- #1

- 82

- 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haag's_theorem

It seems that the Interaction Picture does not exist in QFT. What is the importance of this theorem and what are its other implications?

- Thread starter Qubix
- Start date

- #1

- 82

- 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haag's_theorem

It seems that the Interaction Picture does not exist in QFT. What is the importance of this theorem and what are its other implications?

- #2

George Jones

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,384

- 1,001

Also, the interaction Hamiltonian doesn't exist as a genuine mathematical object. From Folland's "Quantum Field Theory for Mathematicians: A Tourist's Guide for Mathematicians" (a book that I highly recommend) page 123See also section 10.5, "How to stop worrying about Haag's theorem", inThe Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theoryby Anthony Duncan (Oxford, 2012).

"... the ##H_I##'s that we shall need are too singular."

Too singular, because they products of distributions. From page 180

"A precise mathematical construction of the interacting fields that describe actual fundamental physical processes in 4-dimensional space-time is still lacking and may not be feasible without serious modifications to the theory. Similarly, we have no way to define the Hamiltonian ##H## in a mathematically rigorous way as a self-adjoint operator. It was presented as the sum of the free Hamiltonian ##H_0##, which is well-defined and the interaction Hamiltonian ##H_I##; but the latter was presented as the integral of a density consisting of products of fields, which are operator-valued distributions rather than functions."

- #3

atyy

Science Advisor

- 13,985

- 2,261

Most physical QFT is not rigourous. You can roughly think of it as a many-body system on a lattice and QFT emerges at low energies. This sort of thinking works for QCD, but there is some problem for chiral gauge theories. Regardless the idea is that physical QFTs are only low energy effective theories, and may not exist at all energies. http://quantumfrontiers.com/2013/06/18/we-are-all-wilsonians-now/

In rigourous QFT, the aim is to construct a Lorentz invariant QFT that exists for all energies. Haag's theorem applies to such theories. I've found these comments about the theorem useful.

http://www.rivasseau.com/resources/book.pdf, p15: "The Gell-Mann Low formula .... is difficult to justify because the usual argument, based on the so called "interaction picture" is wrong, by a theorem of Haag ... Euclidean formulation ... theorems which allow us to go back from Euclidean to Minkowski space ..."

Also, https://webspace.utexas.edu/lupher/www/papers/KronzLupherPreprint.pdf [Broken], p7: "If representations are unitarily inequivalent, one is left to wonder whether they are at least empirically equivalent in some sense. If a reasonable notion of empirical equivalence cannot be found, then it will be necessary to introduce criteria for representation selection. To resolve this selection problem, Haag and Kastler (1964) introduced the notion of physical equivalence, which is related to Fell’s (1960) notion of weak equivalence, and a theorem proved by Fell, which they reformulate in terms of physical equivalence."

In rigourous QFT, the aim is to construct a Lorentz invariant QFT that exists for all energies. Haag's theorem applies to such theories. I've found these comments about the theorem useful.

http://www.rivasseau.com/resources/book.pdf, p15: "The Gell-Mann Low formula .... is difficult to justify because the usual argument, based on the so called "interaction picture" is wrong, by a theorem of Haag ... Euclidean formulation ... theorems which allow us to go back from Euclidean to Minkowski space ..."

Also, https://webspace.utexas.edu/lupher/www/papers/KronzLupherPreprint.pdf [Broken], p7: "If representations are unitarily inequivalent, one is left to wonder whether they are at least empirically equivalent in some sense. If a reasonable notion of empirical equivalence cannot be found, then it will be necessary to introduce criteria for representation selection. To resolve this selection problem, Haag and Kastler (1964) introduced the notion of physical equivalence, which is related to Fell’s (1960) notion of weak equivalence, and a theorem proved by Fell, which they reformulate in terms of physical equivalence."

Last edited by a moderator:

- #4

- 12,994

- 548

- #5

Avodyne

Science Advisor

- 1,396

- 88

In 3+1 dimensions, most QFTs are believed not to exist at all (only asymptotically free theories are believed to exist). So any attempt at a rigorous construction of a non-asymptotically free theory in 3+1 dimensions should fail.In rigourous QFT, the aim is to construct a Lorentz invariant QFT that exists for all energies. Haag's theorem applies to such theories.

