arxiv:hep-th/ v1 12 Dec 1997

Transcription

1 arxiv:hep-th/ v1 12 Dec 1997 Modular Wedge Localization and the d=1+1 Formfactor Program Bert Schroer Freie Universität Berlin Institut für Theoretische Physik December 1997 Abstract In this paper I continue the study of the new nonperturbative framework of modular localization and its constructive use in the d=1+1 Karowski- Weisz-Smirnov formfactor program. Particular attention is focussed on the connection of the (Zamolodchikov) algebraic structure and its relation to the Riemann-Hilbert problem for wedge localized multiparicle wave functions in the incoming Fock space and the closely related formfactors. 1 Introduction The historical roots of modular localization and its relation with the mathematical Tomita-Takesaki modular theory [1] of von Neumann algebras in general position and their thermal KMS structure [2] as well as their constructive power for low-dimensional QFT in general and the formfactor problem in particular has already been highlighted in previous work of the author [3][4]. In addition there is a recent paper [5] in which, similar to my work, the modular theory with its thermal aspects was applied to a specific problem arising in the formfactor problem. Some remarks on the relation to this work can be found in the fourth section of the present work. My original interest in this subject arose from the loss of unicity of the Wigner representation theory if one passes to free fields: there are as many free fields in the (m,s) Fock space as there are intertwiners between the D (s) (R(Λ, Λ 1 p)) Wigner rotation matrices and the D [n+,n ] (Λ) finite dimensional representation matrices of the Lorentz group. All of these infinitely many fields describe the same spacetime physics, even though most of them are not Eulerian 1 or La- 1 Meaning that, similar as for the Dirac equation, the tranformation law of the field follows from the structure of the differential equation. The Wigner representation theory was, among other things, introduced just to avoid the problem of ambiguities in equations of motions (whose inventions was the fashion in the aftermath of the Dirac equation). 1

2 grangian. The net of local algebras is again unique, and the method of its construction is based on modular localization. Although this has been described in the cited literature we repeat the main arguments in the next section in order to keep this paper reasonably selfcontained. The new localization applied to wave functions also replaces the old one of Newton-Wigner who adapted the localization of Schrödinger theory to Wigner representation spaces. In similar vein as the existence of the Klein paradox, the difference in localization shows the limits in analogies between wave functions of relativistic particles and Schrödinger wave functions. The third section is a continuation of the second section on modular aspects of Wignerism; but this time with a stronger emphasis on thermal KMS (Hawking, Unruh) properties of wedge localization and crossing symmetry. In the context of interacting theories one obtains s framework which is totally intrinsic and characteristic of local quantum physics. Concepts which are shared with nonrelativistic quantum physics and seem to play a crucial role in perturbation theory, as interaction picture, time-ordering, euclidean theory, path integrals etc. do not feature in this approach. No-Go theorems, as the Haag theorem against the field theoretic validity of the interaction picture, are not valid for analogous modular concepts, as the unitary equivalence between the wedge-restricted incoming (free) and interacting algebras (i.e. no Haag-like obstruction against the existence of the modular Møller operator ). There is of course one subject in the literature which also does not use the above standard text book formalism: the bootstrap formfactor approach to factorizable d=1+1 models of Karowski and Weisz [6]as axiomatized and extended by Smirnov [7]. As in the former case, these theories also do not allow a physically consistent modifications in the direction of momentum space cutoffs or effective versions. This has generated the erroneous impression that there are two or even three different subjects: real textbook kind of QFT and factorizable and conformal lower dimensional QFT. If one wants to have versions outside local quantum physics but with a similar particle interpretation and scattering theory (but without Einstein causality) one has to find a lattice version. This is a highly nontrivial task in its own right; the derivation of cluster properties (and hence Haag-Ruelle) scattering theory without Einstein causality is much more difficult. The main part of this paper is the fourth section where we relate modular localization with factorizing models. A useful illustration is supplied by the Federbush model. Its explicitly known solution is similar to the Ising model QFT, but its rapidity independent S-matrix depends continuously on a coupling strength. The reason why it did not hitherto appear in the factorizing list is that the S-matrix bootstrap was restricted to parity conserving theories. The main message from this model and the principles of algebraic QFT is that the simplicity of factorizable models does not so much show up in the generalized formfactors of field coordinates and correlation functions, but rather in the computation of the (net of) wedge algebras (and the ensuing double cone alge- 2

3 bras) which is related to the calculation of the aforementioned modular Møller operator. These algebras and their mutual relations are sufficient for exploring and characterizing the intrinsic physical content of a real time QFT since the S-matrix and some distinguished Noether current fields (energy momentum tensor, charge currents) are not only sufficient mathematical characteristics, but are also the only experimentally accessible observables in high energy physics. In statistical mechanics also the individual correlation functions of certain order/disorder fields are measurable and for those one has to work much harder. The computation of the spectrum of critical indices on the other hand is part of the much simpler real time statistics (statistical phases[8]) discussion of factorizing models and their conformal short distance limits. The concluding remarks offers a scenario for higher dimensional modular constructions in the presence of interactions. In that case one does not have an S-matrix bootstrap program which could be separated from the rest of QFT. Although algebraic QFT offers some guidelines, one its still very far from covering these ideas with an analytically accessible formalism. Mathematically the problems at hand are a special case of the so called inverse problem of modular theory i.e. the reconstruction of a von Neumann algebra from its modular data[16]. Only in its more physical setting, where it passes to the problem of inverse problem of QFT, namely the question whether physically admissable scattering matrices possess a unique local QFT, the uniqueness can be established under reasonable physical assumptions. This will be shown in a subsequent paper[17] 2 Liberation from Free Field Coordinates As explained elsewhere [3][4], one may use the Wigner representation theory for positive energy representations in order to construct fields from particle states. For d = space-time dimensions there are two families of representation: (m, s) and (0, h). Here m is the mass and designates massive representation and s and h are the spins resp. the helicites h. These are invariants of the representations ( Casimirs ) which refer to the Wigner little group; in the first case to SU(2) in which case s = (half) integer, and for m = 0 to the little group (fixed point group of a momentum 0 on the light cone) Ẽ(2) which is the two-fold covering of the euclidean group in the plane. The zero mass representations in turn split into two families. For the neutrino-photon family the little group has a nonfaithful representation (the translative part is trivially represented) whereas for so-called continuous h representation the representation is faithful but allows no identification with known zero mass particles. In the massive case, the transition to covariant fields is most conveniently done with the help of intertwiners between the Wigner spin s representations D (s) (R(Λ, p)) which involve the Λ, p dependent Wigner rotation R and the finite 3

