15

In Quantum Physics by Glimm and Jaffe they mention on p. 90 that

The Euclidean fields are defined by a probability measure $d\mu(\phi) = d\mu$ on the space of real distributions. Here $d\mu$ plays the same role as does the Feynman-Kac measure in quantum mechanics

and they go on to introduce a generating functional $$S\{f\} = \int e^{i\phi(f)}d\mu\tag{6.1.4}$$ that is the inverse Fourier transform of a Borel probability measure $d\mu$ on the space of test functions. Here $\phi$ is the field and $f$ is any test function.

I am a little confused on what this all means. I am familiar with measure theory, but not in this context. How does a (probability) measure define a field? What is the significance of this measure?

As a disclaimer, I am unfamiliar with the Feynman-Kac formula.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
CBBAM
  • 3,098
  • ...how did you arrive at page 90 of this book being unfamiliar with the Feynman-Kac formula when chapter 3, which is titled "The Feynman-Kac formula", starts on page 43? – ACuriousMind Jan 25 '23 at 23:59
  • 3
    @ACuriousMind I am not reading through this book cover to cover, I am using it as a supplement to other books. I came across this section and was intrigued. – CBBAM Jan 26 '23 at 01:11

1 Answers1

25

I believe this is a common issue in bridging the mathematically rigorous analysis of Glimm and Jaffe and the standard Physics discussion in QFT textbooks. But the basic point is this. Imagine you have some field $\phi(x)$ whose dynamics is governed by an action $S[\phi]$. As an operator on some Hilbert space, you may think that $\phi(x)$ is really defined by its insertions into correlation functions $\langle \phi(x)\cdots \rangle$. This is a pretty common idea for example in Conformal Field Theory.

Now, the thing is that these kinds of correlation functions can be obtained from a generating functional $Z[J]$. Indeed, if you know the correlation functions you can construct $Z[J]$ as $$Z[J]=\sum_{n=0}^\infty \dfrac{1}{n!}\int d x_1\cdots dx_n J(x_1)\cdots J(x_n)\langle \phi(x_1)\cdots \phi(x_n)\rangle,$$

and then you may show that $$\langle \phi(x_1)\cdots \phi(x_n)\rangle =\dfrac{\delta^n Z[J]}{\delta J(x_1)\cdots \delta J(x_n)}\bigg|_{J=0}.$$

If you have more fields you then just need to add more sources. Now one may either formally, or rigorously as done in Glimm & Jaffe, consider a functional Fourier transform of $Z[J]$. Such functional Fourier transform defines a measure. Indeed, the claim is that in a suitable space of distributions, there exists a measure $d\mu(\phi)$ such that $$Z[J]=\int d\mu(\phi) \exp\left[i\int dx \phi(x)J(x)\right].$$

This measure $d\mu(\phi)$ is the "path integral measure", which physicists write as "$\mathfrak{D}\phi e^{-S[\phi]}$". Let me stress that the translation-invariant measure $\mathfrak{D}\phi$ that Physicists employ does not really exist as a rigorous construct in measure theory, because there is no infinite-dimensional Lebesgue measure. Nevertheless, the object "$\mathfrak{D}\phi e^{-S[\phi]}$" can be given meaning, and it is this measure $d\mu(\phi)$.

Maybe the non-trivial step then is in realizing that $d\mu(\phi)$ is the Physicist "$\mathfrak{D}\phi e^{-S[\phi]}$". One way of doing this, that I find quite elegant, is by observing that $Z[J]$ has to obey a functional differential equation known as the Dyson-Schwinger equation. If one formally solves this equation by a functional Fourier transform, one finds out $Z[J]$ in the form above, where $d\mu(\phi)$ is really the known "$\mathfrak{D}\phi e^{-S[\phi]}$". One may then realize that the rigorous version of the story must really be what Glimm & Jaffe are writing down in a logically organized manner. One reference for this is the book by Rivers, "Path Integral Methods in QFT", but if I'm not mistaken, Schwartz also discusses the solution to the Dyson-Schwinger functional equation by functional Fourier transform.

Now we can summarize it like this: the measure $d\mu(\phi)$ is really defined by the action, i.e., the dynamics of the theory. It defines the generating functional $Z[J]$ by means of the construction of the functional Fourier transform of a measure, and such generating functional defines, by functional differentiation, insertions of the field $\phi(x)$ into correlation functions. Since a field is defined by its insertions into correlators, ultimately the measure defines the field.

Finally, let me stress that really constructing $d\mu(\phi)$ is easier said than done. It is known how to be done for free fields and for some interacting cases in lower dimensions. The interacting case in four dimensions is really an open problem. Nevertheless, one can resort to perturbation theory. As soon as $d\mu_0(\phi)$ for the free action $S_0[\phi]$ is known, one may perturbatively build $d\mu(\phi)$ for the interacting action $S[\phi]=S_0[\phi]+gV[\phi]$ by really defining the interacting $Z[J]$ through integration against the free measure $d\mu_0(\phi)$. This is the starting point for Feynman diagrams in QFT.

