Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T12:04:17.923Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Observables in modular field thoey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

R. Kleeman
R. Kleeman
Affiliation:
C.S.I.R.O. Division of Atmospheric Research, Private Bag 1, Mordialloc, Victoria 3195, Australia.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The observables of modular quantisation are studied from the point of view of locality. Such a study allows identification of possible Hamiltonians and also enables us to generalize the fundamental trilinear commutation relations of parafield theory. A comparison of modular field theory with a normal U(m) gauge theory, begun in an earlier publication, is completed with the conclusion that the two are equivalent except that the former has certain restrictions on its observables.

Type
Research Article
Information
The ANZIAM Journal , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , October 1987 , pp. 221 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Mathematical Society 1987

References

[1]Coleman, S., Wess, J. and Zumino, B., Phys. Rev. 177 (1969), 2239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callen, C., Coleman, S., Wess, J. and Zumino, B., Phys. Rev. 177 (1969), 2247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Drühl, K., Haag, R. and Roberts, J. E., Comm. Math. Phys. 18 (1970), 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohnuki, Y. and Kamefuchi, S., Progr. Theoret. Phys. 50 (1973), 258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Gilmore, R., Lie Groups, Lie Algebras and some of their applications, (Wiley, 1974) and references therein.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Green, H. S., Phys. Rev. 90 (1953), 270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Green, H. S., Austral. J. Phys. 28 (1975), 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Greenberg, O. W., Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964), 598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, O. W. and Messiah, A. M. L., Phys. Rev. 138 (1965), B1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landshoff, P. V. and Stapp, H. P., Ann. Physics 45 (1967), 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohnuki, Y. and Kamefuchi, S., Ann. Physics 51 (1969), 337. These are but a selection of the more important papers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Hanus, P. H., Theory of Determinants (Ginn, Boston, 1903), p. 187ff.Google Scholar
[8]Källén, G., Quantum Electrodynamics (Unwin, Springer, 1972) Chapter 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Kleeman, R., J. Math. Phys. 24(1983), 166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Kleeman, R., Ph.D. Thesis, University of Adelaide, 1985.Google Scholar
[11]See Appendix B and Section 4 Chapter 2 in [10].Google Scholar
[12]Klein, O., J. Phys. Radium 9 (1938), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Ohnuki, Y. and Kamefuchi, S., Phys. Rev. 170 (1968), 1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohnuki, Y. and Kamefuchi, S., “Quantum Field Theory and Parastatistics” (in Japanese), Soryushiron Kenkyu (Kyoto) 55 special issue (1977).Google Scholar
[14]Ohnuki, Y. and Kamefuchi, S., Quantum Field Theory and Parastatistics (Univ. of Tokyo Press, Springer 1982), p. 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Rittenberg, V. and Wyler, D., Nuclear Phys. B139 (1978), 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheunert, M., J. Math. Phys. 20 (1979), 712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleeman, R., J. Math. Phys. 26 (1985), 2405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar