A Complete characterization of local monomials

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gaussian97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Complete Local
Gaussian97
Homework Helper
Messages
683
Reaction score
412
TL;DR Summary
If ##[A(x), j_{\{\lambda\}}(y)]=0## for ##(x-y)^2<0## then ##A(x)## is a local polynomial.
Hi, I'm reading Zavialov's book on QFT and there's a statement there I was interested in finding how to prove it. The statement is as follows:

If ##[A(x), j_{\{\lambda\}}(y)]=0## for ##(x-y)^2<0## then ##A(x)## is a local polynomial.

The relevant definitions are:
$$A = \sum_n \int A_n(x_1,\ldots, x_n) :\phi(x_1)\cdots\phi(x_n): dx_1 \cdots dx_n$$
$$j_{\{\lambda\}}(x)=:\phi_{(\lambda_1)}(x)\cdots \phi_{(\lambda_n)}(x):$$
$$\phi_{(\lambda_1)}(x) = \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right)^{(\lambda_i)}\phi(x)$$
and a local polynomial is just a linear combination of ##j_{\{\lambda\}}(x)##.

Does anyone have a proof of this fact?

This are the main thoughts I came up trying to prove the statement:

The first thing is that the book does not explicitly define ##A(x)##, but I think it is probably defined by the natural
$$A(x) = \sum_n \int A_n(x,x_1,\ldots, x_n) :\phi(x_1)\cdots\phi(x_n): dx_1 \cdots dx_n$$
From here the first thing I thought was that the commutator ##[A(x), j(y)]## reduces to know the value of the commutators
$$[:\phi(x_1)\cdots \phi(x_n):, j(y)]$$
And since the derivatives can be extracted from the commutator at the end we need to compute
$$[:\phi(x_1)\cdots \phi(x_n):, :\phi(y_1)\cdots \phi(y_m):]$$
Now, using the Wick theorem we can get rid of the normal ordering, and using the relation ##[A,BC]=B[A,C]+[A,B]C##, we should really be able to reduce everything to the commutator ##[A(x), \phi(y)]##. So, either I'm neglecting something important or the assumption ##[A,j]=0 \forall j## seems to be innecesary, just needing ##[A,\phi]=0##, no?

Then we can write the commutators
$$[\phi(x_1)\cdots \phi(x_n), \phi(y)] = \sum_{i=1}^n [\phi(x_i), \phi(y)] \phi(x_1)\cdots\phi(x_{i-1})\phi(x_{i+1})\cdots\phi(x_n)$$

My idea then is trying to prove that this sum cannot vanish unless each particular term vanishes. We know that ##[\phi(x_i), \phi(y)]## vanishes when ##(x_i-y)^2<0## so the condition ##[A,\phi]=0## would imply that the functions ##A_n(x,x_1,\ldots, x_n)## must vanish whenever ##(x_i-y)^2\geq 0##.
Since this must be true for all ##y## such that ##(x-y)^2<0## this implies that ##A_n(x,x_1,\ldots, x_n)## must be zero whenever ##x_i\neq x## and therefore all the functions ##A_n(x,x_1,\ldots, x_n)## would be linear combinations of ##\delta(x-x_i)## and their derivatives. Which would prove that ##A(x)## is a local polynomial.

I don't know if anyone knows if this is the right approach. The part that I think I'm more distant to actually prove (with some rigour) is to prove that indeed the sum cannot be zero unless each individual term, which seems plausible to me. But I have no clue.

If anyone knows the proof or wants to share any thoughts about it, I'd like to hear you.
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Back
Top