Bootstrapping quantum Yang-Mills with concrete axioms

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on bootstrapping quantum Yang-Mills theories using concrete axioms, specifically the Wightman axioms proposed by Arthur Wightman in the 1950s. These axioms describe quantum field theories (QFTs) on flat Minkowski spacetime as operator-valued distributions in a Hilbert space. The conversation emphasizes the need to reinvigorate the study of quantum Yang-Mills and constructive field theory, referencing the Euclidean CFT axioms used in the conformal bootstrap approach. The book by Glimm and Jaffe is highlighted as a resource for constructing 2-dimensional interacting quantum fields, although it is noted that this is distinct from 4D quantum Yang-Mills.

PREREQUISITES
  • Wightman axioms for quantum field theories
  • Operator-valued distributions in Hilbert space
  • Euclidean CFT axioms
  • Constructive field theory principles
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Wightman axioms in detail
  • Explore the Euclidean bootstrap approach to conformal field theory
  • Read Glimm and Jaffe's book on 2-dimensional interacting quantum fields
  • Investigate current research on 4D quantum Yang-Mills theories
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, mathematicians, and researchers interested in quantum field theory, particularly those focusing on quantum Yang-Mills and constructive field theory methodologies.

BohmianRealist
Gold Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Are there any simple examples for constructing quantum fields using the Euclidean axiom approach?
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_quantum_field_theory

The first set of axioms for quantum field theories, known as the Wightman axioms, were proposed by Arthur Wightman in the early 1950s. These axioms attempt to describe QFTs on flat Minkowski spacetime by regarding quantum fields as operator-valued distributions acting on a Hilbert space.

But, that seems like a fairly abstract place to begin the kind of QFT construction that was asked of us by Witten in 2012:
The title should possibly refer to "what we can and cannot hope to prove". The reason for giving this talk is that having a clear picture of what one can and cannot hope to prove may help with strategies for proving what one can prove. Of course, implicit is a belief that the study of quantum Yang-Mills should be reinvigorated. Personally I think the relation between mathematics and physics will remain unsatisfactory unless the program of constructive field theory is reinvigorated in some form.

At the bottom of that page on axiomatic QFT are the "Euclidean CFT axioms":
These axioms (see e.g. [1]) are used in the conformal bootstrap approach to conformal field theory in
\mathbb {R} ^{d}
. They are also referred to as Euclidean bootstrap axioms.
Are there any examples of concrete bootstrapping of QFT, so that anyone can follow along, ala Euclid's Elements?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BohmianRealist said:
At the bottom of that page on axiomatic QFT are the "Euclidean CFT axioms":

Are there any examples of concrete bootstrapping of QFT, so that anyone can follow along, ala Euclid's Elements?
The book by Glimm and Jaffe gives full details for constructing 2-dimensional interacting quantum fields that way. (But this is still very far away from 4D quantum Yang-Mills.)
 
A., thanks... Just bought the e-book and now reading!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
19K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K