How does interacting Lagrangian have form of product of fields?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the form of interacting Lagrangians in quantum field theory, particularly in relation to Haag's theorem and the challenges of quantizing interacting fields. Participants explore the derivation of specific interaction terms, such as the phi-4 and Yukawa interactions, and the implications of locality and normalizability in constructing these Lagrangians.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about how the form of interacting Lagrangians, such as that of Fermi fields interacting with electromagnetic fields, is derived, particularly in light of Haag's theorem.
  • Another participant clarifies that Haag's theorem indicates the difficulty of expressing the interacting representation in terms of the free representation, which is relevant to the quantization of fields.
  • A different participant questions how to derive the phi-4 interacting Lagrangian and Yukawa interaction due to the absence of a corresponding classical theory.
  • One participant suggests rules for constructing interaction terms in the absence of gauge invariance, emphasizing locality and the relevance of normalizability in four dimensions, which leads to the preference for the phi-4 theory over others that may not be normalizable or lack physical application.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding Haag's theorem and its implications for interacting fields. There is no consensus on the derivation of specific interacting Lagrangians or the criteria for their construction, indicating multiple competing views and unresolved questions.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in deriving interaction terms due to the lack of corresponding classical theories and the complexities introduced by Haag's theorem. The discussion also touches on the criteria for normalizability and locality, which are not universally agreed upon.

ndung200790
Messages
519
Reaction score
0
Please teach me this problem:
It seem that following Haag's theorem there not exist quantized equation of motion for interacting fields.So I don't understand how to know the form of interacting Lagrangian has form of product of fields(example Lagrangian of Fermi field interacting with electromagnetic field).
Thank you very much for advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ndung200790 said:
[...] I don't understand how to know the form of interacting Lagrangian has form of product of fields(example Lagrangian of Fermi field interacting with electromagnetic field).

It just comes from quantizing the classical theory.

It seem that following Haag's theorem there not exist quantized equation of motion
for interacting fields.

That's not quite what Haag's theorem says. The free representation and the interacting
representation are both constructed to be Poincare representations, but Haag's theorem
basically means you can't (rigorously, nonperturbatively) express the latter in terms of
the former. Getting around the manifestations of this is one of the reasons for
renormalization.
 
So,how to derive phi-4 interacting Lagrangian and Yukawa interaction,because there are not coresponding classical theory.
Please give me a favour to explain again.
Thank you very much.
 
There are some rules you should follow in the absence of gauge invariance when it comes to building interaction terms. One of this is locality, namely the power of the fields be finite. And then you can use the concept of relevance judged by whether the interacting theory is normalizable in 4D or not. By this judgement, we rule out the phi-3,5,6,.. theories in 4D either because they're not normalizable, or, if they are, they have no physical application so far. That's why we-re left with the phi-4 case which is normally thoroughly analyzed in the serious books.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
10K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K