4 dimensional covariant representation of the Lorentz-group D [A,B] The only restriction is: u(p)d (s) (R(Λ, p)) = D [A,B] (Λ)u(Λ 1 p) (1) A B s A + B (2) which leaves infinitely many A, B (half integer) choices for a given s. Here the u(p) intertwiner is a rectangular matrix consisting of 2s + 1 column vectors u(p, s 3 ), s 3 = s,..., +s of length (2A+1)(2B+1). Its explicit construction using Clebsch-Gordan methods can be found in Weinberg s book [9]. Analogously there exist antiparticle (opposite charge) v(p) intertwiners: D (s) (R(Λ, p) D [A,B] (Λ). The covariant field is then of the form: ψ [A,B] (x) = 1 (2π) 3/2 (e ipx s 3 u(p 1, s 3 )a(p 1, s 3 )+e ipx s s v(p 1, s 3 )b (p 1, s 3 )) d3 p 2ω. (3) where a(p) and b (p) are annihilation (creation) operators in a Fock space for particles (antiparticles). The bad news (only at first sight, as it fortunately turns out) is that we lost the Wigner unicity: there are now infinitely many ψ [A,B] fields with varying A, B but all belonging to the same (m, s)-wigner representation and live in the same Fock space. Only one of these fields is Eulerian (examples: for s = 1 2 Dirac, for s = 3 2 Rarita-Schwinger) i.e. the transformation property of ψ is a consequence of the nature of a linear field equation and which is derivable by an action principle from a Lagrangian. Non- Eulerian fields as e.g. Weinberg s D [j,0] + D [0,j] fields for j > 3 2, cannot be used in a canonical quantization scheme or in a formalism of functional integration because the corresponding field equations have more solutions than allowed by the physical degrees of freedom ( in fact they have tachyonic solutions). The use of formula (3) with the correct u, v intertwiners in the (on shell) Bogoliubov- Shirkov approach based on causality is however legitimate. Naturally from the point of view of the Wigner theory which is totally intrinsic and does not use quantization ideas, there is no preference of Eulerian versus non Eulerian fields. It turns out that the above family of fields corresponding to (m, s) constitute the linear part of the associated Borchers class [2]. For bosonic fields the latter is defined as: B(ψ) = { χ(s) [χ(x), ψ(y)] = 0, (x y) 2 < 0 } (4) If we only consider cyclic (with respect to the vacuum) relatively local fields, then we obtain transitivity in addition to the auto-locality of the resulting fields. This class depends only on (m, s) and is generated by the Wick-monomials of ψ. A mathematically and conceptually more manageable object which is manifestly independent of the chosen (m,s) Fock-space field, is the local von Neumann algebra generated by ψ: O A(O, ψ) = A(O, χ) (5) 4

5 Here χ ψ is any cyclic (locally equivalent) field in the same Borchers class of ψ. Now we have reached our first aim: the lack of uniqueness of local (m, s) fields is explained in terms of the arbitrariness in the choice of field coordinates which generate the same net of (observable) von Neumann algebras. According to the physical interpretation in algebraic QFT this means that the physics does not depend on the concretely chosen (cyclic) field. Since algebraic QFT shuns inventions and favors discoveries, it is deeply satisfying that there are arguments that every causal net fulfilling certain spectral properties is automatically coordinatizable. For chiral conformal theories there exists even a rigorous proof [10]. So one can be reasonably sure that the physical content has not been changed as compared to the standard Wightman approach. The use of local field coordinates tends to make geometric localization properties of the algebras manifest. But only if there exist pointlike covariant generators which create charged states (counter example: for Maxwellian charges they do not exist) the localization can be encoded into classical smearing function. The localization concept is maximally classical for the free Weyl and CAR algebras which are just function algebras with a noncommutative product structure. For these special cases the differential geometric concepts as fibre bundles may be directly used in local quantum physics. Outside of these special context, the only sufficiently general reliable concepts are those based on von Neumann algebra methods of algebraic QFT. In that case the quantum localization may deviate from the classical geometric concepts and use of field coordinates is less useful. In the following we describe a way to construct the interaction-free nets directly, thus bypassing the use of field coordinates alltogether. We use the d=3+1 Wigner (m,s)-representations as an illustrative example. In case of charged particles (particles antiparticles) we double the Wigner representation space: H = H p Wig H p Wig (6) in order to incorporate the charge conjugation operation as an (antilinear in the Wigner theory) operator involving the p- p-flip. On this extended Wigner space one can act with the full Poincaré group where those reflections which change the direction of time are antiunitarily represented. For the modular localization in a wedge we only need the standard L-boost Λ(χ) and the standard reflection r which (by definition) are associated with the t x wedge: δ iτ π Wig (Λ(χ = 2πτ)) (7) j π Wig (r) (8) These operators have a simple action on the p-space (possibly) doubled Wigner wave functions, in particular: ( ) 0 1 (jψ)(p) ψ(p 1 0 0, p 1, p 2, p 3 ) (9) 5

6 By functional calculus we form δ 1 2 and define: s jδ 1 2 (10) This unbounded antilinear densely defined operator s is involutive on its domain: s 2 = 1. Its -1 eigenspace is a real closed subspace H R of H which allows the following characterization of the domain of s : Defining: dom(s) = H R + ih R (11) s(h 1 + ih 2 ) = h 1 + ih 2 H R (W) U(g)H R, W = gw stand (12) where g is an appropriate Poincaré transformation, we find the following theorem: Theorem 1 (Brunetti, Guido and Longo, in preparation): H R (W) is a net of real Hilbert spaces i.e. H R (W 1 ) H R (W 2 ) if W 1 W 2. Although the authors have not written up their proof after they informed me more than two years ago [11], this does not mean that it is difficult. If one is familiar with the work of Borchers [12], which already contains the idea on how positive energy translations are related with compressions of algebras, it is quite straightforward; but we will not give the proof here. If we now define: H R (O) H R (W) (13) W O Then it is easily seen (even without the use of the u,v-intertwiners) that the spaces H R (O) + ih R (O) are still dense in H Wig and that the formula: s(o)(h 1 + ih 2 ) h 1 + ih 2 (14) defines a closed involutive operator with a polar decomposition: s(o) = j(o)δ(o) 1 2 (15) Although now j(o) and δ(o) iτ have no obvious geometric interpretation, there is still a bit of geometry left, as the following theorem shows: Theorem 2 The H R (O) form an orthocomplemented net of closed real Hilbert spaces, i.e. the following duality holds: H R (O ) = H R (O) = ih R (O). Here O denotes the causal complement, HR the real orthogonal complement in the sense of the inner product Re (ψ, ϕ) and H R is the symplectic complement in the sense of Im(ψ, ϕ). 6

7 The direct construction of the interaction-free algebraic bosonic net for (m,s=integer) is now achieved by converting the premodular theory of real subspaces of the Wigner space into the Tomita-Takesaki modular theory for nets of von Neumann algebras using the Weyl functor: The application of the Weyl functor to the net of real spaces: H R (O) A(O) alg {W(f) f H R (O) } (16) leads to a net of von Neumann algebras in H Fock which are in standard position with respect to the vacuum state with a modular theory which, if restricted to the Fock vacuum Ω, is geometric: dγ(s) = S, SAΩ = A Ω, A A(W) (17) S = J 1 2, J = dγ(j), iτ = dγ(δ iτ ) The proof of this theorem uses the functorial formalism of [13]. It should be evident from the derivation that the wedge localization concept in Fock space that its link with the Wigner theory only holds for interaction free situations. The Fock space is also important for interacting QFT, but in that case it enters via scattering theory as in section 4, and not through Wigner s representation theory. Clearly the W- or O- indexing of the Hilbert spaces corresponds to a localization concept via modular theory. Specifically H R (O) + ih R (O) is a certain closure of the one particle component of the Reeh-Schlieder domain belonging to the localization region O. Although for general localization region the modular operators are not geometric, there is one remaining geometric statement which presents itself in the form of an algebraic duality property[14]: A(O ) = A(O), Haag Duality (18) Here the prime on the von Neumann algebra has the standard meaning of commutant. In the following we make some schematic additions and completions which highlight the modular localization concept for more general cases free cases [4]. In the case of m 0, s = halfinteger, the Wigner theory produces a mismatch between the quantum ( in the sense of the commutant) and the geometric opposite of H R (W), which however is easily taken care of by an additional factor i (interchange of symplectic complement with real orthogonal complement). This (via the physical localization property) requires the application of the CAR-functor instead of the CCR-functor as well as the introduction of the well-known Klein transformation K which takes care of the above mismatch in Fock space: A(O ) J = KF CAR (ij)k 1 (19) = KA(O) K 1, twisted Haag Duality 7

8 For m = 0, h =(half)integer, as a consequence of the nonfaithful representation of the zero mass little group E(2) (the two-dimensional euclidean group or rather its two-fold covering), the set of possible u-v intertwiners is limited by the selection rule: A B = ±h. This means on the one hand that there are no covariant intertwiners which lead to D [ 1 2, 1 2] (vector-potential of classical Maxwell theory), D [ 1 2, 1 2] (D [ 1 2,0] + D [0, 1 2] ) (Rarita-Schwinger potential for massless particles), gravitational potentials etc. On the other hand, all local bilinear expressions in the allowed covariant intertwiners vanish and hence cannot be used in order to rewrite the Wigner inner product (for e.g. h = 1 in terms of field strength intertwiners F µν (p)). A reasonable compromise consists in relaxing on strict L-covariance and compact (double cone) modular localization but retaining the relation with the Wigner inner product. One then may describe the Wigner space in terms of polarization vector dependent vector-potentials on the light cone which have the following affine Lorentz transformation: (U(Λ)A) µ (p, e) = Λ ν µ A ν(λ 1 p, Λ 1 e) (20) = Λ ν µ A ν(λ 1 p, e) + p µ G(p, Λ, e) where the gauge contribution G by which one has to re-gauge in order to refer to the original spacelike polarization vector e is a nonlocal term which follows from the above definitions. This description is the only one if one follows the above logic of implementing the modular localization for the (0, h = 1) Wigner representation. After applying the Weyl functor, we obtain a local covariant net theory which is described in terms of slightly nonlocal semiinfinite stringlike field coordinates whose relation to the local F µν (x) field strengths is given by: A µ (x, e) = 0 e ν F µν (x es)ds (21) If we now define the modular localization subspaces as before by starting from the wedge region, we find that the (smoothened versions of) the vectorpotentials are members of these subspaces (or their translates) as long as the spacelike directions e point inside the wedges. They are lost if we form the localization spaces belonging to e.g. double cone regions regions. Hence these stringlike localized vector potentials appear in a natural way in our modular localization approach for the wedge regions. Whereas the natural use of such nonpointlike objects in a future interacting theory based on modular localization may be possible, the present formulation of gauge theories is based on pointlike fields in an Hilbert space involving ghosts. 8

