higher structures in algebraic quantum field theory
play

Higher Structures in Algebraic Quantum Field Theory Alexander - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 07, 2023 •304 likes •1.36k views

Higher Structures in Algebraic Quantum Field Theory Alexander Schenkel School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham Mathematics of Interacting QFT Models, 15 July 2019, York. Based on joint works with M. Benini and different

  1. � AQFTs and colored operads ⋄ The definition of AQFT allows for the following generalizations: • Vec K � cocomplete closed symmetric monoidal category T • Loc , causally disjoint and Cauchy � orthogonal category C = ( C , ⊥ ) Def: AQFT ( C , T ) denotes the category of T -valued AQFTs on C Thm: (i) There exists a colored operad O C such that AQFT ( C , T ) ≃ Alg O C ( T ) (ii) Every orthogonal functor F : C → D defines an adjunction � AQFT ( D , T ) : F ∗ F ! : AQFT ( C , T ) Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 4 / 13

  2. � AQFTs and colored operads ⋄ The definition of AQFT allows for the following generalizations: • Vec K � cocomplete closed symmetric monoidal category T • Loc , causally disjoint and Cauchy � orthogonal category C = ( C , ⊥ ) Def: AQFT ( C , T ) denotes the category of T -valued AQFTs on C Thm: (i) There exists a colored operad O C such that AQFT ( C , T ) ≃ Alg O C ( T ) (ii) Every orthogonal functor F : C → D defines an adjunction � AQFT ( D , T ) : F ∗ F ! : AQFT ( C , T ) ⋄ This is extremely useful for local-to-global constructions: Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 4 / 13

  3. � AQFTs and colored operads ⋄ The definition of AQFT allows for the following generalizations: • Vec K � cocomplete closed symmetric monoidal category T • Loc , causally disjoint and Cauchy � orthogonal category C = ( C , ⊥ ) Def: AQFT ( C , T ) denotes the category of T -valued AQFTs on C Thm: (i) There exists a colored operad O C such that AQFT ( C , T ) ≃ Alg O C ( T ) (ii) Every orthogonal functor F : C → D defines an adjunction � AQFT ( D , T ) : F ∗ F ! : AQFT ( C , T ) ⋄ This is extremely useful for local-to-global constructions: • Let j : Loc ⋄ → Loc be full orthogonal subcat of “diamonds” ( M ∼ = R m ) Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 4 / 13

  4. � � AQFTs and colored operads ⋄ The definition of AQFT allows for the following generalizations: • Vec K � cocomplete closed symmetric monoidal category T • Loc , causally disjoint and Cauchy � orthogonal category C = ( C , ⊥ ) Def: AQFT ( C , T ) denotes the category of T -valued AQFTs on C Thm: (i) There exists a colored operad O C such that AQFT ( C , T ) ≃ Alg O C ( T ) (ii) Every orthogonal functor F : C → D defines an adjunction � AQFT ( D , T ) : F ∗ F ! : AQFT ( C , T ) ⋄ This is extremely useful for local-to-global constructions: • Let j : Loc ⋄ → Loc be full orthogonal subcat of “diamonds” ( M ∼ = R m ) • We get extension-restriction adjunction � AQFT ( Loc , T ) : j ∗ = res ext = j ! : AQFT ( Loc ⋄ , T ) Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 4 / 13

  5. � � AQFTs and colored operads ⋄ The definition of AQFT allows for the following generalizations: • Vec K � cocomplete closed symmetric monoidal category T • Loc , causally disjoint and Cauchy � orthogonal category C = ( C , ⊥ ) Def: AQFT ( C , T ) denotes the category of T -valued AQFTs on C Thm: (i) There exists a colored operad O C such that AQFT ( C , T ) ≃ Alg O C ( T ) (ii) Every orthogonal functor F : C → D defines an adjunction � AQFT ( D , T ) : F ∗ F ! : AQFT ( C , T ) ⋄ This is extremely useful for local-to-global constructions: • Let j : Loc ⋄ → Loc be full orthogonal subcat of “diamonds” ( M ∼ = R m ) • We get extension-restriction adjunction � AQFT ( Loc , T ) : j ∗ = res ext = j ! : AQFT ( Loc ⋄ , T ) ∼ = • Descent condition: A ∈ AQFT ( Loc , T ) is j -local iff ǫ A : ext res A − → A Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 4 / 13

  6. � � AQFTs and colored operads ⋄ The definition of AQFT allows for the following generalizations: • Vec K � cocomplete closed symmetric monoidal category T • Loc , causally disjoint and Cauchy � orthogonal category C = ( C , ⊥ ) Def: AQFT ( C , T ) denotes the category of T -valued AQFTs on C Thm: (i) There exists a colored operad O C such that AQFT ( C , T ) ≃ Alg O C ( T ) (ii) Every orthogonal functor F : C → D defines an adjunction � AQFT ( D , T ) : F ∗ F ! : AQFT ( C , T ) ⋄ This is extremely useful for local-to-global constructions: • Let j : Loc ⋄ → Loc be full orthogonal subcat of “diamonds” ( M ∼ = R m ) • We get extension-restriction adjunction � AQFT ( Loc , T ) : j ∗ = res ext = j ! : AQFT ( Loc ⋄ , T ) ∼ = • Descent condition: A ∈ AQFT ( Loc , T ) is j -local iff ǫ A : ext res A − → A Ex: Linear Klein-Gordon theory is j -local (uses also results by [Lang] ) Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 4 / 13

  7. Higher structures in gauge theory Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 5 / 13

  8. What is a gauge theory? “Ordinary” field theory: Set/Space of fields Φ ′ Φ ′′ Φ Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 5 / 13

  9. What is a gauge theory? “Ordinary” field theory: Gauge theory: Set/Space of fields Grpd/Stack of fields Φ ′ A ′ g ′′ g ′ g Φ ′′ A ′′ Φ A Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 5 / 13

  10. What is a gauge theory? “Ordinary” field theory: Gauge theory: Set/Space of fields Grpd/Stack of fields Φ ′ A ′ g ′′ g ′ g Φ ′′ A ′′ Φ A Ex: Groupoid of principal G -bundles with connection on U ∼ = R m   A ∈ Ω 1 ( U, g ) Obj: BG con ( U ) = g ∈ C ∞ ( U,G ) � A ⊳ g = g − 1 Ag + g − 1 d g  Mor: A Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 5 / 13

  11. What is a gauge theory? “Ordinary” field theory: Gauge theory: Set/Space of fields Grpd/Stack of fields Φ ′ A ′ g ′′ g ′ g Φ ′′ A ′′ Φ A Ex: Groupoid of principal G -bundles with connection on U ∼ = R m   A ∈ Ω 1 ( U, g ) Obj: BG con ( U ) = g ∈ C ∞ ( U,G ) � A ⊳ g = g − 1 Ag + g − 1 d g  Mor: A Invariant information: = Ω 1 ( U, g ) /C ∞ ( U, G ) (“gauge orbit space”) � � • π 0 BG con ( U ) Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 5 / 13

  12. What is a gauge theory? “Ordinary” field theory: Gauge theory: Set/Space of fields Grpd/Stack of fields Φ ′ A ′ g ′′ g ′ g Φ ′′ A ′′ Φ A Ex: Groupoid of principal G -bundles with connection on U ∼ = R m   A ∈ Ω 1 ( U, g ) Obj: BG con ( U ) = g ∈ C ∞ ( U,G ) � A ⊳ g = g − 1 Ag + g − 1 d g  Mor: A Invariant information: = Ω 1 ( U, g ) /C ∞ ( U, G ) (“gauge orbit space”) � � • π 0 BG con ( U ) = { g ∈ C ∞ ( U, G ) : A = A ⊳ g } (stabilizers/“loops”) � � • π 1 BG con ( U ) , A Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 5 / 13

