User Tools

Site Tools


theorems:haags_theorem

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
theorems:haags_theorem [2018/01/02 14:17]
jakobadmin ↷ Page moved from advanced_notions:quantum_field_theory:haags_theorem to theorems:haags_theorem
theorems:haags_theorem [2019/05/08 15:48] (current)
jakobadmin [Abstract]
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Haag's theorem ====== ====== Haag's theorem ======
  
-<tabbox Why is it interesting?> ​ 
  
-<​blockquote>​According to something called Haagís theorem there appears to be no known 
-consistent formalism within which interacting quantum field theory can be 
-expressed. 
  
-<​cite>​p. 115 in "An interpretative +<​tabbox ​Intuitive
-introduction to quantum Field theory"​ by Teller (1995) </​cite>​ +
-</​blockquote>​ +
- +
-<​tabbox ​Layman+
  
 <note tip> <note tip>
Line 17: Line 9:
 </​note>​ </​note>​
   ​   ​
-<​tabbox ​Student+<​tabbox ​Concrete
  
 For the best explanation,​ see the section "How to stop worrying about Haag's theorem"​ in the book "The Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theory"​ by A. Duncan For the best explanation,​ see the section "How to stop worrying about Haag's theorem"​ in the book "The Conceptual Framework of Quantum Field Theory"​ by A. Duncan
    
-<​tabbox ​Researcher+<​tabbox ​Abstract
  
-<note tip+<blockquote>In particular Haag's theorem, that one 
-The motto in this section ​is: //the higher ​the level of abstractionthe better//. +cannot consistently define the vacuum ​in interacting theories, ​is now considered to have been the wrong way to look 
-</note>+at the problemand largely disappears with considerations of RG flow.<​cite>​[[http:​//www.felixflicker.com/​pdf/​QFT_notes_F_Flicker.pdf|A Practical Introduction to Quantum Field Theory]] by Felix Flicker</cite></​blockquote>​ 
 +<tabbox Why is it interesting?​
  
---Common Question 1#+<​blockquote>According to something called Haagís theorem there appears to be no known 
 +consistent formalism within which interacting quantum field theory can be 
 +expressed.
  
-  +<​cite>​p. 115 in "An interpretative 
-<--+introduction to quantum Field theory"​ by Teller (1995) </​cite>​ 
 +</​blockquote>​
  
---Common Question 2#+<tabbox FAQ>
  
- +-->Why is there no problem in practical QFT calculations?#​ 
 +see https://​physics.stackexchange.com/​questions/​3983/​haags-theorem-and-practical-qft-computations
 <-- <--
-  ​ 
-<tabbox Examples> ​ 
- 
---> Example1# 
- 
-  
-<-- 
- 
---> Example2:# 
- 
-  
-<-- 
-  ​ 
-<tabbox History> ​ 
  
 </​tabbox>​ </​tabbox>​
  
  
theorems/haags_theorem.1514899067.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/01/02 13:17 (external edit)