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

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

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

146 submissions , 123 unreviewed
3,953 questions , 1,403 unanswered
4,889 answers , 20,761 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
506 active unimported users
More ...

QFT's that have no action

+ 5 like - 0 dislike
117 views

What does it mean to have a QFT that can not be encoded by an action. What is by far the most powerful approach of study in such a case. What is the best studied physical theory that falls into this category. What is QFT? I think it is a set of rules that facilitate descriptions of things we can observe, but what is the most mathematically accurate way of capturing what it is? I have read of cases where the path integral approach fails what does this mean? Is there any geometric structure whose properties describe the space of all posible QFT's? What happens when you can't use an action?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user kevin Tah N.
asked Jun 28, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by kevin Tah N. (25 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Aug 29, 2014
Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/3500/2451 and links therein.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic

2 Answers

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

It is possible to abstract the notion of a QFT away from the notion of Lagrangians/Hamiltonians, one axiomatic way are the Wightman axioms. As one can see, they reduce the quantum theory to its very heart: A Hilbert space where the states live and a field operator that acts upon it, generating "particles", all of this happening in a Lorentz covariant way.

Concrete example of QFTs without an action are CFTs in 2 dimensions, they are almost completely fixed by demanding that they are a QFT in the axiomatic sense which has a Virasoro symmetry.

The "space of all possible QFTs" is quite a complicated (and open, I think) question, since it is quite difficult to prove that a given QFT is really a QFT in the sense of the Wightman (or Osterwalder-Schrader) axioms.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user ACuriousMind
answered Jun 28, 2014 by ACuriousMind (820 points) [ no revision ]
+ 2 like - 0 dislike

A large class of QFTs called 2 dimensional conformal field theories, can be defined without an action.

The general method for constructing an any dimensional CFT is as follows, you can calculate the action of the symmetry generators of the fields using Ward identities and their commutation relations given by the Virasoro algebra which allows you to construct the whole hilbert space from the knowledge of how your set of "primary" fields transform under conformal transformations which is encoded in the conformal dimension. Why you can do this in CFTs but not in any QFTs is the state-operator correspondence. Each state of the Hilbert space is in 1-1 correspondence with the set of field operators. There is a subset of these called minimal models which are defined through a finite set of primary fields. One can even give them a Lagrangian formulation through the Couloumb gas formalism which consists of coupling it with the Ricci scalar.

What distinguished a d-dimensional CFT to a CFT in 2 dimensions is that the conformal group of a 2D CFT is infinite dimensional. Any locally holomorphic map corresponds to a local conformal transformation. This allows you to use Laurent expansions and other tools of complex analysis.

For "What is a QFT"? This page from nLab maybe useful. It somehow "axiomatizes the assignment of algebras of observables to patches of parameter space".

For further info. on CFT refer to di Francesco et Al's Conformal field theory.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user ramanujan_dirac
answered Jun 28, 2014 by ramanujan_dirac (235 points) [ no revision ]
The state-operator correspondence is a feature of CFT in general, not just two-dimensional CFT. Likewise, the use of primary fields to generate the algebra of observables via OPE works in any d-dimensional CFT.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user user1504
@user1504: Thanks for leaving a comment. I will edit the answer accordingly.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user ramanujan_dirac
I'm afraid your edits have made your answer slightly confusing. The Virasaro algebra, on the other hand, is peculiar to 2-dimensional CFT. In general CFTs, one defines primary fields by looking for eigenvectors of the dilation operator.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user user1504
@user1504: Please can you give me the explicit state-operator correspondence for CFTs in other than 2 dimensions. Eigenvectors of dilation operation $L_0$ would give you states, not the primary fields corresponding to those states. I am not sure how you get the state-operator correspondence in more than 2 dimensions.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user ramanujan_dirac
The nontrivial half of the state-operator correspondence is gotten by shrinking a sphere down to a point where the operator is defined. Apply state-operator correspondence to eigenvector and you get a field.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user user1504
Probably easier to get the definition right just by saying how the field transforms under special conformal transformations.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:43 (UCT), posted by SE-user user1504

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$\hbar$ysics$\varnothing$verflow
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
...