Constructive QFT - current status

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Auto-Didact
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Current Qft
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the current status of constructive quantum field theory (QFT), particularly focusing on the challenges and progress in achieving a full constructive formulation of QFT in four dimensions. Participants explore theoretical, conceptual, and philosophical aspects of the field, including the implications of mathematical rigor in physical theories.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses a lack of recent knowledge in the field and inquires about major progress since Rivasseau's 2000 review, specifically regarding the constructive formulation of QFT in four dimensions.
  • Another participant asserts that a full constructive formulation in four dimensions is not yet achieved and suggests that unforeseen breakthroughs are necessary for progress.
  • A different viewpoint acknowledges some progress in constructing field theories in curved backgrounds in lower dimensions but emphasizes that significant challenges remain for four-dimensional theories, particularly regarding renormalization and control over divergences.
  • Concerns are raised about the difficulties of controlling divergences in renormalizable theories and the implications of coupling constant renormalization on estimates and bounds in perturbative expansions.
  • One participant argues that the search for a mathematically rigorous continuous field theory is misguided, positing that effective theories may not require rigorous formulations at small distances.
  • Another participant questions the necessity of rigorous formulations for non-fundamental theories, suggesting that the existence of rigorous formulations is less critical if the theories are not fundamental.
  • Some participants discuss the balance between the desirability of rigor in physical theories and the potential drawbacks of pursuing rigor that conflicts with the physical goals of the theories.
  • There is a debate regarding Haag's theorem and its implications for statistical mechanics, with differing interpretations of its impact on the goals of the field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the necessity and implications of mathematical rigor in physical theories, with no clear consensus on the value of pursuing rigorous formulations for effective theories or the interpretation of specific theorems like Haag's theorem. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the current state and future prospects of constructive QFT in four dimensions.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in controlling divergences and the challenges posed by renormalization in four-dimensional theories. The discussion highlights the dependence on definitions and the unresolved nature of certain mathematical steps in the field.

  • #61
The thread has run its course and will remain closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 91 ·
4
Replies
91
Views
8K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K