Is it possible to find the ground state of interacting $\phi^4$ theory with quartic interaction analytically?

- 16,031

- 67
-
4AFAIK this has never been done, even though the $\phi^4$ model is one of the most thoroughly analyzed of all quantum field theories. I can't say definitively that it's not possible, so I can't answer the question as it stands, but I'd say it's unlikely. Even if we consider (the continuous-time Hamiltonian version of) the lattice $\phi^4$ model in a space with only two points, the corresponding Schrödinger equation is intractable AFAIK. I'd love to be wrong about this, though, so please @notify me if you learn otherwise! – Chiral Anomaly Sep 03 '20 at 23:57
-
2@ChiralAnomaly can you please provide a reference to the claim about intractability of the lattice model with 2 spatial points? – Prof. Legolasov Sep 04 '20 at 04:33
-
@Prof.Legolasov In the functional Schrödinger representation on a spatial lattice, the equation to be solved is (omitting coefficients): $$\sum_x \left(\left(i\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi(x)}\right)^2+(\nabla\phi(x))^2+\phi^2(x)+\phi^4(x)\right)\Psi[\phi]=E\Psi[\phi], $$ where $\nabla$ is a lattice version of the gradient, and we want the solution with the minimum possible value of $E$. I'm pretty sure that's intractable. Calculating vacuum expectation values is different: we can do that without knowing which state is the vacuum state (using the euclidean functional integral formulation). – Chiral Anomaly Sep 04 '20 at 15:13
-
2See Dong, Q., Sun, G.H., Aoki, M.A., Chen, C.Y. and Dong, S.H., 2019. Exact solutions of a quartic potential. Modern Physics Letters A, 34(26), p.1950208 for something related. – ZeroTheHero Sep 06 '20 at 02:01
-
1@Prof.Legolasov My reply didn't connect very clearly to your request. To clarify: (i) I can't provide a reference because my intractability claim is only AFAIK -- As Far As I Know. (ii) I should have clarified that by "two-point lattice," I meant that the sum is over two values of $x$ and the $(\nabla\phi)^2$ term is $(\phi(1)-\phi(2))^2$, where $1$ and $2$ are the two values of $x$ (periodic boundary condition). The paper cited by ZeroTheHero solves the problem on a one-point lattice, where the $(\nabla\phi)^2$ term is absent, but I don't know how extend the solution to the two-point case. – Chiral Anomaly Sep 06 '20 at 04:27
3 Answers
In 2 and 3 spacetime dimensions, this is possible. In fact, the whole $\phi^4$ theory exists as a mathematically well-defined Wightman QFT in 2 and 3 spacetime dimensions.
The complete definition of these models is given this excellent textbook.
In 4 spacetime dimensions, this has never been done, and in fact there are indications that the interacting $\phi^4$ theory doesn't even exist in 4 dimensions – these come from taking continuum limits of lattice models numerically and observing that the interaction doesn't survive this limit.

