Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am studying GR right now, and one interesting thing I learned about vectors is that they are defined to have the same properties as derivatives.

With this in mind, can I make a differential geometric interpretation of ordinary perturbation theory used in quantum field theory in the following way:?

  1. The set of all field configurations makes a (very complicated) manifold.
  2. We do perturbation theory about a background field configuration corresponding to a point on this manifold.
  3. The perturbations are like expanding functions out to first order -- can be viewed like tangent vectors

Am I on some track to enlightenment, or is this a dead-end train of thought?

share|cite|improve this question
see also my answer at – Arnold Neumaier Nov 1 '15 at 16:34
up vote 2 down vote accepted

At the non-rigorous/intuitive level, OP's observations are spot on. To facilitate such thinking, physicists often use DeWitt's condensed notation, where a field $\phi^{\alpha}(x)$ is written as $\phi^{i}$, while pretending that $i=(\alpha,x)$ is an index of a local coordinate $\phi^{i}$ for some differential manifold.

The problem is that the space of all field configurations is typically an infinite-dimensional space, while ordinary differential geometry is usually only discussed in the context of finite-dimensional manifolds.

Thus strictly speaking, one would have to master/study/develop an infinite-dimensional mathematical version of differential geometry to make OP's picture precise/rigorous.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.