Quantum fields, periods and algebraic geometry

Of the three organizers of the conference N. Hitchin is a mathematician, A. Kapustin and W. Nahm are physicists. Ideas from physics, in particular from string theory and related areas had a profound influence on algebraic and differential geometry. Conversely, many developments in string theory use very recent mathematical results. There were 19 talks at the workshop, 12 by mathematicians and 7 by physicists, but in many cases an outside observer would have had difficulties to sort them out. Quantum field theory often allows continuous interpolations between geometrical structures of topologically different manifolds. A particularly important example is mirror symmetry, where the complexified Kähler cone of one manifold corresponds to the moduli space of complex structures of the mirror manifold. Several talks explored geometrical and number theoretical aspects of this connection. Mirror symmetry can be understood in terms of torus fibrations and an isomorphism between the quantum field theories given by maps to a torus and to its dual (T-duality). The B-field of string theory can be described in terms of non-commutative geometry on the tori, and its effect on T-duality has been investigated. The quantum field theories which provide these dualities are supersymmetric conformally invariant quantum field theories in two dimensions. In mathematics, large parts of their structures have been axiomatised in the language of vertex operator algebras, but much remains to be done. A promising mathematical approach is provided by the chiral de Rham complex. This cohomology of this complex seems to be invariant under mirror symmetry, but its physical meaning is not yet clear. This led to many discussions between mathematicians and physicists. Indeed, the free time for discussions was at least as important as the lectures for learning the language of researchers with a different background and for making use of their ideas. An area in which the common understanding is well advance is topological field theory. Here one has good axioms and many of the analytic problems of conformally invariant quantum field theories can be ignored. One can solve rather complex problems and one can make contact with new geometrical ideas, in particular generalised complex structures. The latter allow to interpolate between complex and symplectic geometry, which should become important for both physics and mathematics. To understand all of conformal field theory at a similar mathematical depth will take more time, but already now relations to mixed Hodge structures have given much insight. Eventually many so far intractable problems should be solvable by the use of quantum field theoretical ideas, for example the construction of the non-singular Ricci flat metrics on K3. Perturbative string theory can be described in terms of conformal field theory, but the complete theory has more excitations than strings. Among them the best understood are the D-branes, many features of which can be understood in terms of boundary states in conformal field theory. Some of these branes are related to complex submanifolds, others to certain Lagrangian submanifolds, and their description involves twisted K-theory and derived categories. The development of a common language between mathematicians and physicists is well under way, and the workshop has made a contribution which all participants found very stimulating. In Europe such meetings between mathematicians and string theorists are rare, so the workshop was particularly useful. Much of the time was reserved for informal discussions. On one evening there was a discussion on the relation between classical and quantum geometry. Weather predictions for the free afternoon had been bad, but finally the weather was splendid and the supply of Black Forest cake matched the demand.

In [1, 2, 3] the Corolla Polynomial $ \mathcal C (\Gamma) \in \mathbb C [a_{h_1}, \ldots, a_{h_{\left \vert \Gamma^{[1/2]} \right \vert}}] $ was introduced as a graph polynomial in half-edge variables $ \left \{ a_h \right \} _{h \in \Gamma^{[1/2]}} $ over a 3-regular scalar quantum field theory (QFT) Feynman graph $ \Gamma $. It allows for a covariant quantization of pure Yang-Mills theory without the need for introducing ghost fields, clarifies the relation between quantum gauge theory and scalar QFT with cubic interaction and translates back the problem of renormalizing quantum gauge theory to the problem of renormalizing scalar QFT with cubic interaction (which is super renormalizable in 4 dimensions of spacetime). Furthermore, it is, as we believe, useful for computer calculations. In [4] on which this paper is based the formulation of [1, 2, 3] gets slightly altered in a fashion specialized in the case of the Feynman gauge. It is then formulated as a graph polynomial $ \mathcal C ( \Gamma ) \in \mathbb C [a_{h_{1 \pm}}, \ldots, a_{h_{\left \vert \Gamma^{[1/2]} \right \vert} \vphantom{h}_\pm}, b_{h_1}, \ldots, b_{h_{\left \vert \Gamma^{[1/2]} \right \vert}}] $ in three different types of half-edge variables $ \left \{ a_{h_+} , a_{h_-} , b_h \right \} _{h \in \Gamma^{[1/2]}} $. This formulation is also suitable for the generalization to the case of spontaneously broken gauge theories (in particular all bosons from the Standard Model), as was first worked out in [4] and gets reviewed here.