- 15,888
-
1You mean its possible in principle but no one could ever do it so far? – Heisenberg Sep 04 '20 at 06:03
-
2What does it mean to say that the interaction doesn't survive in this limit? Does it become "trivial" (i.e. the coupling renormalizes to zero) or is something else meant by this? – BRSTCohomology Sep 04 '20 at 06:45
-
1@Heisenberg not at all – Glimm and Jaffe have done exactly this. Their method involves giving a rigorous definition of the Euclidean path integral by taking limits of integrals bounded in rectangular boxes and proving bounds, then using OS reconstruction to construct the Hilbert space of the Wightman QFT and the field operator. – Prof. Legolasov Sep 06 '20 at 15:12
-
-
The cited book by Glimm and Jaffe only constructs interacting quantum field theories in 2 spacetime dimensions! – Arnold Neumaier Sep 07 '20 at 13:49
-
@Prof.Legolasov Glimm and Jaffe give a rigorous definition of the path integral, which defines vacuum expectation values, but do they actually find the vacuum state itself? – Chiral Anomaly Sep 09 '20 at 13:27
-
1@ChiralAnomaly They use the Osterwalder-Schrader reconstruction theorem to define the vacuum state and the Hilbert space. How explicit do you want it? – user1504 Sep 10 '20 at 02:39
-
@user1504 I thought the OS reconstruction proves the theory's existence (in continuous spacetime) rather than solving the theory. Lattice Yang-Mills theory exists and we know how to construct Hilbert-space representations of it, but determining which state is the vacuum state would be at least a major step toward a proof of confinement. I interpreted the question as a question about solving the theory (which is hard even on a lattice) rather than proving its existence in continuous spacetime, and my comment was only meant to give the OP info about which kind of question the cited book answers. – Chiral Anomaly Sep 11 '20 at 14:30
-
@ChiralAnomaly OS is constructive. You give it a measure on the space of histories, and it gives you a Hilbert space with operators that build it up from the vacuum. The procedure is a variation on the GNS construction. How explicit it is depends on how explicitly the measure has been constructed. In the case Glimm & Jaffe were looking at, they give a pretty bare-handed construction of the functional integration measure. – user1504 Sep 11 '20 at 14:38
-
@user1504 Ok, suppose we've constructed all vevs $\omega(\cdots)$, in the sense that we can express them as well-defined Wick-rotatable path-integrals. The idea of GNS is to think of $\omega(B^A)$ as the inner product of $A|0\rangle$ with $B|0\rangle$, so it gives us a Hilbert space built up from $|0\rangle$, like you said. But before we can harvest an explicit expression for $|0\rangle$ from this, we would need to evaluate* enough of those vev-integrals $\omega(\cdots)$. That's the hard part, just as hard as solving the functional time-independent Schrödinger equation. Still unsolved AFAIK. – Chiral Anomaly Sep 11 '20 at 20:21
A rigorous analytic construction of interactive $\phi^4$ theory in 4 spacetime dimensions is not known; neither is it known to be impossible.
Almost certainly, a construction via lattice approximations (mimicking those used in lower dimensions) is doomed to fail. This is called the triviality problem. The reason is that to approach the continuum limit one needs to pass through a nonphysical singularity called the Landau pole. A comprehensive review article on triviality is
- D.J. Callaway, Triviality pursuit: can elementary scalar particles exist? Physics Reports, 167 (1988), 241-320.
He says: ''Other attempts to construct a nontrivial $\phi^4$ theory are often a bit more abstract in nature. Rigorous discussions of triviality (see section 2) often require that a $\phi^4$ field theory is defined as an infinite-cutoff limit of a ferromagnetic lattice theory. It has been argued that this is an assumption whose removal changes the nature of the problem dramatically. Indeed, no argument appears to prevent the existence of an interesting nontrivial ultraviolet limit of an antiferromagnetic lattice $\phi^4$ theory, even in $d>4$. This remains an interesting open problem.''
About nonlattice approximations essentially nothing is known; the discussion in Section 8 of
- G. Gallavotti and V. Rivasseau, Field theory in dimension 4: a modern introduction to its unsolved problems, Annales de l'I.H.P. Physique théorique 40 (1984), 185-220.
In addition, the known triviality results are irrelevant for approaches without an explicit cutoff (which excludes lattice approximations) that would have to be moved to zero or infinity to establish covariance. In particular, the Landau pole is not an obstacle for fully covariant approximation methods such as causal perturbation theory: Since no cutoff is present, nothing needs to cross the pole; thus the construction involves no singularity.
There is no known closed form solution, even in 1+1 dimensions, and it is unlikely that there will ever be one. A classical or quantum system admitting a closed form solution is called an integrable model. It is characterized by having enough additional symmetries (aka conserved quantities by Noether's theorem) or hidden symmetries (involving quantum groups rather than symmetry groups), so that one can obtain a solution by exploiting this additional structure. This is not the case for $\phi^4$ theory.
Many integrable models exist but compared to the general case they are very rare, just as homogeneous spaces (manifolds with a transitive symmetry group) are rare compared to arbitrary manifolds. See also this thread.

- 44,880
-
I went through the book, but couldn't find a closed form solution for the ground state! do they provide a closed form solution? It seems to me they prove the uniqueness and existence of ground state, but they don't provide a closed form solution for it. – Heisenberg Sep 08 '20 at 03:18
-
2There is no known closed form solution, even in 1+1 dimensions, and it is unlikely that there will ever be one. I'll add a bit in my answer. – Arnold Neumaier Sep 08 '20 at 11:27
-
Can they represent the ground state in any form? Also, is it possible to at least calculate the expectations values and numerically contract the ground state? – Heisenberg Sep 08 '20 at 22:21
-
-
Time ordered vacuum (=ground state) expectation values are computed perturbatively to low order in many textbooks on quantum field theory. Exact (unordered) vacuum expectation values are called Wightman functions and are constructed in 1+1D in the book by Glimm and Jaffe, by analytic continuation from the Euclidean regime, where a lattice limit works. – Arnold Neumaier Sep 10 '20 at 11:43
An interesting system is the homogeneous spin $1/2$ interacting gas in the low density and temperature limit. It can be described by the Hamiltonian $$ H = \sum_{k,\sigma} \varepsilon_k c^\dagger_{k\sigma} c_{k\sigma} + \frac{1}{2V} \sum_{k_1 \sigma_1} \sum_{\sigma_2} \sum_{Q \sigma_3} \sum_{k_4 \sigma_4} \tilde{U}(|\vec{k}_1 - \vec{k}_4|) c^\dagger_{k_1 \sigma_1} c^\dagger_{Q-k_1 \sigma_2}c_{Q-k_4 \sigma_3} c_{k_4 \sigma4}, $$ where V is a volume which must be assumed to be infinity, $c^\dagger_{k \sigma}$ creates a particle with wave vector $\vec{k}$ and spin $\sigma$, $\tilde{U}(|\vec{k}|)$ is the interaction potential between two fermions, which is assumed to be radial and $\varepsilon_k = \hbar^2k^2/(2m)$. Further simplifications, made by BCS allow us to describe the system with the reduced BCS Hamiltonian, given by $$ H = \sum_{k,\sigma} \varepsilon_k c^\dagger_{k\sigma} c_{k\sigma} + \frac{g}{V} \sum_{k_1} \sum_{k_4} c^\dagger_{k_1 \uparrow} c^\dagger_{-k_1 \downarrow}c_{-k_4 \downarrow} c_{k_4 \uparrow}. $$ For the reduced BCS Hamiltonian, an exact solution has been found by Richardson and used in research. I read that here and here. I want to emphasize that this Hamiltonian doesn't have the complete interaction, as the first Hamiltonian. Also in the thermodynamic limit the exact solution agrees with the mean-field approximation. The first paper I shared gives more details about the solution.

- 71