Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Zero Modes on the Light Front

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Zero modes are the missing piece in light-front quantization.

desk verdict An honest, readable survey of zero modes in light-front quantization; the advertised resolution of the phi^4_2 discrepancy is a research program whose key calculation is still open. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01775 v2 pith:OL7YC3ZS submitted 2025-02-03 hep-th hep-ph

S.S. Chabysheva , J.R. Hiller This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-ph
keywords light-frontquantizationzeromodesephemeralvacuumstructurecriticalcouplingphi^4theorytadpolesdiscretizedlight-cone
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Light-front quantization usually begins by assuming the Fock vacuum is the true vacuum and discarding zero longitudinal-momentum modes. This paper argues that this assumption is the root of a real discrepancy: equal-time and light-front calculations of the critical coupling in two-dimensional $φ^{4}$ theory disagree by several $\sigma$, and the gap traces to missing vacuum-to-vacuum transitions (tadpoles and vacuum bubbles) that only zero modes can supply. The authors propose a concrete way to put those transitions back, entirely within light-front quantization, by regulating momentum-conserving delta functions with a narrow width and solving for the vacuum as a Fock-state expansion in near-zero 'ephemeral' modes. If the construction works, the light-front vacuum is nontrivial and light-front results can match equal-time results, including the critical coupling, without importing external input.

What carries the argument

The central object is the regulated delta function δ_ε, a model of width ε (exponential, Gaussian, or step, Eq. 45) that replaces the exact delta functions in the Hamiltonian's creation-only and annihilation-only terms, admitting near-zero-momentum 'ephemeral modes' that would otherwise be excluded. The load-bearing ansatz is the Fock-state expansion of the vacuum (Eq. 46) whose wave functions have the singular momentum dependence ψ_n ∝ 1/(√∏p_i Σ 1/p_i), extrapolated from the perturbative two-body solution; this makes the endpoint integrals finite. The machinery converts the vacuum problem into a dimensionless eigenvalue system (Eqs. 53 for free theory, 74-77 for $φ^{4}$) with regulator dependence isolated in the function γ(y). The claim is that γ-dependence cancels from physical quantities, leaving a finite vacuum-energy density and physical states built on the nontrivial vacuum after the regulator is removed.

What would settle it

Solve the coupled vacuum and physical-state equations (74)-(77) for $φ^{4}$_1+1 with two different regulator models from Eq. (45), and extract the dimensionless critical coupling after vacuum subtraction: if the two extrapolations to ε→0 disagree with each other or with the equal-time value (roughly 2.5-2.8 in Table 1), the claim of regulator-independent equivalence fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that zero modes are not a peripheral technical nuisance but a necessary part of light-front field theory: 'complete consistency with equal-time calculations cannot be achieved without zero modes' (Section 4). The missing physics is the possibility of vacuum-to-vacuum transitions. Although the positivity of longitudinal momentum seems to forbid them, the paper shows that matrix elements of purely creation or purely annihilation operators between Fock states are finite and nonzero because of endpoint singularities in the wave functions, and that the momentum-conserving delta function must not be imposed until after the operators have produced an ordinary integrand. With delta functions replaced by a regulated model δ_ε, the vacuum is expanded in ephemeral modes and the resulting coupled equations (74)-(77) include tadpoles and vacuum bubbles. After vacuum subtraction and the ε→0 limit, physical quantities are asserted to be regulator-independent; the paper leaves the explicit solution of these equations as open work.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the claim that physical results are independent of the choice of regulator model once the epsilon-to-zero limit is taken and the vacuum energy is subtracted, a claim that relies on the extrapolated Fock-state vacuum ansatz (Eq. 46) and on convergence of the coupled equations (74)-(77), neither of which is demonstrated here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Light-front calculations that include ephemeral modes can reproduce the equal-time value of the critical coupling in φ^4_1+1, closing the gap shown in Table 1.
  • The light-front vacuum is nontrivial; even the free-scalar vacuum has a bubble contribution proportional to δ(0), which is regularized, subtracted, and yields a finite vacuum energy density.
  • Tadpole contributions that alter mass renormalization can be computed strictly within light-front quantization, rather than borrowed from equal-time theory as in earlier work.
  • DLCQ calculations should incorporate effective interactions derived from the zero-mode constraint, including loop effects near double endpoints, to correct the trapezoidal-rule endpoint errors.
  • Spontaneous symmetry breaking in φ^4 theory can be realized through zero-mode solutions of the constraint equation, though at present the critical exponent comes out at the mean-field value rather than 1/8.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct numerical test of the construction is to compute the mass spectrum of φ^4_1+1 with two different δ_ε models (exponential and step) and check that physical masses converge as ε→0; the paper does not report such a calculation.
  • If regulator independence holds, the same ephemeral-mode framework could supply a light-front description of condensates and twist-3 parton distributions, phenomena that are usually cited as requiring a nontrivial vacuum.
  • The argument suggests that other apparent discrepancies between light-front and equal-time results—not just the critical coupling—may trace to omitted vacuum-to-vacuum transitions rather than to an inherent inequivalence of the two quantizations.
  • Because the endpoint integrals are singular but integrable, the practical implementation will likely require adaptive Monte Carlo evaluation, which the paper notes but does not carry out.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a review of zero-mode effects in light-front quantization, with a focus on two-dimensional φ^4 theory. The authors survey the DLCQ constraint-equation approach, discuss zero-mode loop corrections, and then develop a proposal in which vacuum-to-vacuum transitions are retained by replacing delta functions with a regulated model δ_ε, introducing what they call 'ephemeral modes.' They derive the free-scalar vacuum energy at one loop, show that a shifted scalar field is properly recovered, and write down coupled equations for the vacuum coefficients and physical-state wave functions in φ^4 theory. The abstract claims that the long-standing discrepancy between equal-time and light-front critical couplings can be resolved with this mechanism, while Section 4 acknowledges that key calculations remain to be done.

