Types of quantum field thories
The Wightman axioms are an attempt to axiomatize and thus formalize the notion of a quantum field theory on Minkowski space-time in the sense of AQFT, i.e. in terms of the assignment of field operators to points or subsets of spacetime.
They serve as the basis of what is known as constructive quantum field theory which seeks to provide a mathematically sound framework for quantum theory over the Minkowski space background of special relativity. Arthur Wightman first formulated them in the 1950s but they were not published until 1964 after advances in scattering theory confirmed their applicability.
The Wightman axioms served to establish rigorously several basic structural properties of quantum field theories on Minkowski spacetime, such as the spin-statistics theorem or the Osterwalder–Schrader theorem relating Lorenzian and Euclidean quantum field theories (“Wick rotation”).
They were later further abstracted to the Haag-Kastler axioms that characterize local nets of operator algebras and serve as the basis for algebraic quantum field theory. See there for further details.
This page is a draft, see:
Note: the numbering - and indeed the actual number - of axioms varies depending on the source. In many sources, several of the axioms below are combined.
There is a physical Hilbert space in which a unitary representation of the Poincaré spinor group?, acts.
The spectrum of the energy-momentum operator P is concentrated in the closed upper (forward) light cone .
There exists in a unique unit vector (vacuum), which is invariant with respect to the space-time translations .
The components of the quantum field are operator valued generalized functions over the Schwartz space (tempered distributions) with domain of definition which is common to all the operators and is dense in . is contained in and is taken into itself under the action of and .
Note: As in distribution theory it is custom to abuse the notation and write for a point of the Minkowski spacetime and talk about the function , rather than the value of the distribution of a test function .
where is a complex or real finite-dimensional matrix representation of .
Any two field components and either commute or anticommute under a space-like separation of the arguments and .
The set of finite linear combinations of vectors of the form is dense in .
The vacuum expectation values of the theory are all (tempered, by the axioms) distributions of the form
The term “distribution” is used interchangably with “function” and “value” in the physics literature. The Wightman reconstruction theorem states properties that a set of tempered distributions need to have to be the set of vacuum expectation values of a Wightman theory, and all such Wightman theories are then unitarily equivalent. …to be continued
See Haag–Kastler axioms. Since both the Wightman and the Haag-Kastler approach try to formulate an axiomatic approach to quantum field theory on Minkowski spacetime, the natural question to ask is what is their relationship? Three possible answers come to mind:
They are equivalent.
One contains the other, i.e. one set of axioms implies the other.
At least one is wrong (from the physical viewpoint).
Unfortunatly the situation does not seem to be as clear as this list suggests. The current state of the affair seems to be that
Tim van Beek: The two statemants above are a condensate of diverse papers I read, any input about the true state of the art would be most welcome. My educated guess is that the “mildness” of the assumptions indicates the fact that all physically realistic models are supposed to satisfy these.
Should it be bounded or unbounded operators/observables?
Pro: Some observables do not have an upper bound, e.g. you can always increase the impulse of an electron, no matter how big that already is (in theory).
Contra: A detector has an upper bound for every observable it can detect, and that is what is actually measured in an experiment. The situation of the pro-bullet won’t arise because we measure observables in bounded regions of spacetime, and the energy contained in a bounded region is always finite (we are excluding artifacts like black holes from our consideration, of course).
Contra to even asking the question: Theories of bounded and unbounded operators/observables are physically equivalent modulo mathematical subtleties, meaning they produce the same numbers that can be compared to experiments.
One simple situation where the construction of a Haag-Kastler net out of Wightman fields is straight forward is this: Suppose that all smeared field operators of the Wightman theory are essentially self adjoint for real test functions and commute strongly (their spectral projections commute) if the test functions have space-like separated support. Then we can define local algebras by is a real test function with support contained in and F is a bounded Borel measurable function on .
(Our assumptions allow us to use the Borel functional calculus).
A neutral real quantum scalar field on Minkowski spacetime with mass parameter can be defined as follows:
The positive mass shell is the subset of Minkowski spacetime defined by
The normalized Lorentz-invariant measure on the positive mass shell is defined with respect to the Lesbegue measure by
Let be the Hilbert space with the positive mass shell and the normalized Lorentz-invariant measure on it as defined above. Construct the Boson Fock space .
Define the operator to be the Lorentz invariant Fourier transform restricted to :
The quantum field is now a real tempered distribution on with values in the space of operators of .
and are the annihilation and creation operators on , that is anihilates a single particle state and creates a single particle state .
is a distribution solution of the Klein-Gordon equation by construction, that is for every test function we get
The reason for this is that
The Wightman axioms have been established for the following theories.
Massive 2d scalar theories with polynomial interactions, see this article by Glimm, Jaffe and Spencer.
Massive in 3d, see this article by Feldman and Osterwalder as well as this one by Magnen and Seneor.
Massive Thirring model, see this article by Frohlich and Seiler and this more recent one by Benfatto, Falco and Mastropietro.
The original reference is
Raymond Streater relates some historical background about the book and the approach on his webpage.
The list of examples above draws from