after some computation to also solve (1). (If
has suitable decay at spatial infinity and one chooses a suitable branch cut for
, one can extend
continuously to the
spatial slice, whereupon it becomes essentially the spatial Fourier transform of
, but we will not need this fact for the current discussion.)
An analogous symmetry exists for the free wave equation in spatial dimensions, which I will write as
is the unknown field. In analogy to pseudoconformal symmetry, we have conformal symmetry: if
solves (3), then the function
, defined in the interior
of the light cone by the formula
There are also some direct links between the Schrödinger equation in dimensions and the wave equation in
dimensions. This can be easily seen on the spacetime Fourier side: solutions to (1) have spacetime Fourier transform (formally) supported on a
-dimensional hyperboloid, while solutions to (3) have spacetime Fourier transform formally supported on a
-dimensional cone. To link the two, one then observes that the
-dimensional hyperboloid can be viewed as a conic section (i.e. hyperplane slice) of the
-dimensional cone. In physical space, this link is manifested as follows: if
solves (1), then the function
defined by
solves (3). More generally, for any non-zero scaling parameter , the function
defined by
As an “extra challenge” posed in an exercise in one of my books (Exercise 2.28, to be precise), I asked the reader to use the embeddings (or more generally
) to explicitly connect together the pseudoconformal transformation
and the conformal transformation
. It turns out that this connection is a little bit unusual, with the “obvious” guess (namely, that the embeddings
intertwine
and
) being incorrect, and as such this particular task was perhaps too difficult even for a challenge question. I’ve been asked a couple times to provide the connection more explicitly, so I will do so below the fold.

Recent Comments