Significance. The paper provides a useful and readable survey of a subtle subject, and it correctly emphasizes that the standard neglect of zero modes is an assumption rather than a theorem. The free-scalar one-loop bubble calculation in Sec. 3.1 is a clean, self-contained demonstration, and the shifted-scalar argument in Sec. 3.2 is a nice consistency check. The proposal to retain P^-_04 and P^-_40 with a regulated delta function is a concrete, falsifiable research program: if the coupled equations (74) and (77) can be solved and shown to yield regulator-independent masses after vacuum subtraction, the critical-coupling discrepancy would indeed be addressed. However, as the paper itself acknowledges in Sec. 4, those solutions are not yet available, so the advertised resolution remains a conjecture rather than an established result.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, after Eq. (45)] The sentence 'results for physical states will not [be model dependent]' is an assertion, not a demonstrated fact. The regulator δ_ε enters the vacuum equations (50) and the physical-state equations (77), and the subtraction of P^-_vac(λ) is formal. No proof or numerical evidence is offered that the limit ε→0 after subtraction is independent of the choice among the three models in Eq. (45). Because the central claim of the paper depends on this regulator independence, this gap is load-bearing. The authors should either provide a demonstration (e.g., an explicit low-order calculation showing cancellation for two different models) or clearly label the statement as a conjecture.
  2. [Eq. (46) and Sec. 4] The vacuum ansatz in Eq. (46) assumes a specific momentum dependence for all n, 'extrapolated from the perturbative solution for ψ(2)' (text after Eq. (46)). No argument is given that this form survives in the interacting theory or that the infinite coupled system (74) converges. Section 4 states that solutions of Eqs. (74) and (77) are 'calculations still to be done.' Consequently, the paper does not yet establish the resolution of the critical-coupling discrepancy announced in the Abstract. This is a major gap: at minimum, the Abstract and Section 4 should be reworded to present the resolution as a testable proposal rather than a demonstrated result.
  3. [Sec. 3.3, Eqs. (74)-(77)] The physical-state equation (77) includes mixing between physical and ephemeral modes via the wave-function endpoint behavior (78), but the coupled system is not solved. The paper shows only a low-order perturbative tadpole contribution (Eq. (82)) that is finite. Without a nonperturbative solution or a controlled approximation, there is no evidence that the mass eigenvalues M^2 are finite and regulator-independent after vacuum subtraction. This is the specific point on which the stress-test concern lands, and it is not addressed in the manuscript.
  4. [Sec. 2 and Sec. 3.3] The paper notes in Sec. 2 that previous nonperturbative DLCQ treatments of symmetry breaking in φ^4_{1+1} yield a mean-field critical exponent (1/2) rather than the known exact value (1/8) from Ref. [44]. If the proposed ephemeral-mode mechanism is to resolve the critical-coupling discrepancy, it must eventually reproduce the correct critical behavior, not just the mean-field result. The manuscript does not provide any test of the proposal against this exact benchmark, which is a concrete correctness risk given the extrapolation difficulties near the critical coupling mentioned in Sec. 1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References, [31]] Reference [31] bundles three distinct papers by Burkardt into a single entry; please separate them for clarity.
  2. [Footnotes 9 and 13] The definition of the light-front spatial coordinate x^- is given as (t-z)/√2 in Section 2 and as t-z in Section 3; while the inconsistency is noted, a brief comment that the conventions do not affect the final results would help the reader.
  3. [Sec. 1, Eq. (1)] The matrix element notation ⟨0|φ^2_2|0⟩ is introduced without defining the subscript 2 on the field; if it denotes the two-dimensional field or a specific mode, this should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Sec. 3.3] The notation P^-_{04}, P^-_{40}, P^-_{22}, etc., is defined in Sec. 3.1 but used again in Sec. 3.3 without a reminder; a one-line restatement would improve readability.
  5. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (60)] The operator B in Eq. (60) is not Hermitian in the regulated theory because δ_ε(p) is real but the integral is over p>0; the conjugation used in Eq. (64) is correct, but the point may deserve a clarifying remark.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the central resolution claim is a deferred research program, not an output forced by its inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not present a derivation in which an output is equivalent to an input. Its central claim, that zero/near-zero modes can resolve the equal-time versus light-front critical-coupling discrepancy, is explicitly framed as a program rather than a completed result: the abstract says the discrepancy 'would appear to be resolvable', Section 4 states that 'there are various calculations still to be done', and the vacuum ansatz (46) is explicitly 'extrapolated from the perturbative solution for ψ(2)' rather than derived from the interacting dynamics. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction here; the coefficient systems (74) and (77) are written down but not solved, and the paper itself calls the needed solutions future work. The principal self-referential element is the reliance on the authors' own prior work, especially [27] for the 'fundamental reinterpretation' of light-front Hamiltonians and [16] for the earlier tadpole-based resolution of the critical-coupling disagreement. That is a citation chain, not a circular reduction: the present paper claims no numerical or analytic output from its own equations that would reduce to an input by construction. The discussion is anchored to external benchmarks such as the equal-time Table 1 values and the exact Simon-Griffiths critical exponent 1/8. The assertion after Eq. (45) that 'results for physical states will not' be model dependent is unproven, and the convergence or regulator independence of the coupled systems (74) and (77) is not demonstrated; those are correctness and completeness risks, not circularity. Similarly, the Section 4 statement that 'complete consistency with equal-time calculations cannot be achieved without zero modes' is a programmatic position resting substantially on the authors' own formalism, but because no result is actually derived from that formalism in this paper, the circularity score remains low. The paper is best read as a survey and proposal with open calculational gaps, not as a derivation whose conclusion is presupposed.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central framework rests on three ad hoc ingredients: the regulated delta function, the extrapolated vacuum wave-function ansatz, and the claimed regulator independence of physical results. The paper also assumes standard light-front quantization machinery and uses external exact results as benchmarks. No fitted parameters appear; the regulator width and model choice are free but intended to be removed.