  13. What is a gauge theory? “Ordinary” field theory: Gauge theory: Set/Space of fields Grpd/Stack of fields Φ ′ A ′ g ′′ g ′ g Φ ′′ A ′′ Φ A Ex: Groupoid of principal G -bundles with connection on U ∼ = R m   A ∈ Ω 1 ( U, g ) Obj: BG con ( U ) = g ∈ C ∞ ( U,G ) � A ⊳ g = g − 1 Ag + g − 1 d g  Mor: A Invariant information: = Ω 1 ( U, g ) /C ∞ ( U, G ) (“gauge orbit space”) � � • π 0 BG con ( U ) = { g ∈ C ∞ ( U, G ) : A = A ⊳ g } (stabilizers/“loops”) � � • π 1 BG con ( U ) , A ! Grpd is a 2 -category (or model category) with weak equivalences the categorical equivalences ⇒ need for higher (or derived) functors! Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 5 / 13

  14. Why are these higher structures important? 1. π 1 encodes essential information of the gauge theory: Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 6 / 13

  15. Why are these higher structures important? 1. π 1 encodes essential information of the gauge theory: Consider structure group G = U (1) or R . Then � � ∼ � � ∼ = Ω 1 ( U ) / dΩ 0 ( U ) π 0 BG con ( U ) , π 1 BG con ( U ) , A = G � �� � � �� � sees G doesn’t see G Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 6 / 13

  16. Why are these higher structures important? 1. π 1 encodes essential information of the gauge theory: Consider structure group G = U (1) or R . Then � � ∼ � � ∼ = Ω 1 ( U ) / dΩ 0 ( U ) π 0 BG con ( U ) , π 1 BG con ( U ) , A = G � �� � � �� � sees G doesn’t see G 2. Higher structures are crucial for descent: Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 6 / 13

  17. � � �� ��� Why are these higher structures important? 1. π 1 encodes essential information of the gauge theory: Consider structure group G = U (1) or R . Then � � ∼ � � ∼ = Ω 1 ( U ) / dΩ 0 ( U ) π 0 BG con ( U ) , π 1 BG con ( U ) , A = G � �� � � �� � sees G doesn’t see G 2. Higher structures are crucial for descent: Let M be manifold with good open cover { U i ⊆ M } . Then � � � �� � � holim i BG con ( U i ) ij BG con ( U ij ) ijk BG con ( U ijk ) � · · · is the groupoid of all principal G -bundles with connection on M Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 6 / 13

  18. � � �� ��� Why are these higher structures important? 1. π 1 encodes essential information of the gauge theory: Consider structure group G = U (1) or R . Then � � ∼ � � ∼ = Ω 1 ( U ) / dΩ 0 ( U ) π 0 BG con ( U ) , π 1 BG con ( U ) , A = G � �� � � �� � sees G doesn’t see G 2. Higher structures are crucial for descent: Let M be manifold with good open cover { U i ⊆ M } . Then � � � �� � � holim i BG con ( U i ) ij BG con ( U ij ) ijk BG con ( U ijk ) � · · · is the groupoid of all principal G -bundles with connection on M 3. π 1 detects “fake” gauge symmetries: Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 6 / 13

  19. � �� � ��� Why are these higher structures important? 1. π 1 encodes essential information of the gauge theory: Consider structure group G = U (1) or R . Then � � ∼ � � ∼ = Ω 1 ( U ) / dΩ 0 ( U ) π 0 BG con ( U ) , π 1 BG con ( U ) , A = G � �� � � �� � sees G doesn’t see G 2. Higher structures are crucial for descent: Let M be manifold with good open cover { U i ⊆ M } . Then � � � �� � � holim i BG con ( U i ) ij BG con ( U ij ) ijk BG con ( U ijk ) � · · · is the groupoid of all principal G -bundles with connection on M 3. π 1 detects “fake” gauge symmetries: Let M be manifold and consider groupoid   (Φ 1 , Φ 2 ) ∈ C ∞ ( M ) × C ∞ ( M ) Obj: P ( M ) = ǫ ∈ C ∞ ( M ) � (Φ 1 + ǫ, Φ 2 + ǫ )  Mor: (Φ 1 , Φ 2 ) Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 6 / 13

  20. ��� � �� � Why are these higher structures important? 1. π 1 encodes essential information of the gauge theory: Consider structure group G = U (1) or R . Then � � ∼ � � ∼ = Ω 1 ( U ) / dΩ 0 ( U ) π 0 BG con ( U ) , π 1 BG con ( U ) , A = G � �� � � �� � sees G doesn’t see G 2. Higher structures are crucial for descent: Let M be manifold with good open cover { U i ⊆ M } . Then � � � �� � � holim i BG con ( U i ) ij BG con ( U ij ) ijk BG con ( U ijk ) � · · · is the groupoid of all principal G -bundles with connection on M 3. π 1 detects “fake” gauge symmetries: Let M be manifold and consider groupoid   (Φ 1 , Φ 2 ) ∈ C ∞ ( M ) × C ∞ ( M ) Obj: P ( M ) = ǫ ∈ C ∞ ( M ) � (Φ 1 + ǫ, Φ 2 + ǫ )  Mor: (Φ 1 , Φ 2 ) Because all π 1 ’s are trivial, this is a “fake” gauge symmetry. Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 6 / 13

  21. ��� � �� � Why are these higher structures important? 1. π 1 encodes essential information of the gauge theory: Consider structure group G = U (1) or R . Then � � ∼ � � ∼ = Ω 1 ( U ) / dΩ 0 ( U ) π 0 BG con ( U ) , π 1 BG con ( U ) , A = G � �� � � �� � sees G doesn’t see G 2. Higher structures are crucial for descent: Let M be manifold with good open cover { U i ⊆ M } . Then � � � �� � � holim i BG con ( U i ) ij BG con ( U ij ) ijk BG con ( U ijk ) � · · · is the groupoid of all principal G -bundles with connection on M 3. π 1 detects “fake” gauge symmetries: Let M be manifold and consider groupoid   (Φ 1 , Φ 2 ) ∈ C ∞ ( M ) × C ∞ ( M ) Obj: P ( M ) = ǫ ∈ C ∞ ( M ) � (Φ 1 + ǫ, Φ 2 + ǫ )  Mor: (Φ 1 , Φ 2 ) Because all π 1 ’s are trivial, this is a “fake” gauge symmetry. Indeed, there is an equivalence P ( M ) → C ∞ ( M ) , (Φ 1 , Φ 2 ) �→ Φ 1 − Φ 2 to the scalar field. Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 6 / 13

  22. Smooth cochain algebras on stacks ⋄ To study geometry of gauge fields, one needs “smooth groupoids” a.k.a. stacks Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 7 / 13

  23. Smooth cochain algebras on stacks ⋄ To study geometry of gauge fields, one needs “smooth groupoids” a.k.a. stacks ⋄ A stack is a presheaf X : Cart op → Grpd satisfying homotopical descent Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 7 / 13

  24. Smooth cochain algebras on stacks X ⋄ To study geometry of gauge fields, one needs “smooth groupoids” a.k.a. stacks ⋄ A stack is a presheaf X : Cart op → Grpd satisfying homotopical descent Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 7 / 13

  25. Smooth cochain algebras on stacks R 0 X ⋄ To study geometry of gauge fields, one needs “smooth groupoids” a.k.a. stacks ⋄ A stack is a presheaf X : Cart op → Grpd satisfying homotopical descent Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 7 / 13

  26. Smooth cochain algebras on stacks R 0 X ⋄ To study geometry of gauge fields, one needs “smooth groupoids” a.k.a. stacks R 1 ⋄ A stack is a presheaf X : Cart op → Grpd satisfying homotopical descent Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 7 / 13

  27. Smooth cochain algebras on stacks R 0 X ⋄ To study geometry of gauge fields, one needs “smooth groupoids” a.k.a. stacks R 1 ⋄ A stack is a presheaf X : Cart op → Grpd satisfying homotopical descent R 2 Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 7 / 13