Despite quantum theory’s remarkable success at predicting the statistical results of experiments, many philosophers worry that it nonetheless lacks some crucial connection between theory and experiment. Such worries constitute the Quantum Measurement Problems. One can broadly identify two kinds of worries: (1) pragmatic: it is unclear how to model our measurement processes in order to extract experimental predictions, and (2) realist: we lack a satisfying metaphysical account of measurement processes. While both issues deserve attention, the pragmatic worries have worse consequences if left unanswered: If our pragmatic theory-to-experiment linkage is unsatisfactory, then quantum theory is at risk of losing both its evidential support and its physical salience. Avoiding these risks is at the core of what I will call the Pragmatic Measurement Problem. Fortunately, the pragmatic measurement problem is not too difficult to solve. For non-relativistic quantum theory, the story goes roughly as follows: One can model each of quantum theory’s key experimental successes on a case-by-case basis by using a measurement chain. In modeling this measurement chain, it is pragmatically necessary to switch from using a quantum model to a classical model at some point. That is, it is pragmatically necessary to invoke a Heisenberg cut at some point along the measurement chain. Past this case-by-case measurement framework, one can then strive for a wide-scoping measurement theory capable of modeling all (or nearly all) possible measurement processes. For non-relativistic quantum theory, this leads us to our usual projective measurement theory. As a bonus, proceeding this way also gives us an empirically meaningful characterization of the theory’s observables as (positive) self-adjoint operators. But how does this story have to change when we move into the context of quantum field theory (QFT)? It is well known that in QFT almost all localized projective measurements violate causality, allowing for faster-than-light signaling; These are Sorkin’s impossible measurements. Thus, the story of measurement in QFT cannot end as it did before with a projective measurement theory. But does this then mean that we need to radically rethink the way we model measurement processes in QFT? Are our current experimental practices somehow misguided? Fortunately not. I will argue that (once properly understood) our old approach to modeling quantum measurements is still applicable in QFT contexts. We ought to first use measurement chains to build up a case-by-case measurement framework for QFT. Modeling these measurement chains will require us to invoke what I will call a QFT-cut. That is, at some point along the measurement chain we must switch from using a QFT model to a non-QFT model. Past this case-by-case measurement framework, we can then strive for both a new wide-scoping measurement theory for QFT and an empirically meaningful characterization of its observables. It is at this point that significantly more theoretical work is needed. This paper ends by briefly reviewing the state of the art in the physics literature regarding the modeling of measurement processes involving quantum fields.

An imaginary-time method was developed for calculating the probability of particle transmission through smooth barriers variable with time. Within the imaginary-time method, the tunneling process is described by using classical equations of motion written in terms of an imaginary time (t → it), while the probability of tunneling is determined by the imaginary part of the action functional, this imaginary part being calculated along the subbarrier particle trajectory. The fundamentals of the imaginary-time method are surveyed, and its applications in the theory of atomic-state ionization under the effect of constant electric and magnetic fields that have various configurations, in the field of intense monochromatic laser radiation and of an ultrashort electromagnetic pulse, in the process of Lorentz ionization of atoms and ions during their motion in a strong magnetic field, etc., are outlined. The applications of the imaginary-time method in relativistic cases—for example, in the theory of ionization of levels of multiply charged ions whose binding energy is commensurate with the electron rest energy—and in quantum field theory (Schwinger effect, which consists in the production of electron-positron pairs from a vacuum by a superstrong external field) are briefly described. Particular attention is given to methodological issues and details of the imaginary-time method that are of importance in solving specific physics problems, but which are usually skipped in original publications.

We briefly exhibit in this chapter the mathematical formalism of QFT, which actually has a non-trivial combinatorial backbone. The QFT setting can be understood as a quantum description of particles and their interactions, a description which is also compatible with Einstein's theory of special relativity. Within the framework of elementary particle physics (or high-energy physics), QFT led to the Standard Model of Elementary Particle Physics, which is the physical theory tested with the best accuracy by collider experiments. Moreover, the QFT formalism successfully applies to statistical physics, condensed matter physics and so on. We show in this chapter how Feynman graphs appear through the so-called QFT perturbative expansion, how Feynman integrals are associated to Feynman graphs and how these integrals can be expressed via the help of graph polynomials, the Kirchhoff–Symanzik polynomials. Finally, we give a glimpse of renormalization, of the Dyson–Schwinger equation and of the use of the so-called intermediate field method. This chapter mainly focuses on the so-called Phi? QFT scalar model.