See also section 10.5, "How to stop worrying about Haag's theorem", in

Short version: QFT requires an ultraviolet regulator (such as a lattice), and Haag's theorem does not apply when the regulator is in place.

- #6

atyy

Science Advisor

- 13,985

- 2,261

3+1? You must be a squalid state physicist who can't add. All HEP people say 4 :)In 3+1 dimensions, most QFTs are believed not to exist at all (only asymptotically free theories are believed to exist). So any attempt at a rigorous construction of a non-asymptotically free theory in 3+1 dimensions should fail.

See also section 10.5, "How to stop worrying about Haag's theorem", inThe Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theoryby Anthony Duncan (Oxford, 2012).

Short version: QFT requires an ultraviolet regulator (such as a lattice), and Haag's theorem does not apply when the regulator is in place.

(I'm a biologist.)

- #7

- 12,994

- 548

For people seeing physics beyond the Standard Model, then 3+1 instead of 4 is a must.

- #8

George Jones

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,384

- 1,001

An for people working with models in 1 + 1 and 2 + 1.For people seeing physics beyond the Standard Model, then 3+1 instead of 4 is a must.

- #9

- 82

- 1

First of all, what is an "asymptotically free theory" ? Second, I don't know how you apply a lattice to QFT. From what wikipedia says, "Every lattice in [tex]ℝ^n[/tex] can be generated from a basis for the vector space by forming all linear combinations with integer coefficients." So taking linear combinations of the eigenbasis of a Hilbert space, with integer coefficients gives you a lattice?In 3+1 dimensions, most QFTs are believed not to exist at all (only asymptotically free theories are believed to exist). So any attempt at a rigorous construction of a non-asymptotically free theory in 3+1 dimensions should fail.

See also section 10.5, "How to stop worrying about Haag's theorem", inThe Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theoryby Anthony Duncan (Oxford, 2012).

Short version: QFT requires an ultraviolet regulator (such as a lattice), and Haag's theorem does not apply when the regulator is in place.

- #10

Avodyne

Science Advisor

- 1,396

- 88

- #11

atyy

Science Advisor

- 13,985

- 2,261

One formal possibility in addition to asymptotic freedom is asymptotic safety. However, as Avodyne says, currently no 3+1 theory has been shown to be asymptotically safe without being asymptotically free. It is being researched if 3+1 gravity might be asymptotically safe, even though it is not asymptotically free.

Asymptotic freedom/safety are physics concepts and not rigourous. However, it is widely believed that it is not worth attempting a rigourous construction of a theory, unless it has been shown to be asymptotically free or safe. 3+1d Yang-Mills is asymptotically free, which is why its rigourous construction has been posed as a Clay Millenium problem.

Asymptotic freedom/safety are physics concepts and not rigourous. However, it is widely believed that it is not worth attempting a rigourous construction of a theory, unless it has been shown to be asymptotically free or safe. 3+1d Yang-Mills is asymptotically free, which is why its rigourous construction has been posed as a Clay Millenium problem.

Last edited:

- #12

- 10,947

- 3,656

That's exactly what I wanted to say.See also section 10.5, "How to stop worrying about Haag's theorem", inThe Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theoryby Anthony Duncan (Oxford, 2012).

Short version: QFT requires an ultraviolet regulator (such as a lattice), and Haag's theorem does not apply when the regulator is in place.

- #13

kith

Science Advisor

- 1,348

- 452

- #14

Avodyne

Science Advisor

- 1,396

- 88

True discreteness at the Planck scale is an intriguing possibility. That would provide a real-world ultraviolet cutoff for the Standard Model. But then there are many other possibilities for an "ultraviolet completion" of the Standard Model + gravity that don't involve fundamental discreteness (e.g. zillions of string models).

- #15

DarMM

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,370

- 1,397

QFTs do not require a regulator, although perhaps you mean this in a practical sense, i.e. to work with QFTs at our current level of mathematics requires a regulator at intermediate steps.Short version: QFT requires an ultraviolet regulator (such as a lattice), and Haag's theorem does not apply when the regulator is in place.

Also Haag's theorem is not affected by the ultraviolet cutoff, Haag's theorem applies even with an ultraviolet cutoff in place. You need an infrared cutoff to prevent Haag's theorem.

- #16

- 10,947

- 3,656

To prevent Haag's theorem, is the IR cutoff enough, or do we need both UV and IR cutoff?Also Haag's theorem is not affected by the ultraviolet cutoff, Haag's theorem applies even with an ultraviolet cutoff in place. You need an infrared cutoff to prevent Haag's theorem.