9 3 Thermal Aspects of Modular Localization In modular theory the dense set of vectors which are obtained by applying (local) von Neumann algebras in standard position to the standard (vacuum) vector forms a core for the Tomita operator S. The domain of S can then be described in terms of the +1 closed real subspace of S. In terms of the premodular objects s in Wigner space and the modular Tomita operators S in Fock space we introduce the following nets of wedge-localized dense subspaces: H R (W) + ih R (W) = dom(s) H Wigner (22) H R (W) + ih R (W) = dom(s) H Fock (23) These dense subspaces become Hilbert spaces in their own right if we use the graph norm of the Tomita operators. For the s-operators in Wigner space we have: (f, g) Wigner (f, g) G = (f, g) Wig + (sf, sg) Wig (24) = (f, g) Wig + (f, δg) Wig The graph topology insures that the wave functions are strip-analytic in the wedge rapidity θ: p 0 = m(p )coshθ, p 1 = m(p )sinhθ, m(p ) = m 2 + p 2 (25) strip : 0 < Imz < π, z = θ 1 + iθ 2 where this G-finiteness is precisely the analyticity prerequisite for the validity of the KMS property for the two-point function. For scalar Bosons we have for the Wigner inner product restricted to the wedge : (f, g) W Wig = A( ˆf)A (ĝ) CCR = 0 = A (ĝ) A( ˆf) (26) 0 ] + (f, δg) W Wig, δ = e2πk (27) KMS [ A (ĝ)a(δ ˆf) ] (f, g) W Wig (f, g) K,T=2π [A = δ (ĝ)a( 1 δ ˆf) (28) Here we used a field theoretic notation (A (ĝ) is a smeared scalar complex field of the type (3) liear in ĝ with supp.ĝ W ) in order to emphasize that the temperature dependence on the right hand side is explicit via the δ acting on the complex-valued x-space smearing functions in the c-number commutator and not implicit as the restriction of the wave functions to the wedge region on the left hand side. Of course the c-number commutator (without the state brackets) may be rewritten in terms of p-space Wigner wave functions for particles and 9

10 antiparticles in such a way that the localization restriction is guarantied by the property that the resulting expression is finite if the wave functions are G-finite. We mention for experts that the difference between localization temperatures and heat bath temperatures on the level of field algebras in Fock space corresponds to the difference between hyperfinite type III 1 and type I von Neumann algebras. In this way one obtains a thermal representation of the wedge restricted Wigner inner product. The fact that the boost K appears instead of the hamiltonian H for the heat bath temperature reveals one significant difference between the two situations. For the heat bath temperature of a hamiltonian dynamics the modular operator δ = e 2βH is bounded on one particle wave functions whereas the unboundedness of δ = e 2πK in (27) enforces the localization (strip analyticity) of the Wigner wave functions. This difference results from the two-sided spectrum of K as compared to the boundedness from below of H. In fact localization temperatures are inexorably linked with unbounded symmetry operators. The generalization to fermions as well as to particles of arbitrary spin is easily carried out. The differences between K and H also leads to somewhat different energy distribution functions for small energies so that Boson K-energy distributions may appear as those of H heat bath Fermions. In this context one is advised to discuss matters of statistics not in Fourier space, but rather in spacetime where they have their unequivocal physical interpretation. One may of course consider KMS state on the same C -algebra with a different Hawking K-temperature than 2π, however such a situation cannot be obtained by a localizing restriction. Mathematically algebras to different K- temperatures are known to belong to different folii (in this case after von Neumann closure to unitarily inequivalent III 1 -algebras) of the same C -algebra. For those readers who are familiar with Unruh s work we mention that the Unruh hamiltonian is different from K by a factor 1 a where a is the acceleration. More generally we may now consider matrix elements of wedge-localized operators between wedge localized multiparticle states. Then the KMS property allows to move the wedge localized particle state as an antiparticle at the analytically continued rapidity θ + iπ from the ket to the bra. The simplest illustration is the two-particle matrix element of a free current of a charged scalar field j µ (x) =: φ µ φ : smeared with the wedge supported function ĥ : 0 j µ (x)ĥ(x)d4 x f, δ 1 2 g c KMS = 0 ( φ (ĝ) 1) j µ (x)ĥ(x)d4 x f = ḡ j µ (x)ĥ(x)d4 x f (29) Here δ 1 2 g c is the charged transformed antiparticle in the Wigner wave function g at the analytically continued rapidity θ + iπ whereas ĝ denotes as before the 10