free parameters (2)
  • regulator width epsilon
    Introduced in Section 3.1 to regulate delta-function-squared divergences from vacuum bubbles. Several models for delta_epsilon are studied, and physical results are claimed to be independent of this width in the epsilon-to-zero limit.
  • model choice for delta_epsilon = exponential, Gaussian, step (Eq. 45)
    The specific form of the regulated delta function is chosen ad hoc. The paper argues that many intermediate quantities are model dependent but physical results are not, an assertion that is central to the approach.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard light-front mode expansion and commutation relations for a scalar field on the null plane (Section 3.1, Eqs. 25-26).
    Invoked to define the Hamiltonian and Fock states in the continuum formulation.
  • ad hoc to paper The LF vacuum can be expanded in a Fock basis of ephemeral modes with the wave-function form extrapolated from the perturbative result (Eq. 46).
    This ansatz is not derived; it is chosen to give finite normalization integrals and is a load-bearing ingredient of the proposed vacuum solution.
  • ad hoc to paper Physical results are independent of the regulator model and the epsilon-to-zero limit can be taken after vacuum subtraction (Section 3.1, after Eq. 45).
    Asserted but not proved; this is the weakest premise for the proposed framework.
  • domain assumption The exact critical coupling and critical exponent of phi^4_2 from the external literature (Simon and Griffiths) are used as benchmarks.
    Used to test zero-mode approaches; cited from [44] as ground truth.
  • standard math The half-delta-function identity integral_0^infinity delta(Q) dQ = 1/2 (Section 3.1) and standard distribution theory.
    Used to evaluate vacuum-bubble integrals and relate regulator width to volume.
invented entities (1)
  • ephemeral modes
    purpose: Near-zero-momentum modes introduced by replacing delta(p) with a regulated delta_epsilon(p) in non-Fock-conserving Hamiltonian terms, to include vacuum-to-vacuum transitions and tadpoles.
    No falsifiable handle is provided outside the paper; they are removed as epsilon goes to zero. The regulator is a bookkeeping device, not an observed degree of freedom.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zero Modes on the Light Front." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OL7YC3ZS