- #17

- 10,947

- 3,656

Can you be more specific how, at least in principle, one can work with QFT without a regulator?QFTs do not require a regulator, although perhaps you mean this in a practical sense, i.e. to work with QFTs at our current level of mathematics requires a regulator at intermediate steps.

- #18

- 1,024

- 32

BPHZ approach does not use a regulator.

- #19

- 10,947

- 3,656

OK, but BPHZ method subtracts an infinite quantity from an infinite quantity, which is not well defined at the mathematical level. The Haag's theorem, on the other hand, assumes that one works with quantities which are well defined mathematically. Physically, the BPHZ method postulates that the mathematically ill defined expression is actually equal to a finite coupling constant extracted from experiments. In this way, BPHZ is also a dirty trick which replaces an infinite quantity by a finite one, so in this sense it is not very different from a "regularization".BPHZ approach does not use a regulator.

Last edited:

- #20

atyy

Science Advisor

- 13,985

- 2,261

To prevent Haag's theorem, is the IR cutoff enough, or do we need both UV and IR cutoff?

As I understand it, physical QFT does not require it to exist at all energies, a cut-off is fine, and QFT is just a low energy effective theory.Can you be more specific how, at least in principle, one can work with QFT without a regulator?

I think DarMM is saying that there are nonetheless some nonlinear relativistic QFTs that exist at all energies, and in infinite volume. In my understanding, the AdS/CFT proposal assumes that the CFT exists for all energies, which is why it is conjectured to provide a non-perturbative definition of some sector of string theory.

http://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/yangmills.pdf (p8) mentions that relativistic QFTs that exist at all energies, and in infinite volume, have been constructed in fewer than 3+1 spacetime dimensions.

- #21

George Jones

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,384

- 1,001

A cut-off is (one of the types of) regularization.As I understand it, physical QFT does not require it to exist at all energies, a cut-off is fine, and QFT is just a low energy effective theory.Can you be more specific how, at least in principle, one can work with QFT without a regulator?

- #22

atyy

Science Advisor

- 13,985

- 2,261

Yes, physically-relevant QFT, like the standard model, requires a cut-off. However, the article I linked to goes on to say that nonlinear relativistic QFTs in fewer than 4 spacetime dimensions in infinite volume at all energies have been rigourously constructed. Yang-Mills in 4D is asymptotically free, which is why it is a candidate for rigourous construction of a 4D QFT without a cut-off.A cut-off is (one of the types of) regularization.

Last edited:

- #23

Avodyne

Science Advisor

- 1,396

- 88

They don't require a regulator if they exist. But it is widely believed by experts that, in 3+1D, only asymptotically-free theories exist.QFTs do not require a regulator

I disagree, and my opinion is backed up by Duncan's book.Also Haag's theorem is not affected by the ultraviolet cutoff, Haag's theorem applies even with an ultraviolet cutoff in place.

- #24

atyy

Science Advisor

- 13,985

- 2,261

Duncan seems to say on his p369 that both the ultraviolet cutoff and the finite volume cut-off are needed to have the interaction picture. IIRC, sometime ago on these forums Dr Du said the same thing about condensed matter in the infinite volume limit. In condensed matter physically it can't really matter, since physically any material in the lab has a natural ultraviolet cutoff and finite volume.I disagree, and my opinion is backed up by Duncan's book.

- #25

DarMM

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,370

- 1,397

Haag's theorem is a theorem proving the non-existence of the interaction picture provided the theory is translation invariant, i.e. if there is no infrared cutoff, it does not discuss the ultraviolet cutoff.I disagree, and my opinion is backed up by Duncan's book.

Basically Haag's theorem proves that free and interacting theories are unitarily inequivalent unless an infrared cutoff is in place.

There is no such general result for ultraviolet cutoffs because there are counterexamples. For example ##\phi^4## without an ultraviolet cutoff (but with an infrared cutoff) is unitarily equivalent to the free theory in 1+1 dimensions and so the interaction picture does exist.

For interaction picture to exist sometimes both an ultraviolet and infrared cutoff is needed, sometimes only an infrared cutoff. Haag's theorem is the statement that an infrared cutoff is always needed for the interaction picture to exist.