Non-perturbative description of QFTs

  • A
  • Thread starter dx
  • Start date
In summary, the partition function of a free QFT can be expressed as the inverse square root of the determinant of the Dirac operator, and this applies to gauge theories as well. Any theory can be viewed as a gauge theory in some sense, including general relativity and string theory. The Higgs field, while not traditionally considered a gauge field, may potentially be viewed as one by gauging discrete symmetries. In order to describe interactions, the Lagrangian must contain terms with three fields, such as the interaction term in QED. However, the functional determinant cannot be evaluated exactly in the presence of interactions, and must be approximated
  • #1
dx
Homework Helper
Gold Member
2,147
50
TL;DR Summary
gauge theories and non-perturbative description of QFTs
The partition function of a free QFT is of the form

$$ \left( \frac{1}{\mathrm{det \ D}} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

As far as I know, gauge theories said that the free theory contains in some sense also the interacting theory. Even general relativity which is not generally considered to be a gauge theory also has this property, that you can get the motion of a particle in an arbitrary gravitational field by considering the free motion in local inertial frames. In string theory also, the 'free lagrangian' which describes a world-sheet also contains the interactions, since the 'vertices' in string diagrams are not any different from a smooth world-sheet which looks the same at any point. Mainly any theory therefore seems to be a gauge theory in some sense. So my question is, is the expression above in some sense a non-perturbative description of any kind of QFT?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think Higgs field is not a gauge field in any sense.
 
  • #3
Demystifier said:
I think Higgs field is not a gauge field in any sense.

Perhaps. The Higgs lagrangian has a discrete symmetry Z2. Maybe we don't know how to regard it as a gauge theory because gauging discrete symmetries is more unfamiliar than gauging continuous symmetries. But I have seen people talk about gauging discrete symmetries and people say6 that it can be done.

Either way, I still would like to know an answer to my question in the case of other usual gauge theories. Can the expression above be regarded in some sense as a non-perturbative description of an interacting gauge theory like QED?
 
  • #4
If you just get a functional determinant, it's the result of doing a Gaussian path integral, i.e., the action is a bilinear functional of the fields and their derivatives, but this describes non-interacting particles. If you want interactions you need at least terms with three fields in the Lagrangian like the interaction term in QED with the Term ##\mathcal{L}=-q A^{\mu} \bar{\psi} \gamma^{\mu} \psi##.
 
  • #5
vanhees71 said:
If you want interactions you need at least terms with three fields in the Lagrangian like the interaction term in QED with the Term ##\mathcal{L}=-q A^{\mu} \bar{\psi} \gamma^{\mu} \psi##.
Yes, but that can be viewed as included in the definition of the covariant derivative D.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #6
You can of course formally integrate over ##\bar{\psi}## and ##\psi##, but then of course you cannot evaluate the functional determinant exactly anymore as in the free case. For a systematic treatment using the "heat-kernel method", see (there's also a newer edition of this great book):

J. F. Donoghue, E. Golowich and B. R. Holstein, Dynamics of
the Standard Model, Cambridge University press (1992).
 
  • #7
Also, if you have an action with an interaction term jx with the current j, then you can complete the square and write x2/2 + jx as 1/2 (x - j)2 + j2/2
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71

1. What is a non-perturbative description of QFTs?

A non-perturbative description of QFTs (quantum field theories) refers to a method of studying and understanding these theories without relying on approximations or perturbation theory. It involves solving the equations of the theory exactly, rather than using approximations and expansions.

2. Why is a non-perturbative description important in QFTs?

A non-perturbative description is important because it allows for a more accurate and complete understanding of QFTs. Perturbation theory is only effective for small interactions and can break down at high energies or strong interactions. A non-perturbative approach allows for the study of a wider range of phenomena and can provide insights into the behavior of the theory at all energy scales.

3. What are some techniques used in non-perturbative descriptions of QFTs?

Some techniques used in non-perturbative descriptions of QFTs include lattice field theory, functional methods, and topological field theory. These methods involve studying the theory on a discrete grid, using functional equations to solve for exact solutions, and exploring the topological properties of the theory, respectively.

4. What are the limitations of non-perturbative descriptions of QFTs?

One limitation of non-perturbative descriptions is that they can be mathematically challenging and require advanced techniques and computations. Another limitation is that they may not always provide intuitive physical interpretations of the results, making it difficult to connect with experimental observations.

5. How do non-perturbative descriptions of QFTs relate to experimental results?

Non-perturbative descriptions of QFTs can provide theoretical predictions and explanations for experimental results. They can also help guide experimentalists in designing experiments to test the predictions of the theory. However, there may be discrepancies between theoretical predictions and experimental results, which can lead to further developments and refinements in the non-perturbative approach.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
3
Replies
87
Views
5K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
528
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
774
Replies
36
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
642
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
3
Replies
87
Views
7K
Back
Top