Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Haag's Theorem in QFT

  1. Dec 16, 2013 #1
    So I'm currently studying QFT, and I got to the point where I realized that the S operator, initially assumed to be unitary, is not unitary anymore, since it is assumed to act between t0 = - infinity and tf = infinity. The author of the book I'm using says this is due to Haag's Theorem, so I gave that a search, and found a rather interesting bunch on information.

    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. jcsd
  3. Dec 16, 2013 #2

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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 123

    "... 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."
     
  4. Dec 16, 2013 #3

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  5. Dec 16, 2013 #4

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

  6. Dec 16, 2013 #5

    Avodyne

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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", in The Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theory by 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.
     
  7. Dec 16, 2013 #6

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    3+1? You must be a squalid state physicist who can't add. All HEP people say 4 :)

    (I'm a biologist.)
     
  8. Dec 16, 2013 #7

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    For people seeing physics beyond the Standard Model, then 3+1 instead of 4 is a must. :smile:
     
  9. Dec 16, 2013 #8

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Stating the signature 3 + 1 is essential.

    An for people working with models in 1 + 1 and 2 + 1.
     
  10. Dec 16, 2013 #9
    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?
     
  11. Dec 16, 2013 #10

    Avodyne

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  12. Dec 16, 2013 #11

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2013
  13. Dec 17, 2013 #12

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    That's exactly what I wanted to say.
     
  14. Dec 17, 2013 #13

    kith

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Could this lattice be associated with a fundamental discreteness of spacetime in the Planck regime or are these different concepts?
     
  15. Dec 17, 2013 #14

    Avodyne

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    We have to distinguish between the real world and mathematical formulations of a particular theory. We've been discussing the latter here. In this context, the lattice is just a technical tool.

    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).
     
  16. Dec 18, 2013 #15

    DarMM

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.

    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. Dec 18, 2013 #16

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    To prevent Haag's theorem, is the IR cutoff enough, or do we need both UV and IR cutoff?
     
  18. Dec 18, 2013 #17

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Can you be more specific how, at least in principle, one can work with QFT without a regulator?
     
  19. Dec 18, 2013 #18
    BPHZ approach does not use a regulator.
     
  20. Dec 18, 2013 #19

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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".
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2013
  21. Dec 18, 2013 #20

    atyy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.

    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Haag's Theorem in QFT
  1. Topological QFT (Replies: 1)

  2. Spin in QFT (Replies: 9)

Loading...