  28. Smooth cochain algebras on stacks R 0 X ⋄ To study geometry of gauge fields, one needs “smooth groupoids” a.k.a. stacks R 1 ⋄ A stack is a presheaf X : Cart op → Grpd satisfying homotopical descent R 2 ⋄ (A)QFT needs “observable algebras”, but what are functions on stacks? Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 7 / 13

  29. � Smooth cochain algebras on stacks R 0 X ⋄ To study geometry of gauge fields, one needs “smooth groupoids” a.k.a. stacks R 1 ⋄ A stack is a presheaf X : Cart op → Grpd satisfying homotopical descent R 2 ⋄ (A)QFT needs “observable algebras”, but what are functions on stacks? ⋄ Smooth normalized cochains: N ∗∞ ( − , K ) � PSh ( Cart , Ch K ) � Ch op Stacks K Map ∞ ( − , K ) N ∗ ( − , K ) Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 7 / 13

  30. � Smooth cochain algebras on stacks R 0 X ⋄ To study geometry of gauge fields, one needs “smooth groupoids” a.k.a. stacks R 1 ⋄ A stack is a presheaf X : Cart op → Grpd satisfying homotopical descent R 2 ⋄ (A)QFT needs “observable algebras”, but what are functions on stacks? ⋄ Smooth normalized cochains: N ∗∞ ( − , K ) � PSh ( Cart , Ch K ) � Ch op Stacks K Map ∞ ( − , K ) N ∗ ( − , K ) (i) N ∗∞ ( − , K ) is left Quillen functor, i.e. left derived functor L N ∗∞ ( − , K ) exists Prop: Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 7 / 13

  31. � Smooth cochain algebras on stacks R 0 X ⋄ To study geometry of gauge fields, one needs “smooth groupoids” a.k.a. stacks R 1 ⋄ A stack is a presheaf X : Cart op → Grpd satisfying homotopical descent R 2 ⋄ (A)QFT needs “observable algebras”, but what are functions on stacks? ⋄ Smooth normalized cochains: N ∗∞ ( − , K ) � PSh ( Cart , Ch K ) � Ch op Stacks K Map ∞ ( − , K ) N ∗ ( − , K ) (i) N ∗∞ ( − , K ) is left Quillen functor, i.e. left derived functor L N ∗∞ ( − , K ) exists Prop: (ii) L N ∗∞ ( − , K ) : Stacks → Alg E ∞ ( Ch K ) op takes values in E ∞ -algebras Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 7 / 13

  32. � Smooth cochain algebras on stacks R 0 X ⋄ To study geometry of gauge fields, one needs “smooth groupoids” a.k.a. stacks R 1 ⋄ A stack is a presheaf X : Cart op → Grpd satisfying homotopical descent R 2 ⋄ (A)QFT needs “observable algebras”, but what are functions on stacks? ⋄ Smooth normalized cochains: N ∗∞ ( − , K ) � PSh ( Cart , Ch K ) � Ch op Stacks K Map ∞ ( − , K ) N ∗ ( − , K ) (i) N ∗∞ ( − , K ) is left Quillen functor, i.e. left derived functor L N ∗∞ ( − , K ) exists Prop: (ii) L N ∗∞ ( − , K ) : Stacks → Alg E ∞ ( Ch K ) op takes values in E ∞ -algebras ! Main observation: Classical observables in a gauge theory are described by dg-algebras that are only homotopy-coherently commutative! Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 7 / 13

  33. Higher structures in AQFT Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 8 / 13

  34. Homotopy AQFTs: Definition and basic properties ⋄ Recall AQFT ( C , T ) = Alg O C ( T ) requires choice of target category T Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 8 / 13

  35. Homotopy AQFTs: Definition and basic properties ⋄ Recall AQFT ( C , T ) = Alg O C ( T ) requires choice of target category T ⋄ Take T = Ch K to include dg-algebras of observables of a gauge theory! Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 8 / 13

  36. Homotopy AQFTs: Definition and basic properties ⋄ Recall AQFT ( C , T ) = Alg O C ( T ) requires choice of target category T ⋄ Take T = Ch K to include dg-algebras of observables of a gauge theory! ⋄ But what about homotopy coherent algebraic structures (e.g. E ∞ -algebras)? Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 8 / 13

  37. Homotopy AQFTs: Definition and basic properties ⋄ Recall AQFT ( C , T ) = Alg O C ( T ) requires choice of target category T ⋄ Take T = Ch K to include dg-algebras of observables of a gauge theory! ⋄ But what about homotopy coherent algebraic structures (e.g. E ∞ -algebras)? Def: A Ch K -valued homotopy AQFT on C is an algebra over any Σ -cofibrant ∼ resolution O C , ∞ ։ O C of the AQFT dg-operad O C ∈ Op ( Ch K ) . Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 8 / 13

  38. Homotopy AQFTs: Definition and basic properties ⋄ Recall AQFT ( C , T ) = Alg O C ( T ) requires choice of target category T ⋄ Take T = Ch K to include dg-algebras of observables of a gauge theory! ⋄ But what about homotopy coherent algebraic structures (e.g. E ∞ -algebras)? Def: A Ch K -valued homotopy AQFT on C is an algebra over any Σ -cofibrant ∼ resolution O C , ∞ ։ O C of the AQFT dg-operad O C ∈ Op ( Ch K ) . AQFT ∞ ( C ) := Alg O C , ∞ ( Ch K ) denotes category of homotopy AQFTs. Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 8 / 13

  39. Homotopy AQFTs: Definition and basic properties ⋄ Recall AQFT ( C , T ) = Alg O C ( T ) requires choice of target category T ⋄ Take T = Ch K to include dg-algebras of observables of a gauge theory! ⋄ But what about homotopy coherent algebraic structures (e.g. E ∞ -algebras)? Def: A Ch K -valued homotopy AQFT on C is an algebra over any Σ -cofibrant ∼ resolution O C , ∞ ։ O C of the AQFT dg-operad O C ∈ Op ( Ch K ) . AQFT ∞ ( C ) := Alg O C , ∞ ( Ch K ) denotes category of homotopy AQFTs. Prop: (i) AQFT ∞ ( C ) is a model category with weak equivalences the natural quasi-isomorphisms Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 8 / 13

  40. Homotopy AQFTs: Definition and basic properties ⋄ Recall AQFT ( C , T ) = Alg O C ( T ) requires choice of target category T ⋄ Take T = Ch K to include dg-algebras of observables of a gauge theory! ⋄ But what about homotopy coherent algebraic structures (e.g. E ∞ -algebras)? Def: A Ch K -valued homotopy AQFT on C is an algebra over any Σ -cofibrant ∼ resolution O C , ∞ ։ O C of the AQFT dg-operad O C ∈ Op ( Ch K ) . AQFT ∞ ( C ) := Alg O C , ∞ ( Ch K ) denotes category of homotopy AQFTs. Prop: (i) AQFT ∞ ( C ) is a model category with weak equivalences the natural quasi-isomorphisms (ii) AQFT ∞ ( C ) does not depend on the choice of resolution (up to zig-zags of Quillen equivalences) Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 8 / 13

  41. Homotopy AQFTs: Definition and basic properties ⋄ Recall AQFT ( C , T ) = Alg O C ( T ) requires choice of target category T ⋄ Take T = Ch K to include dg-algebras of observables of a gauge theory! ⋄ But what about homotopy coherent algebraic structures (e.g. E ∞ -algebras)? Def: A Ch K -valued homotopy AQFT on C is an algebra over any Σ -cofibrant ∼ resolution O C , ∞ ։ O C of the AQFT dg-operad O C ∈ Op ( Ch K ) . AQFT ∞ ( C ) := Alg O C , ∞ ( Ch K ) denotes category of homotopy AQFTs. Prop: (i) AQFT ∞ ( C ) is a model category with weak equivalences the natural quasi-isomorphisms (ii) AQFT ∞ ( C ) does not depend on the choice of resolution (up to zig-zags of Quillen equivalences) ∼ (iii) If char K = 0 , then id : O C ։ O C is Σ -cofibrant resolution ⇒ all homotopy AQFTs in char K = 0 (i.e. in physics) can be strictified Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 8 / 13

