Amplimorphisms and Quantum Symmetry, I
Posted by Urs Schreiber
Last time I mentioned that a concept called amplimorphisms plays a role in certain algebraic descriptions of quantum field theory. I gave an interpretation of the structure of these concepts in arrow-theoretic terms.
I would like to continue with talking about the relation to quantum symmetries.
Here I give an arrow-theoretic exegesis of section 2 of
J. Fuchs, A. Ganchev, P. Vecsernyes
On the quantum symmetry of rational field theories
hep-th/9407013.
For the following purpose, we will describe quantum field theory in AQFT terms, which focuses on the “algebras of observables”.
Interlude: Schrödinger and Segal versus Heisenberg and Haag-Kastler
We have mostly been talking about functorial descriptions of quantum field theory here, in which QFTs are conceived as representations of cobordism categories Objects of are sent to spaces of states while morphisms are sent to operations on states
In quantum physics textbooks (which usually know nothing about functors), this perspective on quantum field theory is called the Schrödinger picture
There is another perspective on quantum field theory, known as the Heisenberg picture.
This is obtained, roughly, by applying the endomorphism functor to the Schrödinger picture. This functor sends an isomorphism of Hilbert spaces to an isomorphism of the corresponding endomorphism algebras Where a vector in is called a state, an element in is called an observable.
We all know that, at some point, the above Schrödinger picture is too coarse. Instead of 1-functors that propagate states globally over -cobordisms, we want to see -functors that propagate -states over pieces of -cobordisms #.
In particular, if our cobordisms are equipped with a Lorentzian structure, we might want to propagate states over little causal diamonds:
This Schrödinger picture of extended QFT should have a corresponding extended Heisenberg picture, too. But nobody has yet tried to make this connection explicit.
Instead, people have directly guessed (proposed) one way to talk about the “extended Heisenberg picture”: the result is known as the theory of nets of local observables and usually addressed as (local) algebraic quantum field theory.
Notice that nobody except me ever talks about the “extended Heisenberg picture”. But they should! :-) The above picture
Schrödinger picture : -functorial QFT :: Heisenberg picture : AQFT
ought to be drawn in full detail, eventually. Here it serves me just to put the various concepts that I consider in the following in perspective.
(I should add that somewhat parallel to the AQFT crowd with their pre-co-sheaves of local algebras (to be described in a moment), there are people working, in the context of 2-dimensional conformal QFT, on sheaves and gerbes of vertex operator algebras, which is based on a very similar idea, but differs in detail.)
End of interlude, beginning of introduction: nets of local observables
It should now be at least plausible that the following definition has chances to capture some aspects of quantum field theory on Lorentzian domains:
Definition (Haag-Kastler nets). For a given Lorentzian manifold , denote by the category whose objects are its causal diamonds (the union of all time-like curves between a given pair of points in ) and whose morphisms are inclusions of these. A net of local observables is a certain pre-cosheaf of -algebras on .
(I say “certain” pre-cosheaf because there are some funny details about this. On the one hand, a sheaf condition is curiously missing, on the other hand it is usually demanded that all co-restriction maps of algebras are by injective morphisms. This looks unnatural to me. I suspect that we will eventually find a a more natural formulation of this.)
But anyway. The only other axiom of real relevance for the following discussion is this:
Locality property: We demand that whenever the causal diamonds and are spacelike separated, then the sub-algebras associated to them mutually commute.
Finally, we assume that the inductive limit of all these “local” algebras over all causal diamonds does exist. The resulting algebra (“of observables on ”) shall be called This is the object of interest now.
End of introduction, finally the main point: the arrow theory of localized endomorphisms.
As every algebra, lives in the 2-category whose objects are algebras, whose morphisms are bimodules between these and whose 2-morphisms are bimodule intertwiners.
Notice that we could regard algebras as 1-object -enriched categories. This would suggest an obvious 2-category structure on them, too. But this 2-category naturally embeds into . The latter is like the category of profunctors between 1-object -enriched categories. Keeping this in mind, I’ll be talking about .
We noticed before that is monoidal since is braided. The tensor unit in is the ground field itself (That’s the ground field used in quantum field theory applications.)
Now, we may regard in a trivial way as a --bimodule. The corresponding morphism in we write
Since the left algebra is sort of trivial, we think of this bimodule as just being a right module for .
For our physics needs, this is called the vacuum representation of our algebra of observables .
The real entity of interest is the monoidal category of --bimodules. To make contact with the QFT literature, we would restrict this to those bimodules and their homomorphisms that come from functors between algabras and natural transformations bertween these.
More importantly, we want to restrict to localized algebra endomorphisms. This are all those that act nontrivially only on a sub-algebra of corresponding to some causal diamond .
So we get a monoidal sub-category of local endomorphisms.
By composing any endomorphism of with the “vacucum representation” we get another representation The representations obtained from this way are called the Doplicher-Haag-Roberts (DHR) representations.
Of course, for us this passage from endomorphisms to “representations” simply amounts to forgetting the left -action on an - bimodule.
The interesting point of all this is that, due to this locality requirement, the monoidal category is braided!
Namely, using unitary operators and in with spacelike separated support, we may translate any two localized endomorphisms to endomorphisms with spacelike separated support which therefore commute Transporting the commuted back along defines a braiding on .
One shows that this braiding
- is symmetric whenever the dimension of the Lorentzian manifold is greater than 2
- is nontrivial in dimension 2.
(Compare all this with section 2 of the above review)
What does all this have to do with amplimorphisms?
Nothing directly yet. But they come in as follows:
In physics applications, we will be thinking of the equivalence classes in as the superselection sectors of the theory, and of equivalence classes of simple objects (irreps) as ‘elementary (particle) excitations’ of the theory.
The Doplicher-Roberts reconstruction theorem then makes us want to understand as the category of representations of the “gauge symmetry” of the theory.
Since is braided, this requires a braided version of the original Doplicher-Roberts result.
It turns out that we may find a certain Hopf algebra, and a certain notion of representations of it, based on amplimorphisms, such that it is equivalent to .
This I will maybe describe elsewhere.
GNS
Given what I just said about the passage from the Schrödinger to the Heisenberg picture:
can anyone say a sensible sentence that contains the terms “GNS construction” as well as “adjoint functor”?
I am trying to see if we can understand this Schrödinger/Heisenberg transition and the corresponding extended-functorial-QFT/AQFT-CDO transition on general abstract nonsense grounds.