Quanta: on making QFT mathematical

[notFritzArgelander]

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-myst ... d21d14a9ea

[MistrBadgr]

My head hurts now.

[notFritzArgelander]

My head hurts now.

Sorry to hear and to be blunt, I have issues with the piece.

[GCoyote]

My head hurts now.

Yeah, it happens a lot in this section of the forum.

Now I'm wondering about various criteria one could apply to an 'infinite field' that would cut it down to a more tractable object to study.

[notFritzArgelander]

My head hurts now.

Yeah, it happens a lot in this section of the forum.

Now I'm wondering about various criteria one could apply to an 'infinite field' that would cut it down to a more tractable object to study.

Sorry for the headaches. I'm not going to think about this much. I looked at Axiomatic Quantum Field Theory when I was younger and sharper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic ... eld_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wightman_axioms

mostly via the book Bogoliubov, N.; Logunov, A.; Todorov, I. (1975). Introduction to Axiomatic Quantum Field Theory. Reading, Massachusetts: W. A. Benjamin.

I got such a headache I burned the book......

Well, not really..... When I lost my home due to a fire it was definitely on my "do not replace list" when I replaced the lost possessions.

The premise of the article, that physics concepts need mathematization, is received skeptically by me. Newton and Leibniz invented calculus and Newton did physics with it in the 17th century. That calculus did not become mathematically rigorous until the 19th and 20th centuries did no harm to physics.

[turboscrew]

Hmm, quite laborous way to, essentially, say: “If mathematicians really understood [QFT], that would lead to profound advances in mathematics.”

I got such a headache I burned the book......

Well, not really..... When I lost my home due to a fire it was definitely on my "do not replace list" when I replaced the lost possessions.