  42. Homotopy AQFTs: Definition and basic properties ⋄ Recall AQFT ( C , T ) = Alg O C ( T ) requires choice of target category T ⋄ Take T = Ch K to include dg-algebras of observables of a gauge theory! ⋄ But what about homotopy coherent algebraic structures (e.g. E ∞ -algebras)? Def: A Ch K -valued homotopy AQFT on C is an algebra over any Σ -cofibrant ∼ resolution O C , ∞ ։ O C of the AQFT dg-operad O C ∈ Op ( Ch K ) . AQFT ∞ ( C ) := Alg O C , ∞ ( Ch K ) denotes category of homotopy AQFTs. Prop: (i) AQFT ∞ ( C ) is a model category with weak equivalences the natural quasi-isomorphisms (ii) AQFT ∞ ( C ) does not depend on the choice of resolution (up to zig-zags of Quillen equivalences) ∼ (iii) If char K = 0 , then id : O C ։ O C is Σ -cofibrant resolution ⇒ all homotopy AQFTs in char K = 0 (i.e. in physics) can be strictified ∼ ։ O C ⊗ Com ∼ Ex: Component-wise tensor product O C ⊗ E ∞ = O C with the Barratt-Eccles operad defines a Σ -cofibrant resolution. Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 8 / 13

  43. Homotopy AQFTs: Definition and basic properties ⋄ Recall AQFT ( C , T ) = Alg O C ( T ) requires choice of target category T ⋄ Take T = Ch K to include dg-algebras of observables of a gauge theory! ⋄ But what about homotopy coherent algebraic structures (e.g. E ∞ -algebras)? Def: A Ch K -valued homotopy AQFT on C is an algebra over any Σ -cofibrant ∼ resolution O C , ∞ ։ O C of the AQFT dg-operad O C ∈ Op ( Ch K ) . AQFT ∞ ( C ) := Alg O C , ∞ ( Ch K ) denotes category of homotopy AQFTs. Prop: (i) AQFT ∞ ( C ) is a model category with weak equivalences the natural quasi-isomorphisms (ii) AQFT ∞ ( C ) does not depend on the choice of resolution (up to zig-zags of Quillen equivalences) ∼ (iii) If char K = 0 , then id : O C ։ O C is Σ -cofibrant resolution ⇒ all homotopy AQFTs in char K = 0 (i.e. in physics) can be strictified ∼ ։ O C ⊗ Com ∼ Ex: Component-wise tensor product O C ⊗ E ∞ = O C with the Barratt-Eccles operad defines a Σ -cofibrant resolution. Smooth normalized cochain algebras on (a diagram X : C op → Stacks of) stacks leads to homotopy AQFTs of this type. Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 8 / 13

  44. Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT ⋄ Linear gauge theory: (derived) stacks � chain complexes Ch K Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 9 / 13

  45. Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT ⋄ Linear gauge theory: (derived) stacks � chain complexes Ch K ⋄ Yang-Mills with structure group R is defined on M ∈ Loc by Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 9 / 13

  46. � Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT ⋄ Linear gauge theory: (derived) stacks � chain complexes Ch K ⋄ Yang-Mills with structure group R is defined on M ∈ Loc by (0) (1) � d � Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) (1) Field complex F ( M ) = Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 9 / 13

  47. � Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT ⋄ Linear gauge theory: (derived) stacks � chain complexes Ch K ⋄ Yang-Mills with structure group R is defined on M ∈ Loc by (0) (1) � d � Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) (1) Field complex F ( M ) = (2) Action functional S ( A ) = 1 � M d A ∧ ∗ d A 2 Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 9 / 13

  48. � � � � � Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT ⋄ Linear gauge theory: (derived) stacks � chain complexes Ch K ⋄ Yang-Mills with structure group R is defined on M ∈ Loc by (0) (1) � d � Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) (1) Field complex F ( M ) = (2) Action functional S ( A ) = 1 � M d A ∧ ∗ d A 2 ⋄ Variation of action defines section of cotangent bundle   0 d Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) 0 F ( M )     =  0 � (id ,δ d) �  δ v S � id �   T ∗ F ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) Ω 1 ( M ) × Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) − δπ 2 ι 1 d Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 9 / 13

  49. � � � � � � � Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT ⋄ Linear gauge theory: (derived) stacks � chain complexes Ch K ⋄ Yang-Mills with structure group R is defined on M ∈ Loc by (0) (1) � d � Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) (1) Field complex F ( M ) = (2) Action functional S ( A ) = 1 � M d A ∧ ∗ d A 2 ⋄ Variation of action defines section of cotangent bundle   0 d Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) 0 F ( M )     =  0 � (id ,δ d) �  δ v S � id �   T ∗ F ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) Ω 1 ( M ) × Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) − δπ 2 ι 1 d � F ( M ) Def: The solution complex is defined as the (linear) Sol ( M ) h derived critical locus of the action S , i.e. the δ v S � T ∗ F ( M ) following homotopy pullback in Ch K F ( M ) 0 Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 9 / 13

  50. � � � � � � � � � � Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT ⋄ Linear gauge theory: (derived) stacks � chain complexes Ch K ⋄ Yang-Mills with structure group R is defined on M ∈ Loc by (0) (1) � d � Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) (1) Field complex F ( M ) = (2) Action functional S ( A ) = 1 � M d A ∧ ∗ d A 2 ⋄ Variation of action defines section of cotangent bundle   0 d Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) 0 F ( M )     =  0 � (id ,δ d) �  δ v S � id �   T ∗ F ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) Ω 1 ( M ) × Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) − δπ 2 ι 1 d � F ( M ) Def: The solution complex is defined as the (linear) Sol ( M ) h derived critical locus of the action S , i.e. the δ v S � T ∗ F ( M ) following homotopy pullback in Ch K F ( M ) 0 � � ( − 2) ( − 1) (0) (1) δ δ d d Ω 0 ( M ) Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) Prop: Sol ( M ) = Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 9 / 13

  51. � � � � � � � � � � Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT ⋄ Linear gauge theory: (derived) stacks � chain complexes Ch K ⋄ Yang-Mills with structure group R is defined on M ∈ Loc by (0) (1) � d � Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) (1) Field complex F ( M ) = (2) Action functional S ( A ) = 1 � M d A ∧ ∗ d A 2 ⋄ Variation of action defines section of cotangent bundle   0 d Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) F ( M ) 0     =  0 � (id ,δ d) �  δ v S � id �   T ∗ F ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) Ω 1 ( M ) × Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) − δπ 2 ι 1 d � F ( M ) Def: The solution complex is defined as the (linear) Sol ( M ) h derived critical locus of the action S , i.e. the δ v S � T ∗ F ( M ) following homotopy pullback in Ch K F ( M ) 0 � � C ‡ A ‡ A C δ δ d d Ω 0 ( M ) Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 1 ( M ) Ω 0 ( M ) Prop: Sol ( M ) = Rem: Interpretation of Sol ( M ) in terms of BRST/BV formalism from physics Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 9 / 13

  52. Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT II ⋄ Every derived critical locus carries a [1] -shifted Poisson structure, explicitly: Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 10 / 13

  53. � � � Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT II ⋄ Every derived critical locus carries a [1] -shifted Poisson structure, explicitly: ( − 1) (0) (1) (2) − δ − d � δ d � Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 • Smooth dual L ( M ) = c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 10 / 13