11 wedge-localized spacetime smearing function whose mass shell restricted Fourier transform corresponds to the boundary value of the analytically continuable Wigner wave function g. Moving the left hand operator to the left vacuum changes the antiparticle charge to the particle charge. Since the H R (W) + ih R (W) complex localization spaces are dense in the Wigner space, the momentum space kernel for both sides of (29) takes the familiar form: p j µ (0) p =anal.cont. z θ+iπ 0 j µ (0) p, p (z) (30) where p (z) is the rapidity parametrization of above (25). This famous crossing symmetry, which is known to hold also in each perturbative order of renormalizable interacting theories, has never been derived in sufficient generality within any nonperturbative framework of QFT. It is to be thought of as a kind of on shell momentum space substitute for Einstein causality and locality (and its strengthened form called Haag duality). As such it played an important role in finding a candidate for a nonperturbative S-matrix, an important contribution better known under the name of the Veneziano dual model. Although it stood in this indirect way on the cradle of string theory, the recent string theoretic inventions of duality result from formal generalizations which appearantly do not respecting the original physical concepts. If crossing symmetry is a general property of local QFT, a conjecture (proven in perturbation theory) which nobody seems to doubt, then it should be the on shell manifestation of the off shell KMS property for modular wedge localization. In the construction of wedge localized thermal KMS states on the algebra of mass shell operators satisfying Zamolodchikov s algebraic relations 2 on the momentum space rapidity axis [15], the derivation of crossing symmetry is similar (albeit more involved) to the previous free field derivation [3][4] and the argument can be found in section 4 of this work. The crucial question is whether one can adapt the Haag-Ruelle scattering theory (which relates on and off shell) to the wedge situation. Very recently such arguments were proposed [5] for the case of (nonfactorizing) QFT s in d=1+1 spacetime dimensions. We believe that the general crossing symmetry in any dimension follows from the existence and the modular intertwining property of the modular Møller operator and hope to be able to incorporate a proof of this into our forthcoming discussion of the uniqueness of the main inverse problem of QFT: S scat QFT. In fact the very special free field formalism of the first two sections may be generalized into two directions: interacting fields curved spacetime 2 As will become clear in the next section, although these operators are nonlocal, they generate the wedge localized states and as a consequence the modular KMS formalism is applicable to them. 11

12 As mentioned before, low-dimensional interacting theories will be discussed in the next section. For the generalization to curved space time (e.g. the Schwarzschild black hole solution) it turns out that only the existence of a bifurcated horizon together with a certain behaviour near that horizon matters ( surface gravitation ) [18][19] is already sufficient in order to obtain the thermal Hawking aspect. In the standard treatment one needs isometries in spacetime. The idea of modular localization suggests to consider also e.g. double cones for which there is no spacetime isometry but only an isometry in H Wigner or H Fock. Of course such enlargements of spaces for obtaining a better formulation (or even a solution) of a problem are commonplace in modern mathematics, particularly in noncommutative geometry. The idea here is that one enlarges the ill-defined isometries by geometrically fuzzy but well-defined symmetry transformations in quantum space which only near the horizon loose their spacetime fuzziness. The candidates for these nongeometric symmetries are the modular automorphisms of von Neumann algebras of arbitrary space time regions together with suitable faithful states from the local folium of admissable states. Although the restriction of the global vacuum state is always in that folium, it is not the most convenient for the construction of the modular automorphism. In this context one obtains a good illustration by the (nongeometric) modular theory of e.g. the double cone algebra of a massive free field. From the folium of states one may want to select that vector, with respect to which the algebra has a least fuzzy (most geometric) behaviour under the action of the modular group. Appealing to the net subtended by spheres at time t=0 one realizes that algebras localized in these spheres are independent of the mass. Since m=0 leads to a geometric modular situation 3 for the pair (A m=0 (S), 0 m=0, and since the nonlocality of the massive theory in the subtended double cones is only the result of the fuzzy propagation inside the light cone (the breakdown of Huygens principle or the reverberation phenomenon), the fuzziness of the modular group for the pair (A m 0 (C(S)), Ω m 0 ) is a pure propagation phenomenon i.e. can be understood in terms of the deviation from Huygens principle. In view of the recent micro-local spectrum condition one expects such nonlocal cases to have modular groups whose generators are pseudo-differential instead of (local) differential operators [20]. In fact for free massive theories in d=1+1 one can give a rigorous proof together with an explicit formula for the modular automorphism. In order to avoid the pathology of the d=1+1 scalar zero mass field, we start with a massive free spinor field whose massless limit gives a twocomponent field with the first component only depending on the left light cone and the second on the right hand light cone. The same zero mass theory results from Sewell s restriction to the light cone horizon (boundary) of the double cone. But in the latter case we know the modular group for the massless double cone algebra together with the massless vacuum vector. It is a one-parametric subgroup of the conformal group [2]. The massless theory on the horizon is 3 The modular group is a one-parametric subgroup of the conformal group. 12

13 then propagated inside with the massive causal propagator and this last step is responsible for the delocalization inside the double cone. If one wants a formula relative to the massive vacuum there will be an additional fuzzyness caused by a Connes cocycle. This and similar subjects will be the content of a separate paper with Wiesbrock.[17]. The Hilbert space setting of modular localization offers also a deeper physical understanding of the universal domain D which plays a rather technical role in the Wightman framework In the modular localization approach the necessity for such a domain appears if one wants to come from the net of localization spaces which receive their natural topology from the (graphs) net of Tomita operators S(O) to a net of (unbounded) polynomial algebras P(O) such that: dom S(O) D = P(O)Ω = dom P(O) (31) this domain is of course also expected to be equal to A(O)Ω. Here we used a more precise notation which distinguishes between the operator S defined on the core A(0)Ω and its closure S which is defined on H R (O) + ih R (O). 4 Modular Wedge-Localization and Factorizing Theories In this section we will show that the range of spaces obtained by applying all O-localized (Wightman) fields (or the operator algebra A(O)) to the vacuum, can be used for the nonperturbative construction of factorizable QFT s. This somewhat unexpected state of affairs comes about through modular localization. Although the modular localization concept is a general structural property of QFT 4, its constructive use is presently limited to factorizable (integrable) QFT models. We remind the reader that factorizable in the intrinsic physical interpretation of algebraic QFT means long-distance representative (in the sense of the S-matrix) in a given superselection class, in other words each general d=1+1 theory has an asymptotic companion which has the same superselection sectors ( same particle structure or incoming Fock space) but vastly simplified dynamics associated to a factorizing S-matrix [21]. This intrinsic understanding without imposing conservation laws or even Yang-Baxter structures (but rather obtained from consistency of the long distance limits of scattering operators) gives an enhanced significance of factorizable models as the simplest representative in a class of general models with the same charge structure. This is of course analogous to the short distance universality class significance of conformal field theories. In this paper our goal will be limited to the modular interpretation and basic field theoretic understanding of the bootstrap-formfactor program which presently is largely a collection of plausible recipes [7]. Its computational power 4 Its remoteness from perturbative structures may be the reason why it was only discovered rather late. 13