Gold
  • 35,872
  • 1
    Thank you for this wonderful answer. If I have understood correctly, we start with some field $\phi$, which is completely determined by correlation functions. These correlation functions in turn define a generating functional, which can be used to (re)obtain the correlation functions. We then obtain a measure by taking the Fourier transform of this generating functional. By searching for the measure $d\mu$ we are effectively carrying out this process in reverse, where we look for the measure such that the above process holds and thus defines the original field $\phi$. Is this correct? – CBBAM Jan 25 '23 at 06:40
  • I am not too familiar with the path integral approach, everything I have studied so far has been done using perturbation theory (for example, as found in, Folland's book) . This might be too much for a comment, but what is the importance of these generating functionals exactly? I originally thought of them as almost identical to a moment generating function, but it seems they're deeper than that. – CBBAM Jan 25 '23 at 06:42
  • 1
    You're welcome! Well, if you already knew all correlation functions $Z[J]$ would be of little use. The point of constructing $Z[J]$ is that we may obtain it first and use it to define the correlation functions. In fact, $Z[J]$ can be shown to obey the Dyson-Schwinger equation, so solving it is a way of doing that. In fact, as I said the free measure $d\mu_0(\phi)$ is well-known how to be constructed. It is what we call a Gaussian measure and it is really defined by the associated $Z_0[J]$ which can be defined in analogy with the finite-dimensional version for quadratic actions. – Gold Jan 25 '23 at 12:22
  • So we use $d\mu_0$ to construct $Z_0[J]$, which can be used to approximate $d\mu$ and hence $Z[J]$, allowing us to define the correlation functions? If so, I think this is starting to make sense now and why the authors go into detail describing necessary conditions for the measure $d\mu$. – CBBAM Jan 25 '23 at 18:22
  • 1
    In practice we really use $Z_0[J]$ to construct $d\mu_0$ and then we use $d\mu_0$ to construct one perturbation series for $Z[J]$ which in turn defines $d\mu$. The point is that if one writes down the formal path integral that would yield $Z_0[J]$ one observes it is a Gaussian integral. The finite-dimensional counterparts can be evaluated quite easily. One then either (1) formally reproduces the steps used in the finite-dimensional case or (2) picks the end result for the finite-dimensional case and proposes the continuum generalization as a definition for $Z_0[J]$. – Gold Jan 25 '23 at 18:35
  • 1
    Then since we have $Z_0[J]$ we know under some assumptions that it is the Fourier transform of a measure $d\mu_0$. This is then a so-called Gaussian measure. Now the trick is to observe that the formal expression for $Z[J]$ is $$Z[J]=\int \mathfrak{D}\phi e^{-S_0[\phi]-gV[\phi]}\exp i\int dx \phi(x)J(x).$$ Observing that $\mathfrak{D}\phi e^{-S_0[\phi]}$ should really be $d\mu_0(\phi)$ and since we now have a proper construction of such a measure, we can then propose $Z[J]$ as $$Z[J]=\int d\mu_0(\phi) e^{-gV[\phi]}\exp i\int dx \phi(x)J(x)$$ i.e., one integral against $d\mu_0(\phi)$. – Gold Jan 25 '23 at 18:38
  • 1
    At this point one may then expand in a power series in the coupling, that being the starting point of perturbation theory. Notice that in this line of reasoning there is an interplay between formal manipulations and recognizing the results of these formal manipulations as rigorously defined objects. – Gold Jan 25 '23 at 18:39
  • This all makes sense now and I am beginning to see the connection between this approach using measures and the approach presented in physics textbooks. Thank you again for all your help! – CBBAM Jan 25 '23 at 18:59
  • You're welcome. I suggest going through the construction of the free generating functional and the free measure now, in the Physicist approach, and then looking up Glimm & Jaffe again. I think many things will make more sense – Gold Jan 25 '23 at 20:43
  • I will do that. I have thus far neglected that path-integral approach which seems to have been a mistake on my part, as that is the only place I know where generating functionals appear. – CBBAM Jan 25 '23 at 21:05
  • Instead of "$\mathfrak{D}\phi$ does not exist as a measure" I prefer to say that $\mathfrak{D}\phi$ is a cylinder set measure that does not extend to a measure. There is something there that exists, it just doesn't satisfy the theorems about measure theory that we are accustomed to using (and in fact if it did, it wouldn't be useful for quantum field theory because of the ubiquity of non-absolute continuity of measures in the subject). A lot of progress in mathematics has been made by recognizing objects that "don't exist" as objects that do exist but don't have the expected properties. – Robert Furber Jan 25 '23 at 23:24
  • @RobertFurber my comment that it does not exist was not meant to be derogatory. $\mathfrak{D}\phi$ is a formal object, used in formal manipulations, and in fact, it is a very useful one. I myself use it a lot in formal manipulations. Nevertheless, it simply cannot be a measure. Still, this is not an issue at all, because in the end of the day, what really gets used is the composite object $\mathfrak{D}\phi e^{-S[\phi]}$ which is a measure. – Gold Jan 25 '23 at 23:29
  • @Gold I didn't intend to imply it was derogatory. What I'm saying is that it isn't just a "formal" object, it's a finitely-additive measure on a ring of sets (the cylinder sets), but it doesn't extend to a countably additive measure on the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the cylinder sets (which for the space of distributions is the same as the Borel $\sigma$-algebra). – Robert Furber Jan 25 '23 at 23:38
  • I see. Some years ago I read a bit on cylinder set measures and indeed thought at the time that cylinder set measures could be the right formalization of $\mathfrak{D}\phi$ (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/491130/physicist-path-integral-and-cylinder-set-measures), but in the end I went on by just treating it as a formal object. In any case, it is good to know such formalization exists. – Gold Jan 25 '23 at 23:51