  54. � � � Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT II ⋄ Every derived critical locus carries a [1] -shifted Poisson structure, explicitly: ( − 1) (0) (1) (2) − δ − d � δ d � Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 • Smooth dual L ( M ) = c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) ⊆ • Canonical inclusion j : L ( M ) − → L pc / fc ( M ) − → Sol ( M )[1] Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 10 / 13

  55. � � � Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT II ⋄ Every derived critical locus carries a [1] -shifted Poisson structure, explicitly: ( − 1) (0) (1) (2) − δ − d � δ d � Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 • Smooth dual L ( M ) = c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) ⊆ • Canonical inclusion j : L ( M ) − → L pc / fc ( M ) − → Sol ( M )[1] id ⊗ j ev • Shifted Poisson structure Υ : L ( M ) ⊗ L ( M ) − → L ( M ) ⊗ Sol ( M )[1] − → R [1] Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 10 / 13

  56. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT II ⋄ Every derived critical locus carries a [1] -shifted Poisson structure, explicitly: ( − 1) (0) (1) (2) − δ − d � δ d � Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 • Smooth dual L ( M ) = c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) ⊆ • Canonical inclusion j : L ( M ) − → L pc / fc ( M ) − → Sol ( M )[1] id ⊗ j ev • Shifted Poisson structure Υ : L ( M ) ⊗ L ( M ) − → L ( M ) ⊗ Sol ( M )[1] − → R [1] (i) ∃ (unique up to homotopy) contracting homotopy G ± for L pc / fc ( M ) , e.g. Thm: − δ − d 0 δ d 0 Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 0 pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) 0 − G ± G ± − δ G ± 0 � d � � 0 0 id id id id 0 Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 0 pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) 0 0 − δ δ d − d 0 Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 10 / 13

  57. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT II ⋄ Every derived critical locus carries a [1] -shifted Poisson structure, explicitly: ( − 1) (0) (1) (2) − δ − d � δ d � Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 • Smooth dual L ( M ) = c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) ⊆ • Canonical inclusion j : L ( M ) − → L pc / fc ( M ) − → Sol ( M )[1] id ⊗ j ev • Shifted Poisson structure Υ : L ( M ) ⊗ L ( M ) − → L ( M ) ⊗ Sol ( M )[1] − → R [1] (i) ∃ (unique up to homotopy) contracting homotopy G ± for L pc / fc ( M ) , e.g. Thm: − δ − d 0 δ d 0 Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 0 pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) 0 − G ± G ± − δ G ± 0 � d � � 0 0 id id id id 0 Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 0 pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) 0 0 − δ δ d − d 0 (ii) j = ∂ G ± and Υ = ∂ ( something ) are exact Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 10 / 13

  58. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT II ⋄ Every derived critical locus carries a [1] -shifted Poisson structure, explicitly: ( − 1) (0) (1) (2) − δ − d � δ d � Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 • Smooth dual L ( M ) = c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) ⊆ • Canonical inclusion j : L ( M ) − → L pc / fc ( M ) − → Sol ( M )[1] id ⊗ j ev • Shifted Poisson structure Υ : L ( M ) ⊗ L ( M ) − → L ( M ) ⊗ Sol ( M )[1] − → R [1] (i) ∃ (unique up to homotopy) contracting homotopy G ± for L pc / fc ( M ) , e.g. Thm: − δ − d 0 δ d 0 Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 0 pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) 0 − G ± G ± − δ G ± 0 � d � � 0 0 id id id id 0 Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 0 pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) 0 0 − δ δ d − d 0 (ii) j = ∂ G ± and Υ = ∂ ( something ) are exact (iii) Difference G := G + − G − defines unshifted Poisson structure id ⊗G ev τ : L ( M ) ⊗ L ( M ) − → L ( M ) ⊗ Sol ( M ) − → R (unique up to homotopy τ + ∂ρ ) Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 10 / 13

  59. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT II ⋄ Every derived critical locus carries a [1] -shifted Poisson structure, explicitly: ( − 1) (0) (1) (2) − δ − d � δ d � Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 • Smooth dual L ( M ) = c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) ⊆ • Canonical inclusion j : L ( M ) − → L pc / fc ( M ) − → Sol ( M )[1] id ⊗ j ev • Shifted Poisson structure Υ : L ( M ) ⊗ L ( M ) − → L ( M ) ⊗ Sol ( M )[1] − → R [1] (i) ∃ (unique up to homotopy) contracting homotopy G ± for L pc / fc ( M ) , e.g. Thm: − δ − d 0 δ d 0 Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 0 pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) 0 − G ± G ± − δ G ± 0 � d � � 0 0 id id id id 0 Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 0 pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) 0 0 − δ δ d − d 0 (ii) j = ∂ G ± and Υ = ∂ ( something ) are exact (iii) Difference G := G + − G − defines unshifted Poisson structure id ⊗G ev τ : L ( M ) ⊗ L ( M ) − → L ( M ) ⊗ Sol ( M ) − → R (unique up to homotopy τ + ∂ρ ) (iv) Quantization CCR : PoCh R → Alg As ( Ch C ) preserves quasi-isomorphisms and homotopic Poisson structures, i.e. CCR ( V, τ + ∂ρ ) ≃ CCR ( V, τ ) Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 10 / 13

  60. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Example: Linear Yang-Mills as a homotopy AQFT II ⋄ Every derived critical locus carries a [1] -shifted Poisson structure, explicitly: ( − 1) (0) (1) (2) − δ − d � δ d � Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 • Smooth dual L ( M ) = c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) ⊆ • Canonical inclusion j : L ( M ) − → L pc / fc ( M ) − → Sol ( M )[1] id ⊗ j ev • Shifted Poisson structure Υ : L ( M ) ⊗ L ( M ) − → L ( M ) ⊗ Sol ( M )[1] − → R [1] (i) ∃ (unique up to homotopy) contracting homotopy G ± for L pc / fc ( M ) , e.g. Thm: − δ − d 0 δ d 0 Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 0 pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) 0 − G ± G ± − δ G ± 0 � d � � 0 0 id id id id 0 Ω 0 Ω 1 Ω 1 Ω 0 0 pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) pc / fc ( M ) 0 0 − δ δ d − d 0 (ii) j = ∂ G ± and Υ = ∂ ( something ) are exact (iii) Difference G := G + − G − defines unshifted Poisson structure id ⊗G ev τ : L ( M ) ⊗ L ( M ) − → L ( M ) ⊗ Sol ( M ) − → R (unique up to homotopy τ + ∂ρ ) (iv) Quantization CCR : PoCh R → Alg As ( Ch C ) preserves quasi-isomorphisms and homotopic Poisson structures, i.e. CCR ( V, τ + ∂ρ ) ≃ CCR ( V, τ ) (v) Loc ∋ M �→ A YM ( M ) := CCR ( L ( M ) , τ ) defines a homotopy AQFT Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 10 / 13

  61. � Towards descent in homotopy AQFT ⋄ The inclusion Loc ⋄ ֒ → Loc of “diamonds” defines Quillen adjunction � AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) : res ext : AQFT ∞ ( Loc ⋄ ) Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 11 / 13

  62. � Towards descent in homotopy AQFT ⋄ The inclusion Loc ⋄ ֒ → Loc of “diamonds” defines Quillen adjunction � AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) : res ext : AQFT ∞ ( Loc ⋄ ) ⋄ Homotopical descent condition: A ∈ AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) is homotopy j -local iff ∼ derived counit � ǫ A : L ext res A − → A is weak equivalence Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 11 / 13

  63. � Towards descent in homotopy AQFT ⋄ The inclusion Loc ⋄ ֒ → Loc of “diamonds” defines Quillen adjunction � AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) : res ext : AQFT ∞ ( Loc ⋄ ) ⋄ Homotopical descent condition: A ∈ AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) is homotopy j -local iff ∼ derived counit � ǫ A : L ext res A − → A is weak equivalence ⋄ Main question: Is this condition fulfilled in examples, e.g. linear Yang-Mills? Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 11 / 13