14 e.g. for characterizing existing models in more detail and for enlarging the class of soluble models will be shown in separate future work. All applications of modular localization to interacting theories are based on the observation that in asymptotically complete theories with a mass gap, the full interaction resides in the Tomita operator J(W), whereas the modular group iτ (W) for wedges (being equal to Lorentz boosts) is blind against interactions (the representation of the Poincarè group is already defined on the free incoming states). In other words the interaction resides in those disconnected parts of the Poincaré group which involve antiunitary time reflections. The Haag Ruelle scattering theory together with the asymptotic completeness easily yield (for each wedge): J = S s J 0, iτ = iτ 0 (32) where the subscript 0 refers to the free incoming situation and we have omitted the reference to the particular wedge. It is very important here to emphasize that this interpretation of modular data in terms of scattering theories exists only for wedge regions. No physical interpretation is yet known e.g. for double cones. One expects, that contrary to the wedge case, not only the reflection J but also the modular group iτ will depend on the interaction. In order not to change the traditional notation S for the Tomita involutions, we use the subscript s whenever we mean the S-matrix.. The most convenient form for this equation is: S = S s S 0 (33) where S and S 0 are the antiunitary Tomita operators and S s is the scattering operator. Therefore the scattering operator in relativistic QFT has two interpretations: it is a global operator in the sense of large time limits and a modular localization interpretation of measuring the deviation of J or S from their free field values. This modular aspect is characteristic of local quantum physics and has no counterpart in nonrelativistic theory or quantum mechanics. The modular subspace of H Fock = H in for the standard wedge is characterized in terms of the following equations: S s S 0 H R = H R (34) S s S 0 ψ = ψ, ψ H R (35) There is one more important idea which is borrowed from scattering theory namely the existence of a modular Møller operator [4] U which is related to the S-matrix as: S s = UJ 0 U J 0 (36) This correspond to the well-known standard formula S s = (Ω out ) Ω in. The idea of introducing such an object into our modular approach comes from the unitary equivalence of the interacting and the free type hyperfinite III 1 wedge algebras: A(W) = UA in (W)U (37) 14

15 together with the U-invariance of the vacuum UΩ = Ω. Note that this situation is very different from the problem of equivalence of the canonical equal time commutation relations in the free versus the interacting case. A unitary equivalence in this case of type I algebras would be forbidden by Haag s theorem (nonexistence of an interaction picture in QFT). The above characterization of U may be replaced by a slightly more convenient one 5 in terms of an intertwining property between modular operators: US 0 = SU (38) Such a Møller operator can only commute with the boost (the modular group) but not with the Poincaré group. The latter serves to define a family of W- affiliated U s from the standard wedge. In terms of localized spaces, the U has the property: UH in R (W) = H R (W) (39) Let us first illustrate these concepts in an explicitly known (including pointlike fields) model. Between the two possibilities Ising field theory with S s (2) = 1 and the (non-parity invariant) Federbush model with S (2) I,II = eiπg we chose the latter because it allows also a Lagrangian interpretation (i.e. more nostalgia than conceptual necessity). The model consists in coupling two species of Dirac fermions via a (parity violating) current-pseudocurrent coupling [22][23]: One easily verifies that: L int = g : j I µ jii ν : ε µν, j µ =: ψγ µ ψ : (40) ψ I (x) = ψ (0) I (x)..e igφ (l) (x). II. (41) ψ II (x) = ψ (0) II (x).eigφ(r) I (x). where Φ (l,r) = x x j 0dx is a potential of j µ5 i.e. µ Φ ε µν j ν = j µ5 and the superscript l,r refers to whether we choose the integration region for the line integral on the spacelike left or right of x. The triple ordering is needed in order to keep the closest possible connection with classical geometry and localization and in particular to maintain the validity of the field equation in the quantum theory; for its meaning we refer to the above papers. This conceptually simpler triple ordering can be recast into the form of the analytically (computational) simpler standard Fermion Wick-ordering. Although in this latter description the classical locality is lost, the quantum exponential do still define local Fermifields; in the case of relative commutation of ψ I with ψ II the contributions from 5 I am indebted to Hans-Werner Wiesbrock for emphasizing this intertwining property as the most convenient definition of U. 15

