• 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.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

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


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,721 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Wightman axioms and gauge symmetries

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

I have a basic understanding of the Wightman axioms for QFT. I was reading the about the Mass Gap problem for simple compact gauge groups and was wondering how the gauge group is supposed to be implemented into the framework. The official problem description (pdf) says:

To establish existence of four-dimensional quantum gauge theory with gauge group $G$, one should define a quantum field theory (in the sense of the Wightman Axioms) with local quantum field operators in correspondence with the gauge invariant local polynomials in curvature and its covariant derivatives.

Can someone clarify what this means and what it means in terms of the physics?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:46 (UCT), posted by SE-user SWV
asked Jan 5, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by SWV (60 points) [ no revision ]
Possible duplicate: physics.stackexchange.com/q/69287/2451

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:46 (UCT), posted by SE-user Qmechanic
I could blather about Yang-Mills all day, but it's hard to know what to clarify without knowing what you're finding confusing.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:46 (UCT), posted by SE-user user1504
@user1504 I don't know much about gauge theory other than that classically, a gauge group (varying point-wise) leaves the Lagrangian invariant. I would like to know intuitively how this classical picture is supposed to manifest itself in QM and why the above requirement in my question is the mathematical image of this manifestation.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:46 (UCT), posted by SE-user SWV
Nonetheless, I wouldn't mind blathering.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:46 (UCT), posted by SE-user SWV
for a fairly precise discussion of what the official problem description means see physicsoverflow.org/21786/…

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:46 (UCT), posted by SE-user Arnold Neumaier

1 Answer

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

OK, blathering it is.

The key thing to understand in Yang-Mills theory (whether or not you're trying to be mathematically rigorous) is that gauge symmetry is not a physical symmetry. (Its job is to keep track of the overcounting in a redundant description.)

Classically, this means that the observables -- the numerical quantities which we can measure -- are not functions on the space $\mathcal{F}$ of connections but rather functions on the quotient space $\mathcal{F}/\mathcal{G}$ of connections modulo the action of the group of gauge transformations. So, for example, for any $G$-invariant polynomial $P$ on the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ of $G$ and any point $x \in \mathbb{R}^4$, there's an observable $\mathcal{O}_{P,x}$, which sends the equivalence class $[A]$ of a connection $A$ to $P(F_A(x))$, where $F_A$ is the curvature of $A$. But there isn't any physical way of measuring the value of a connection $A$ at the point $x$; this quantity is useful for intermediate steps in the computation, but it is not an observable.

In the Wightman framework, one describes a QFT in terms of a Hilbert space which carries a representation of the Poincare group and comes equipped with a collection of local observables. So for Yang-Mills theory, naively, what we'd like is an operator $\hat{\mathcal{O}}_{P,x}$ for every classical observable like $\mathcal{O}_{P,x}$. This doesn't quite work, however. You can't have an observable $\hat{\mathcal{O}}_{P,x}$ which measures the value of something precisely at $x$, for basically the same reason that you can't have a particle whose wave-function is supported precisely at $x$. Things have to get fuzzed out a little bit in quantum theories. So instead of a function $x \mapsto O_{P,x}$, what we get in the quantum theory is an operator-valued distribution, which sends any test function $f$ to the observable $\hat{\mathcal{O}}_{P,f}$ which measures the value of the smeared observable $\int P(F_A(x))f(x)dx$.

You will occasionally find claims (on wikipedia, for example) that the Wightman axioms fail for gauge theories because gauge theories involve states with negative norms. This isn't really correct. Negative norms show up at intermediate stages in some quantization procedures (but not all of them), but they should never be present in the final result, which is the only thing the Wightman axioms are concerned with.

Note that what I've written above isn't quite the usual statement of the Wightman axioms. People usually give them only for scalar field theory, where they can take a shortcut because the basic fields $\phi(x)$ that generate the observables are actually observable themselves. However, all one really needs for Wightman's setup is local observables whose classical analogues provide a complete set of coordinates on the space of classical fields.

Finally, the really interesting subtlety: If you're being careful, the group of gauge transforations is the subgroup of $Map(\mathbb{R}^4,G)$ consisting of $G$-valued functions which take the identity value at $\infty$. This would suggest that the values of invariant differential polynomials in the curvature tensor are close to but not quite a complete set of coordinates on $\mathcal{F}/\mathcal{G}$, since they're also invariant under the gauge transformations which are constant over $\mathbb{R}^4$. So why should these be enough? The answer is confinement. We expect that, in pure Yang-Mills theory, the only physically realizable states are color singlets, transforming trivially under the global $G$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-29 16:46 (UCT), posted by SE-user user1504
answered Jan 8, 2014 by user1504 (1,110 points) [ no revision ]

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:
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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

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

Your rights