  64. � Towards descent in homotopy AQFT ⋄ The inclusion Loc ⋄ ֒ → Loc of “diamonds” defines Quillen adjunction � AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) : res ext : AQFT ∞ ( Loc ⋄ ) ⋄ Homotopical descent condition: A ∈ AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) is homotopy j -local iff ∼ derived counit � ǫ A : L ext res A − → A is weak equivalence ⋄ Main question: Is this condition fulfilled in examples, e.g. linear Yang-Mills? � Technically super (really, super!) complicated! Needs better technology for dealing with derived adjunctions, maybe ∞ -categories ` a la Joyal/Lurie? Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 11 / 13

  65. � Towards descent in homotopy AQFT ⋄ The inclusion Loc ⋄ ֒ → Loc of “diamonds” defines Quillen adjunction � AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) : res ext : AQFT ∞ ( Loc ⋄ ) ⋄ Homotopical descent condition: A ∈ AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) is homotopy j -local iff ∼ derived counit � ǫ A : L ext res A − → A is weak equivalence ⋄ Main question: Is this condition fulfilled in examples, e.g. linear Yang-Mills? � Technically super (really, super!) complicated! Needs better technology for dealing with derived adjunctions, maybe ∞ -categories ` a la Joyal/Lurie? � We can prove that simple (topological) toy-models of non-quantized gauge theories have this property! Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 11 / 13

  66. � Towards descent in homotopy AQFT ⋄ The inclusion Loc ⋄ ֒ → Loc of “diamonds” defines Quillen adjunction � AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) : res ext : AQFT ∞ ( Loc ⋄ ) ⋄ Homotopical descent condition: A ∈ AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) is homotopy j -local iff ∼ derived counit � ǫ A : L ext res A − → A is weak equivalence ⋄ Main question: Is this condition fulfilled in examples, e.g. linear Yang-Mills? � Technically super (really, super!) complicated! Needs better technology for dealing with derived adjunctions, maybe ∞ -categories ` a la Joyal/Lurie? � We can prove that simple (topological) toy-models of non-quantized gauge theories have this property! But already this requires heavy machinery, given by the following theorem based on Lurie’s Seifert-van Kampen Theorem Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 11 / 13

  67. � Towards descent in homotopy AQFT ⋄ The inclusion Loc ⋄ ֒ → Loc of “diamonds” defines Quillen adjunction � AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) : res ext : AQFT ∞ ( Loc ⋄ ) ⋄ Homotopical descent condition: A ∈ AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) is homotopy j -local iff ∼ derived counit � ǫ A : L ext res A − → A is weak equivalence ⋄ Main question: Is this condition fulfilled in examples, e.g. linear Yang-Mills? � Technically super (really, super!) complicated! Needs better technology for dealing with derived adjunctions, maybe ∞ -categories ` a la Joyal/Lurie? � We can prove that simple (topological) toy-models of non-quantized gauge theories have this property! But already this requires heavy machinery, given by the following theorem based on Lurie’s Seifert-van Kampen Theorem Thm: Let Man m be category of oriented m -manifolds and j : Disk m → Man m the full subcategory of m -disks. Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 11 / 13

  68. � Towards descent in homotopy AQFT ⋄ The inclusion Loc ⋄ ֒ → Loc of “diamonds” defines Quillen adjunction � AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) : res ext : AQFT ∞ ( Loc ⋄ ) ⋄ Homotopical descent condition: A ∈ AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) is homotopy j -local iff ∼ derived counit � ǫ A : L ext res A − → A is weak equivalence ⋄ Main question: Is this condition fulfilled in examples, e.g. linear Yang-Mills? � Technically super (really, super!) complicated! Needs better technology for dealing with derived adjunctions, maybe ∞ -categories ` a la Joyal/Lurie? � We can prove that simple (topological) toy-models of non-quantized gauge theories have this property! But already this requires heavy machinery, given by the following theorem based on Lurie’s Seifert-van Kampen Theorem Thm: Let Man m be category of oriented m -manifolds and j : Disk m → Man m the full subcategory of m -disks. Let A : Disk m → Alg E ∞ ( Ch K ) be functor that is weakly equivalent to a constant functor with value A ∈ Alg E ∞ ( Ch K ) . Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 11 / 13

  69. � Towards descent in homotopy AQFT ⋄ The inclusion Loc ⋄ ֒ → Loc of “diamonds” defines Quillen adjunction � AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) : res ext : AQFT ∞ ( Loc ⋄ ) ⋄ Homotopical descent condition: A ∈ AQFT ∞ ( Loc ) is homotopy j -local iff ∼ derived counit � ǫ A : L ext res A − → A is weak equivalence ⋄ Main question: Is this condition fulfilled in examples, e.g. linear Yang-Mills? � Technically super (really, super!) complicated! Needs better technology for dealing with derived adjunctions, maybe ∞ -categories ` a la Joyal/Lurie? � We can prove that simple (topological) toy-models of non-quantized gauge theories have this property! But already this requires heavy machinery, given by the following theorem based on Lurie’s Seifert-van Kampen Theorem Thm: Let Man m be category of oriented m -manifolds and j : Disk m → Man m the full subcategory of m -disks. Let A : Disk m → Alg E ∞ ( Ch K ) be functor that is weakly equivalent to a constant functor with value A ∈ Alg E ∞ ( Ch K ) . L Then the derived extension L j ! A ( M ) = Sing( M ) ⊗ A at M ∈ Man m is given by derived higher Hochschild chains on Sing( M ) with values in A . Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 11 / 13

  70. � � Toy-model: R -Chern-Simons theory on 2 -surfaces ⋄ Linear observables for flat R -connections on oriented 2 -manifold M are � � ( − 1) (0) (1) d d L ( M ) = Ω • Ω 2 Ω 1 Ω 0 c ( M )[1] = c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 12 / 13

  71. � � Toy-model: R -Chern-Simons theory on 2 -surfaces ⋄ Linear observables for flat R -connections on oriented 2 -manifold M are � � ( − 1) (0) (1) d d L ( M ) = Ω • Ω 2 Ω 1 Ω 0 c ( M )[1] = c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) � � max ) ∼ ⋄ Define A ∈ AQFT ∞ ( Man 2 = Fun Man 2 , Alg E ∞ ( Ch K ) by � � A ( M ) = E ∞ L ( M ) [No quantization here!] Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 12 / 13

  72. � � Toy-model: R -Chern-Simons theory on 2 -surfaces ⋄ Linear observables for flat R -connections on oriented 2 -manifold M are � � ( − 1) (0) (1) d d L ( M ) = Ω • Ω 2 Ω 1 Ω 0 c ( M )[1] = c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) � � max ) ∼ ⋄ Define A ∈ AQFT ∞ ( Man 2 = Fun Man 2 , Alg E ∞ ( Ch K ) by � � A ( M ) = E ∞ L ( M ) [No quantization here!] ⋄ Restriction j ∗ A to 2 -disks is weakly equivalent to constant functor with value � U : Ω • E ∞ ( R [ − 1]) because c ( U )[1] → R [ − 1] is quasi-iso, for all U ∈ Disk 2 Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 12 / 13

  73. � � Toy-model: R -Chern-Simons theory on 2 -surfaces ⋄ Linear observables for flat R -connections on oriented 2 -manifold M are � � ( − 1) (0) (1) d d L ( M ) = Ω • Ω 2 Ω 1 Ω 0 c ( M )[1] = c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) � � max ) ∼ ⋄ Define A ∈ AQFT ∞ ( Man 2 = Fun Man 2 , Alg E ∞ ( Ch K ) by � � A ( M ) = E ∞ L ( M ) [No quantization here!] ⋄ Restriction j ∗ A to 2 -disks is weakly equivalent to constant functor with value � U : Ω • E ∞ ( R [ − 1]) because c ( U )[1] → R [ − 1] is quasi-iso, for all U ∈ Disk 2 ⋄ Compute derived extension at M ∈ Man 2 : � � � � L ( L j ! j ∗ A )( M ) ≃ Sing( M ) ⊗ E ∞ R [ − 1] ≃ Sing( M ) ⊗ E ∞ R [ − 1] Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 12 / 13