16 the exponential (disorder fields) compensate. Despite the involved looking local fields (41), the wedge algebras are of utmost simplicity: { } A(W) = alg ψ (0) I (f)u II (g), ψ (0) II (h); suppf, h W (42) { A(W ) = A(W) Klein = alg ψ (0) I (f), ψ (0) II (h)u I(g); suppf, h W } i.e. the two wedge-localized algebras (W denotes the right wedge) are generated by free fields twisted by global U(1) symmetry transformation of angle g (coupling constant) 6 and the subscript Klein denotes the well-known Klein transformation associated with the 2π Fermion rotation. The right hand side follows from the observation that with x restricted to W, one may replace the exponential in ψ I in (41) (which represents a left half space rotation) by the full rotation since the exponential of the right halfspace charge is already contained in the right free fermion algebra etc. The following unitarily equivent description of the pair A(W), A(W ) has a more symmetric appearance under the extended parity symmetry ψ I (t, x) ψ II (t, x): { A(W) = alg ψ (0) ), ψ(0) II (h)u I( g } 2 ); suppf, h W (43) A(W ) { = alg I ψ (0) I (f)u II ( g 2 (h)u II ( g 2 ), ψ(0) II (f)u I( g ); suppf, h W } 2 The computation [23] of the scattering matrix S s from (41) is most conveniently done by Haag-Ruelle scattering theory [2]: S s θ1 I, θii 2 = S s (2) θ1 I, θii 2 = e iπg θ1 I, θii 2 (44) S s (n) = S s (2) pairings These formulae (including antiparticles) can be collected into an operator expression [23] : S s = exp iπg ρ I (θ 1 )ρ II (θ 2 )ε(θ 1 θ 2 )dθ 1 dθ 2 (45) Where ρ I,II are the momentum space charge densities in the rapidity parametrization. The surprising simplicity of the wedge algebra as compare to say double cone algebras consists in the fact that one can choose on-shell generators. This is not just a consequence of the on-shell particle number conservation, but requires the energy independence of the elastic scattering. It would now be easy to solve 6 The equality of the A(W) net (42) to the net obtained by the subsequent modular method adapted to the Federbush model is not a very easy matter. 16

17 the n-particle modular localization equation 7 : SH (n) R (W) = H R (W) = (W) (46) { } F(θ 1, θ 2,..., θ n ) θ 1, θ 2,..., θ n dθ 1 dθ 2...dθ n F H strip H(n) R Here H strip denotes the space of square integrable function which allow an analytic continuation into the strip 0 < Imz i < π, i = 1...n. This is just the p-space on shell analyticity which comes from the wedge localization. As for Wightman functions in x-space, the n! different boundary prescriptions Imz i1 > Imz i2 >... > Imz in 0 yield the generally n! different boundary values F(θ i1, θ i2,...θ in ). Similar statements hold for the boundary values on the upper rim. In the free case i.e. for S s = 1, there are no discontinuities (i.e. the F s just incorporate the Fermi statistics) but with the Federbush S-matrix the space H R (W) consists of strip-analytic functions which are a solution of a Riemann- Hilbert boundary problem. Instead of solving the problem in this pedestrian way [4], we find it more revealing to use another method based on the Zamolodchikov algebra together with thermal states.. To motivate this method we look first at the diagonal situation S (2) = e iδ(θ) (with δ(θ) denoting the scattering phase shift; in our model case δ is constant) we define (assuming for simplicity charge neutrality) operators b in terms of the incoming a # : b(θ) b J (θ) θ : = a(θ) exp iπ : = a (θ)exp iπ + θ δ(θ θ )a (θ )a(θ )dθ : (47) δ(θ θ )a (θ )a(θ )dθ It is easy to check that they fulfill the relation of the Zamolodchikov algebra [15]: b(θ)b(θ ) = S (2) (θ θ )b(θ )b(θ) (48) b (θ)b (θ ) = S (2) (θ θ )b (θ ) b(θ) (49) b(θ)b (θ ) = S (2) 1 (θ θ )b (θ )b(θ) + δ(θ θ ) (50) In the Federbush model we have four creation and annihilation operators for a-particles and a c# -antiparticles a # I,II (θ), ac# I,II (θ) and the interaction S(2) 1 only between species I and II and with a bit lengthier writing, the formulas are 7 The Tomita operator S for Fermions is different from that of Bosons by a Klein transformation. For a special family of d=1+1 solitons the correct TCP operator has been computed by Rehren[24]. Since all the known families of factorizing models are described by Fermions and Bosons and since it is not clear whether this generalization is compatible with the factorization we will ignore this more general TCP-situation in the present context. 17

18 easily adapted. Combining the b-operator with its j-adjoint b J, we obtain the following nonlocal but TCP-invariant (and therefore weakly local) operator: B(x) = (b(θ)e ipx + b J (θ)e ipx )dθ (51) where b J has been defined in (47). Its use facilitates greatly the construction of modular wedge localized states because as a result of its covariance with respect to the interacting TCP = J, it turns out that the closure of the real space: f n (x 1,...x n ) : B(x 1 )...B(x n ) : Ω, suppf n W n, f n real (52) is the desired H (n) R (W) i.e. solves the eigenvalue equation for the interacting Tomita operator S = S s S 0. Although the TCP-covariant B s are nonlocal, they generate the modular wedge space. But of course they cannot be used to localize within a subregion of W (i.e. within smaller subspaces H(W)), nor are they (unbounded) operators affiliated with the wedge algebra A(W) since they act on Ω cyclically but (as a result of their nonlocality) do not have the separating property: AΩ = 0 A = 0 (53) We now look for a thermal state (for brevity we leave out the wedge-localized smearing functions): B(x1 ) #...B(x m ) # B(x m+1 ) #...B(x n+m ) # (54) T=2π ( ) sinhχi x i = ρ i W which fulfills the KMS property on the wedge restricted B-algebra: coshχ i B(r1, χ 1 ) #...B(r m, χ m ) # B(r m+1, χ m+1 ) #...B(r n+m, χ n+m ) # T=2π (55) = B(r 2, χ 2 ) #...B(r m, χ m ) # B(r m+1, χ m+1 ) #...B(r 1, χ 1 2πi) # T=2π As in the free field case we need an algebraic structure in order to determine this thermal state. The substitute for the simple (anti)commutation relations in section 2 are now the Zamolodchikov commutation relation. One obtains a recursive system linking n + m with n + m 2 as a result of the presence of the c-number term in (50) The solution of this problem gives a Hilbert space with a nontrivial inner product:in rapidity space. (θ 1...θ n, θ 1...θ n ) T=2π b(θ n)...b(θ 1)b (θ 1 )...b (θ n ) T=2π (56) For the Federbush model it is easy to solve these problems and verify that the wave functions F have the form: F(θ 1,..., θ n ) = F special (θ 1,..., θ n )f(θ 1,..., θ n ) (57) 18