Approaches to Ontology: Candidate General Ontologies for Situating Quantum Field (P Simons) 'Quanta', Tropes, or Processes: Ontologies for QFT Beyond the Myth of Substance (J Seibt) Analytical Ontologists in Action: A Comment on Seibt and Simons (M Kuhlmann) How Do Field Theories Refer to Entities in a Field? (S Y Auyang) Field Ontologies for QFT: A Naive View of the Quantum Field (A Wayne) Comments on Paul Teller's Book, An Interpretive Introduction to Quantum Field Theory (G Fleming) So What Is the Quantum Field? (P Teller) Relativity, Measurement and Renormalization: On the Nature of Measurement Records in Relativistic Quantum Field (J A Barrett) No Place for Particles in Relativistic Quantum Theories? (H Halvorson & R Clifton) Events and Covariance in the Interpretation of Quantum Field (D Dieks) Measurement and Ontology: What Kind of Evidence Can We Have for Quantum Fields? (B Falkenburg) Renormalization and the Disunity of Science (N Huggett) Gauge Symmetries and the Vacuum: The Interpretation of Gauge Symmetry (M Redhead) Comment on Redhead: The Interpretation of Gauge Symmetry (M Drieschner et al.) Is the Zero-Point Energy Real? (S Saunders) Two Comments on the Vacuum in Algebraic Quantum Field (M Redei).

The derivation of fundamental effects related to the rotation and acceleration of a medium consisting of relativistic particles based on quantum-statistical approaches is presented. The Unruh effect for an accelerated medium is derived based on the Zubarev density operator. A nonperturbative formula is obtained for the chiral vortical effect (CVE) in a medium with vorticity at a finite mass based on a generalization of the first terms of the quantum-field perturbation theory calculated using the statistical operator. Various corrections to these effects in higher orders in acceleration and vorticity were found. The concept of vorticity and acceleration as new real and imaginary chemical potentials is substantiated. The duality of the quantum-statistical Zubarev density operator and quantum field theory in a space-time with a conical singularity is revealed and shown by the example of the correspondence of quantum corrections with acceleration in two approaches. The consequences of this duality for both methods are investigated. A new effect related to thermodynamic instability at the Unruh temperature is shown.

Physicists dating back to Feynman have lamented the difficulties of applying the variational principle to quantum field theories. In nonrelativistic quantum field theories, the challenge is to parametrize and optimize over the infinitely many n-particle wave functions comprising the state's Fock-space representation. Here we approach this problem by introducing neural-network quantum field states, a deep learning ansatz that enables application of the variational principle to nonrelativistic quantum field theories in the continuum. Our ansatz uses the Deep Sets neural network architecture to simultaneously parametrize all of the n-particle wave functions comprising a quantum field state. We employ our ansatz to approximate ground states of various field theories, including an inhomogeneous system and a system with long-range interactions, thus demonstrating a powerful new tool for probing quantum field theories.

A new non-Archimedean approach to interacted quantum fields is presented. In proposed approach, a field operator φ(x, t), no longer a standard tempered operator-valued distribution, but a non-classical operator-valued function. We prove using this novel approach that the quantum field theory with Hamiltonian P(φ)4 exists and that the corresponding C* - algebra of bounded observables satisfies all the Haag-Kastler axioms except Lorentz covariance. We prove that the λ(φ 2n )4, n ≥ 2 quantum field theory models are Lorentz covariant.

Quantization of gauge fields, graph polynomials and graph homology

Self-consistent hartree description of finite nuclei in a relativistic quantum field theory

The goal of the present note is to understand whether it is possible to define interacting quantum field theory in global anti de Sitter space-time with Lorentzian signature, in its covering space-time (whose time coordinate is not periodic) and in its Poincare patch. We show that in global anti de Sitter space-time there are certain problems to define quantum field theory properly. This is due to an additional UV singularity of the Feynman propagator which is sitting on the light-cone emanating from the antipodal point of the source. There is no such singularity in flat space-time. At the same time quantum field theory in Poincare region of the AdS space-time can be well defined and is related to the one in Euclidean AdS via the analytical continuation. In principle one can also define and analytically continue quantum field theory in the covering anti de Sitter space-time. However, to do that one has to use an unusual $i\epsilon$-prescription in the Feynman propagator, which cannot be used in loop calculations in non-stationary situations.

The theory of fundamental particles and their non-gravitational interactions is encapsulated by an extremely successful quantum field theory known as the Standard Model. This quantum field theory is determined by a particular set of quantum fields and a particular Hamiltonian, which we will outline in this chapter. It is an interacting quantum field theory, not solvable by the methods we have seen so far. In the non-interacting approximation, it includes just the sorts of free quantum field theories that we have studied in earlier chapters. This chapter gives only a very brief sketch of the definition of the theory; for details, one needs to consult a conventional particle physics textbook.

Holism and nonseparability by analogy

Remarks on some new models of interacting quantum fields with indefinite metric