  74. � � Toy-model: R -Chern-Simons theory on 2 -surfaces ⋄ Linear observables for flat R -connections on oriented 2 -manifold M are � � ( − 1) (0) (1) d d L ( M ) = Ω • Ω 2 Ω 1 Ω 0 c ( M )[1] = c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) � � max ) ∼ ⋄ Define A ∈ AQFT ∞ ( Man 2 = Fun Man 2 , Alg E ∞ ( Ch K ) by � � A ( M ) = E ∞ L ( M ) [No quantization here!] ⋄ Restriction j ∗ A to 2 -disks is weakly equivalent to constant functor with value � U : Ω • E ∞ ( R [ − 1]) because c ( U )[1] → R [ − 1] is quasi-iso, for all U ∈ Disk 2 ⋄ Compute derived extension at M ∈ Man 2 : � � � � L ( L j ! j ∗ A )( M ) ≃ Sing( M ) ⊗ E ∞ R [ − 1] ≃ Sing( M ) ⊗ E ∞ R [ − 1] � � [Fresse] ≃ N ∗ (Sing( M ) , R ) ⊗ R [ − 1] E ∞ Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 12 / 13

  75. � � Toy-model: R -Chern-Simons theory on 2 -surfaces ⋄ Linear observables for flat R -connections on oriented 2 -manifold M are � � ( − 1) (0) (1) d d L ( M ) = Ω • Ω 2 Ω 1 Ω 0 c ( M )[1] = c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) � � max ) ∼ ⋄ Define A ∈ AQFT ∞ ( Man 2 = Fun Man 2 , Alg E ∞ ( Ch K ) by � � A ( M ) = E ∞ L ( M ) [No quantization here!] ⋄ Restriction j ∗ A to 2 -disks is weakly equivalent to constant functor with value � U : Ω • E ∞ ( R [ − 1]) because c ( U )[1] → R [ − 1] is quasi-iso, for all U ∈ Disk 2 ⋄ Compute derived extension at M ∈ Man 2 : � � � � L ( L j ! j ∗ A )( M ) ≃ Sing( M ) ⊗ E ∞ R [ − 1] ≃ Sing( M ) ⊗ E ∞ R [ − 1] � � [Fresse] ≃ N ∗ (Sing( M ) , R ) ⊗ R [ − 1] E ∞ � � [de Rham] Ω • ≃ c ( M )[1] = A ( M ) E ∞ Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 12 / 13

  76. � � Toy-model: R -Chern-Simons theory on 2 -surfaces ⋄ Linear observables for flat R -connections on oriented 2 -manifold M are � � ( − 1) (0) (1) d d L ( M ) = Ω • Ω 2 Ω 1 Ω 0 c ( M )[1] = c ( M ) c ( M ) c ( M ) � � max ) ∼ ⋄ Define A ∈ AQFT ∞ ( Man 2 = Fun Man 2 , Alg E ∞ ( Ch K ) by � � A ( M ) = E ∞ L ( M ) [No quantization here!] ⋄ Restriction j ∗ A to 2 -disks is weakly equivalent to constant functor with value � U : Ω • E ∞ ( R [ − 1]) because c ( U )[1] → R [ − 1] is quasi-iso, for all U ∈ Disk 2 ⋄ Compute derived extension at M ∈ Man 2 : � � � � L ( L j ! j ∗ A )( M ) ≃ Sing( M ) ⊗ E ∞ R [ − 1] ≃ Sing( M ) ⊗ E ∞ R [ − 1] � � [Fresse] ≃ N ∗ (Sing( M ) , R ) ⊗ R [ − 1] E ∞ � � [de Rham] Ω • ≃ c ( M )[1] = A ( M ) E ∞ max → Man 2 max ⇒ This toy-model is homotopy j -local for j : Disk 2 Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 12 / 13

  77. Conclusions and outlook ⋄ Describing gauge theories requires higher categorical structures, in particular stacks and derived stacks Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 13 / 13

  78. Conclusions and outlook ⋄ Describing gauge theories requires higher categorical structures, in particular stacks and derived stacks ⋄ Shadows of such structures are well-known in physics under the name BRST/BV formalism Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 13 / 13

  79. Conclusions and outlook ⋄ Describing gauge theories requires higher categorical structures, in particular stacks and derived stacks ⋄ Shadows of such structures are well-known in physics under the name BRST/BV formalism ⋄ The homotopical AQFT program that I initiated with M. Benini aims to introduce the relevant higher algebraic structures into AQFT Alexander Schenkel ∞ AQFT York 19 13 / 13

Recommend

The impact of the algebraic approach on perturbative quantum field theory Klaus Fredenhagen II.

The impact of the algebraic approach on perturbative quantum field theory Klaus Fredenhagen II.

Introduction Algebraic structure of perturbative renormalization Adiabatic limit Conclusions and Outlook The impact of the algebraic approach on perturbative quantum field theory Klaus Fredenhagen II. Institut f ur Theoretische Physik,

845 views • 29 slides
Categorical Operator Algebraic Foundations of Relational Quantum Theory Paolo Bertozzini

Categorical Operator Algebraic Foundations of Relational Quantum Theory Paolo Bertozzini

Relational Quantum Theory - Banckground Quantum Correlations (Quantum) Higher Categories Relational Spectral Space-Time . . . Categorical Operator Algebraic Foundations of Relational Quantum Theory Paolo Bertozzini Department of Mathematics

717 views • 54 slides
Perturbative algebraic quantum field theory Klaus Fredenhagen Katarzyna Rejzner

Perturbative algebraic quantum field theory Klaus Fredenhagen Katarzyna Rejzner

Perturbative algebraic quantum field theory Klaus Fredenhagen Katarzyna Rejzner arXiv:1208.1428v2 [math-ph] 27 Feb 2013 II Inst. f. Theoretische Physik, Department of Mathematics, Universitt Hamburg, University of Rome Tor Vergata

904 views • 42 slides
Algebraic Structures in Double and Exceptional Field Theory Olaf Hohm O.H, Zwiebach,

Algebraic Structures in Double and Exceptional Field Theory Olaf Hohm O.H, Zwiebach,

Algebraic Structures in Double and Exceptional Field Theory Olaf Hohm O.H, Zwiebach, 1701.08824 O.H., Kupriyanov, L ust, Traube, 1709.10004 O.H., Samtleben, 1707.06693 & to appear O.H., work in progress Centro Atomico

314 views • 13 slides
Algebraic (and Diagrammatic) Structures in Quantum Theory Aleks Kissinger Institute for

Algebraic (and Diagrammatic) Structures in Quantum Theory Aleks Kissinger Institute for

Algebraic (and Diagrammatic) Structures in Quantum Theory Aleks Kissinger Institute for Computing and Information Sciences Radboud University Nijmegen Quantum Software in NL 2017 Aleks Kissinger Quantum Software in NL 2017 Diagrammatic

653 views • 39 slides
Chiral Quantum Cloning Representation theory, spectral invariants and symmetries in

Chiral Quantum Cloning Representation theory, spectral invariants and symmetries in

Chiral Quantum Cloning Representation theory, spectral invariants and symmetries in algebraic conformal quantum field theory Karl-Henning Rehren Institut f ur Theoretische Physik, Universit at G ottingen Mathematics

478 views • 34 slides
Group field theory: a quantum field theory for the atoms of space Daniele Oriti Albert

Group field theory: a quantum field theory for the atoms of space Daniele Oriti Albert

