Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

"Nonlinear Wightman fields" are my current response to a wish to do interacting quantum field theory differently, no matter how successful what we currently do may be. The following image of a single page "poster" attempts to get across why I think the mathematics is interesting, with the intention that an ordinary physicist would find the hook curious enough to look at the 22 page arXiv paper. The mathematics of section IV of that paper is really as simple as "use the Hadamard product of matrices" to construct something nontrivial that might have more relevance to Physics than the Wightman axioms have had since they were created more than 50 years ago. This is at the same time familiar stuff and far up a different mountain, so there is some hope at the same time as there is concern that physicists generally will not understand the motivation or that I've made a mistake in the mathematics. [Note that the image itself is legible even if what is displayed inline is marginal.]

Nonlinear Wightman fields -- a poster

The paper this cites is something of an outcome from the thinking that led to my question "Does renormalization make quantum fields into (slightly) nonlinear functionals of test functions?", 18 months ago, when I was using PhysicsSE quite actively as a way to help my research. Some of the content of the arXiv paper may also be found in a much rawer form as an entry in this year's FQXi essay competition (so raw that I can't recommend that you chase the link). People who've been on PhysicsSE long enough may remember my attempts, for over a year, to use PhysicsSE as a tool for research, which I eventually felt to be counterproductive because it led to too little long-term thinking, and also because I felt unable to do much to help people whose research directions were different from mine.

I will submit the arXiv paper to a journal, probably JMathPhys, fairly soon, where it will hopefully generate a worthwhile critique either of the whole or of parts, but I would prefer to iron out kinks in the presentation or in the mathematics before doing so (or, if someone is kind enough to make a killing remark about the mathematics, you could save the editors or referees of JMathPhys or of some other journal some trouble).

As an aside, anyone who takes the time to read sections II and III of the arXiv paper will find calculations and an unconventional perspective on interacting quantum field theory that I would expect anyone who has thought for a while about foundational issues in QFT to find curious and perhaps useful.

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Qmechanic, David Z Dec 9 '12 at 2:50

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

2  
I'm not sure that this is well suited to the site simply because there isn't going to be a correct answer. Ergo, it is an invitation to discussion. May be better taken to chat. –  dmckee Dec 8 '12 at 22:34
    
Obviously this stretches what is acceptable on PhysicsSE, so I'll be unsurprised and phlegmatic if it's downvoted or closed. However, I'd consider anything that justifies a claim that any specific part of the "poster" brings it into disrepute, say, would be a useful answer. I would find any substantive answer useful insofar as it might be a correct statement about physicists' perceptions of QFT, quite possibly even if it's incorrect as physics, but of course perhaps no-one else will. I find that only rarely does research become correct, more often it's wrong but interesting. –  Peter Morgan Dec 8 '12 at 22:58
    
To add, when research is from this far out and too mathematical for most people to be able to comment at all, serious criticism is very difficult to get, so I'll take some grief for a small chance of someone saying something that helps me make one fewer mathematical or factual mistakes. You're right, of course, that this question is not well suited to the site, but I hope it might be curious enough for a few people. I accept but I've never much understood the "discussion is not useful" argument. I would welcome direct communication, if it comes to the question being closed. –  Peter Morgan Dec 8 '12 at 23:19
2  
I'm going to close this, but as always I'd be willing to listen to arguments from the community in favor of reopening it. If you just want feedback on the poster, Physics Chat is the perfect place. On the other hand, if you wanted to ask "Is <statement in the poster> accurate?" or something like that, that should be a fine question for this site. –  David Z Dec 9 '12 at 2:51
2  
Here is a link to the chatroom Peter opened. –  dmckee Dec 9 '12 at 4:41
show 2 more comments