Graduate Regarding Coleman's Sine-Gordon Duality

  • Thread starter Thread starter QFT1995
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Duality
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on confusion regarding the calculation presented in Coleman's paper, specifically equation 4.11 on page 5, which involves a time-ordered correlation function. The participants express uncertainty about the positioning of the operators A_+ and A_- and seek clarification on the physical meaning of the perturbation series being calculated. It is emphasized that a foundational understanding of quantum field theory (QFT) is necessary before delving into the paper's complexities. The urgency of the inquiry is noted, as one participant is under a deadline. Overall, the conversation highlights the need for clarity on advanced QFT concepts in relation to Coleman's work.
QFT1995
Messages
29
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Confusion over perturbative series
The link to the paper is here; http://www.sbfisica.org.br/~evjaspc/xviii/images/Nunez/Jan26/AdditionalMaterial/Coleman_paper/Coleman_paper.pdf

Im confused over what exactly he is calculating on page 5 (2092) equation 4.11. Specifically what is
$$\mathcal{T} \langle 0 | \prod_i A_+ (x_i) A_-(y_i) | 0 \rangle. $$
Why aren't the ## A_+ (x_i) ## and ##A_-(y_i)## at the same point and what exactly is the object above?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's a time ordered correlation function. Before studying this paper, you should first learn some more basic QFT (if you haven't already).
 
I understand that its a time ordered correlation function but I'm confused on exactly what the specific perturbation series he is calculating physically means.
 
It's a time ordered correlation function. Before studying this paper, you should first learn some more basic QFT (if you haven't already).

Hi, could you help explain the specific series in the paper. I'm on a deadline and I don't have much time.
Thanks
 
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 175 ·
6
Replies
175
Views
26K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
13K