@misc{pith2026250201775,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zero Modes on the Light Front},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OL7YC3ZS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01775}
}
abstract

Modes with zero longitudinal light-front momentum (zero modes) do have roles to play in the analysis of light-front field theories. These range from improvements in convergence for numerical calculations to implications for the light-front vacuum and beyond to fundamental issues in the connection with equal-time quantization. In particular, the discrepancy in values of the critical coupling for $\phi^4_{1+1}$ theory, between equal-time and light-front quantizations, would appear to be resolvable with the proper treatment of zero modes and near-zero modes. We provide a survey of these issues and point to open questions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Chabysheva, S.S., Hiller, J.R.: Tadpoles and vacuum bubbles in light- front quantization. Phys. Rev. D 105, 116006 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [30]

    Chabysheva, S.S., Hiller, J.R.: Transitioning from equal-time to light -front quantization in φ4 2 theory. Phys. Rev. D 102, 116010 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [42]

    Chabysheva, S.S., Hiller, J.R.: Zero momentum modes in discrete ligh t-cone quantization. Phys. Rev. D 79, 096012 (2009)

    work page 2009

  4. [44]

    Simon, B., and Griffiths, R.B.: The φ4 2 field theory as a classical ising model. Commun. Math. Phys. 33, 145-164 (1973)

    work page 1973

  5. [1]

    Dirac, P.A.M.: Forms of relativistic dynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 392-399 (1949) 21

    work page 1949

  6. [2]

    Brodsky, S.J., Pauli, H.-C., Pinsky, S.S.: Quantum chromodynamics a nd other field theories on the light cone. Phys. Rep. 301, 299-486 (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [3]

    Carbonell, J., Desplanques, B., Karmanov, V.A., Mathiot, J.F.: Explic itly covari- ant light front dynamics and relativistic few body systems. Phys. Re p. 300, 215-347 (1998)

    work page 1998

  8. [4]

    Miller, G.A.: Light front quantization: A technique for relativistic an d realistic nuclear physics. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 45, 83-155 (2000)

    work page 2000

Show all 58 references
  1. [5]

    Heinzl, T.: Light cone quantization: Foundations and applications. Lect. Notes Phys. 572, 55-142 (2001)

    2001

  2. [6]

    Burkardt, M.: Light front quantization, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 23, 1-74 (2002)

    2002

  3. [7]

    Hiller, J.R.: Nonperturbative light-front Hamiltonian methods. Pro g. Part. Nucl. Phys. 90, 75-124 (2016)

    2016

  4. [8]

    Burkardt, M., Lenz, F., Thies, M.: Chiral condensate and short t ime evolution of QCD(1+1) on the light cone. Phys. Rev. D 65, 125002 (2002) Lenz, F., Ohta, K., Thies, M., Yazaki, K.: Chiral symmetry in light cone fi eld theory. Phys. Rev. D 70, 025015 (2004) Beane, S.R.: Broke...

    2002

  5. [9]

    Heinzl, T., Krusche, S., Werner, E.: Spontaneous symmetry brea king in light cone quantum field theory. Phys. