Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

Please welcome our new moderators!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

122 submissions , 103 unreviewed
3,497 questions , 1,172 unanswered
4,544 answers , 19,342 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
408 active unimported users
More ...

Discussions of the axioms of AQFT

+ 9 like - 0 dislike
19 views

The most recent discussion of what axioms one might drop from the Wightman axioms to allow the construction of realistic models that I'm aware of is Streater, Rep. Prog. Phys. 1975 38 771-846, "Outline of axiomatic relativistic quantum field theory". I'm looking for any more recent review that seriously discusses the axioms.

A critique of the Haag-Kastler axioms would also be welcome, but I would prefer to stay close enough to Lagrangian QFT to allow relatively immediate characterization of the difference between models of the reduced axiomatic system and the standard models that are relatively empirically successful.

I'm specially interested in any reviews that include a discussion of what models are possible if one relinquishes the existence of a lowest energy vacuum state (we know that, at least, this weakening allows the construction of thermal sectors of the free field, and that such a sector contains a thermal state that is thermodynamically stable even though it is not minimum energy, and that a Poincaré invariant "extra quantum fluctuations" sector is also possible—I'd like to know what is the full gamut of such models?).

[Added: This question was partly inspired by a Cosmic Variance post on the subject of QFT, particularly the link to John Norton, obviously with my research interests added.]

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
asked Feb 21, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by Peter Morgan (1,075 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Mar 18, 2014 by dimension10

2 Answers

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

In the last years there has been good progress on incorporating standard methods and results of perturbative Lagrangian QFT into AQFT. A commented list of references is here.

The basic observation is that the Stückelberg-Bogoliubov-Epstein-Glaser perturbative local S-matrices yield a local net of observables.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Feb 22, 2012 by Urs Schreiber (5,085 points) [ no revision ]
Sorry, I should have been explicit. Two arXiv links are direct to ps instead of to abs. The papers are definitely useful, thanks, but having read them my feeling is that they don't much answer the question as I think of it. The question mentions Lagrangian QFT, and the John Norton link is preoccupied with the relation between Lagrangian and axiomatic methods, but I'm more interested in concentrated critiques of the Wightman or Haag-Kastler axioms, and in what models can be constructed if we drop individual axioms or parts of axioms, by someone like Streater, from the inside.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
I have added the page number. Anything else that is "wrong"? What do you find messy about the links?

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
Thanks for the reminder to go to the nCatLab. I'm gradually becoming able to read some of the content and the cited papers there with profit. It'll take me a few days to go through the papers on the particular webpage you linked to. BTW, the citation for the paper "V. Il’in, D. Slavnov, Observable algebras in the S-matrix approach Theor. Math. Phys. 36 , 32 (1978)" is slightly wrong, the page numbers are 578-585. FWIW, the links to arXiv papers are also pretty messy.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
+ 2 like - 0 dislike

Nonperturbative constructive results in 1+3 dimensisons are still completely missing. (Are you interested in lower dimensions?)

In particular, all realistic field theories are either nonrenormalizable (so that not even perturbation theory defined them well), or gauge theories (for which the Wightman axioms are inappropriate as they don't allow gauge-dependent charged states).

It is unknown how to modify the Wightman axioms so as to account for gauge invariance; but there has been interesting work, especially by Strocchi, on structural requirements in this direction. [author:strocchi gauge entered at http://scholar.google.at/scholar provides reading material]

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)
answered Mar 12, 2012 by Arnold Neumaier (11,395 points) [ no revision ]
I *dislike* lower dimensions! Definitely bad of me, but there it is. I'm also a little down on gauge theories, which is much worse, given they're everything in empirically useful QFT. I'd like to present the same interacting quantum fields using only observables; likely that's hopeless! Good to be reminded of Strocchi, thanks, he's a little different.

This post has been migrated from (A51.SE)

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsO$\varnothing$erflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...