19 where F special is a special solution of the S s 1 Riemann-Hilbert problem and f runs through the Hilbert space of solutions of the S s = 1 problem. From this one can read off the modular Møller operator: for factorizable models it rapidity representation is just the appropriately normalized F special multiplication operator. The connected parts formfactors are best described by the auxiliary functions: ˆf A (x 1,...x n ) = AB # (x 1 )...B # (x n ) T=2π (58) x i W, A A(W) (59) Together with normalization conditions which are needed in order to characterize a specific A, the KMS property and the Zamolodchikov algebra again determine the thermal expectations. The analytic properties of the corresponding special f A (θ 1,...θ n ) are of course going beyond those which characterize the strip analyticity of the wave function Hilbert space H (n) (W); it is well known from the older work on factorizable models that they are (as the S-matrix) meromorphic functions in the rapidity variables which in this way is elevated to a uniformization variable of the problem. Although our simple Federbush model has no bound states, I expect that the representation theory of the Zamolodchikov algebra in the above thermal states will automatically lead to them. Note that they would occur in F special or f A slightly outside the strip region; if one θ is in the strip another one must be at the reflected point below the strip. Expressed in terms of the difference variables this of course agrees with the old findings of Karowski-Weisz [6].In a previous conference report [4] we have discussed the relation between the eigenvalue equations for the vectors in the modular localization space H R (W) and the Riemann-Hilbert problems resulting the formfactor axiomatics [6][7][30] without the thermal use of the Zamolodchikov algebra. We will defer all explicit calculations of thermal states on the Zamolodchikov algebra to a separate paper. There we will also present the construction of the factorizable models in the spirit of algebraic QFT, i.e. by constructing the net of double cone algebras from the wedge algebras. The latter are known according to (37) with the Møller operator, but the construction of the former requires furthergoing use of concepts of algebraic QFT. Only then our main contention that the algebraic point of view for solving nonperturbative problems is the most appropriate will have been accomplished. Rather than presenting more calculations, I would like in the remainder of this section to compare these ideas with existing work based on more formal considerations. Similar to an unpublished paper by Lashkevich[25], one may write an Ansatz for local operators A A(W) in terms of a power series decomposition in the TCP-covariant B # (x) with coefficient functions restrictes to the wedge. If, as it indeed turns out to be the case, the various n th degree coefficient functions which belong to different partitions into creation and annihilation parts are indeed the different boundary values of one analytic master function 19

20 ( in that case the master function turns out to be f A (z 1,..., z n ) ), then A is belonging to a separating subalgebra of the B # s which has the Tomita modular operator S and then locality follows from the modular theory. There would be no necessity to use such formal Smirnov-type arguments as in Lashkevich paper 8. On the other hand I disagree completely with the use of concepts involving analytically continuable field operators as b(θ z) or B(ρ, χ z). Since their use is so widespread, it is interesting to ask where such ideas are coming from. Since I am not an expert on string theory, I have limited my search to QFT. The oldest paper which could be interpreted as alluding to analytic operators A(z), z C seems to be the famous BPZ [26] paper 9 on minimal models. In fact the terminology holomorphic conformal algebras seems to originate in this paper. Whereas the slightly misleading terminology did not prevent any expert from extracting the beautiful content about the algebraic construction of minimal models (nor did the authors presumably wanted to say more than that correlation functions and certain state vectors have meromorphic properties which correspond to the analytic continuation z of light-cone variables and go beyond the analytic Bargman-Hall-Wightman domain of the corresponding massive theories), novices to QFT often confuse the presence of a meromorphic Bargman Hall-Wightman analyticity domain (with natural uniformization variables z) of correlation functions with the living space of fields in the sense of quantum localization of operators. The cause of analytic properties in QFT is the positive energy tranlation invariant vacuum state and not the algebraic structure. The analytic properties of state vector and expectation values change radically if one studies e.g. temperature states on the same algebra. In an attempt to attribute a constructive meaning to an existing but somewhat confusing terminology, one could point at a property which has no analogon in higher dimension (not even in the conformal invariant case). Whereas generally with the vacuum expectation values one can relate two physical theories: a noncommutative real time QFT and a commutative euclidean candidate for a statistical mechanics, a chiral conformal theory on one light cone has infinitely many noncommutative boundary values (and no commutative). Namely the restriction of the analytically continued correlation function defines a positive QFT not only on the circle (the standard living space of chiral theories) but also on each boundary encircling the origin (with rhe right iε Wightman boundary prescription). However this does not legitimize holomorphic operators. Looking at some recent references in [5] which are rightfully criticized for 8 It is one of the ironies that this appearantly unpublished paper, to which I nowadays have a critival distance, together with a private discussion of the subject started my renewed interest in the application of modular localization to the bootstrap formfactor program. 9 In an older paper on conformal blocks[27] (called nonlocal components in a conformal decomposition theory with respect to the center of the universal covering, yet without minimal model illustrations) such holomorphic terminology was not used.. 20