Group field theory: a quantum field theory for the atoms of space Daniele Oriti Albert Einstein Institute Conference Frontiers in Fundamental Physics XIV Workshop on Quantum Gravity Marseille 17/07/2014

2.01k views • 181 slides
Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer John Preskill Lattice 2018 28 July 2018

Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer John Preskill Lattice 2018 28 July 2018

Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer John Preskill Lattice 2018 28 July 2018 This talk has two parts (1) Near-term prospects for quantum computing. (2) Opportunities in quantum simulation of quantum field theory. Exascale

603 views • 38 slides
Pulling Yourself Up by Your Bootstraps in Quantum Field Theory Leonardo Rastelli Yang Institute

Pulling Yourself Up by Your Bootstraps in Quantum Field Theory Leonardo Rastelli Yang Institute

Pulling Yourself Up by Your Bootstraps in Quantum Field Theory Leonardo Rastelli Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics Stony Brook University ICTP and SISSA Trieste, April 3 2019 Quantum Field Theory in Fundamental Physics Local quantum

501 views • 26 slides
Axiomatic Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime Robert M. Wald (based on work with Stefan

Axiomatic Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime Robert M. Wald (based on work with Stefan

Axiomatic Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime Robert M. Wald (based on work with Stefan Hollands: arXiv:0803.2003; to appear in Commun. Math. Phys.) Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime Quantum field theory in curved spacetime (QFTCS)

409 views • 36 slides
Higher-order amalgamation of algebraic structures David Milovich http://dkmj.org Welkin

Higher-order amalgamation of algebraic structures David Milovich http://dkmj.org Welkin

Higher-order amalgamation of algebraic structures David Milovich http://dkmj.org Welkin Sciences Colorado Springs, CO UCCS Algebra Seminar Nov. 7, 2018 0 / 15 Overlapping structures Below are two overlapping group multiplication tables, G 1

514 views • 16 slides
A Novel Algebraic Geometry Compiling Framework for Adiabatic Quantum Computation Raouf Dridi 1

A Novel Algebraic Geometry Compiling Framework for Adiabatic Quantum Computation Raouf Dridi 1

Algebraic geometry in optimization Algebraic geometry for Graph Minor Theory Applications A Novel Algebraic Geometry Compiling Framework for Adiabatic Quantum Computation Raouf Dridi 1 Hedayat Alghassi 1 Sridhar Tayur 1 1 Quantum Computing

548 views • 51 slides
Homotopy Type Theory and Algebraic Model Structures (II) Christian Sattler School of Mathematics

Homotopy Type Theory and Algebraic Model Structures (II) Christian Sattler School of Mathematics

Homotopy Type Theory and Algebraic Model Structures (II) Christian Sattler School of Mathematics University of Leeds Topologie Alg ebrique et Applications Paris, 2nd December 2016 1 Current status Last talk: (1) algebraic weak

330 views • 32 slides
Higher Spins, Holography and String Theory 7th Mathematical Physics Meeting IOP Belgrade,

Higher Spins, Holography and String Theory 7th Mathematical Physics Meeting IOP Belgrade,

Higher Spins, Holography and String Theory 7th Mathematical Physics Meeting IOP Belgrade, September 2012 Dimitri Polyakov Center for Quantum Space-Time (CQUeST) and Sogang University, Seoul 1 Higher Spin Field Theories have been one of

1.02k views • 45 slides
The Self-Dual String and the (2,0)-Theory from Higher Structures Christian Smann School of

The Self-Dual String and the (2,0)-Theory from Higher Structures Christian Smann School of

The Self-Dual String and the (2,0)-Theory from Higher Structures Christian Smann School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh Higher Structures Lisbon 2017, 24.7.2017 Based on: CS & L Schmidt,

564 views • 28 slides
Lecture 7 Algebraic Structures (Groups, Rings, Fields) and Some Basic Number Theory Read:

Lecture 7 Algebraic Structures (Groups, Rings, Fields) and Some Basic Number Theory Read:

Lecture 7 Algebraic Structures (Groups, Rings, Fields) and Some Basic Number Theory Read: Chapter 7 and 8 in KPS [lecture slides are adapted from previous slides by Prof. Gene Tsudik] 1 Finite Algebraic Structures Groups Abelian

450 views • 27 slides
Some Algebraic Structures Here are some algebraic structures we will study this year : Rings

Some Algebraic Structures Here are some algebraic structures we will study this year : Rings

Some Algebraic Structures Here are some algebraic structures we will study this year : Rings Fields Groups Vector Spaces (in more details) Modules Rings Perhaps the most familiar algebraic structure is rings . Rings have two

243 views • 8 slides
Pseudo-analytic structures: model theory and algebraic geometry B. Zilber University of Oxford

Pseudo-analytic structures: model theory and algebraic geometry B. Zilber University of Oxford

Pseudo-analytic structures: model theory and algebraic geometry B. Zilber University of Oxford Manchester 2012 Strongly minimal structures. Examples (1) Trivial G -set M = { M , g } g G , for G a group acting on M "in a nice

329 views • 21 slides
Double Field Theory, String Field Theory and T -Duality CMH & Barton Zwiebach What is

Double Field Theory, String Field Theory and T -Duality CMH & Barton Zwiebach What is

Double Field Theory, String Field Theory and T -Duality CMH & Barton Zwiebach What is string theory? Supergravity limit - misses stringy features Winding modes, T -duality, cocycles, algebraic structure not Lie algebra,... On

431 views • 22 slides
From Quantum Cellular Automata to Quantum Field Theory Alessandro Bisio Frontiers of Fundamental

From Quantum Cellular Automata to Quantum Field Theory Alessandro Bisio Frontiers of Fundamental

From Quantum Cellular Automata to Quantum Field Theory Alessandro Bisio Frontiers of Fundamental Physics Marseille, July 15-18th 2014 in collaboration with Giacomo Mauro DAriano o University of Pavia Paolo Perinotti QUIT group

912 views • 42 slides
THE QUANTUM CHALLENGE IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE AND DECISION THEORY SCIENCE AND DECISION THEORY

THE QUANTUM CHALLENGE IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE AND DECISION THEORY SCIENCE AND DECISION THEORY

Brussels, Belgium, November 30, 2013 WHITHER QUANTUM STRUCTURES? QUANTUM LOGIC IN THE 21TH CENTURY THE QUANTUM CHALLENGE IN COGNITIVE SCIENCE AND DECISION THEORY SCIENCE AND DECISION THEORY SANDRO SOZZO (WITH D. AERTS) CENTER LEO APOSTEL

612 views • 28 slides
Entanglement Measures in Quantum Field Theory S. Hollands based on joint work with K Sanders

Entanglement Measures in Quantum Field Theory S. Hollands based on joint work with K Sanders

arXiv:1702.04924 [quant-ph] Entanglement Measures in Quantum Field Theory S. Hollands based on joint work with K Sanders Advances in Mathematics and Theoretical Physics Academia Lincei, Rome September 2017 What is different in quantum theory?

376 views • 37 slides
Quantum Quench in Conformal Field Theory from a General Short-Ranged State John Cardy University

Quantum Quench in Conformal Field Theory from a General Short-Ranged State John Cardy University

Quantum Quench in Conformal Field Theory from a General Short-Ranged State John Cardy University of Oxford GGI, Florence, May 2012 Quantum Quench in Conformal Field Theory (Global) Quantum Quench prepare an extended system at time t = 0 in a

961 views • 20 slides
About the course From the CSE catalog: CSE 321 Discrete Structures (4) CSE 321 Discrete

About the course From the CSE catalog: CSE 321 Discrete Structures (4) CSE 321 Discrete

About the course From the CSE catalog: CSE 321 Discrete Structures (4) CSE 321 Discrete Structures Fundamentals of set theory, graph theory, enumeration, and algebraic structures, with applications in computing. Prerequisite: CSE

214 views • 3 slides

More recommend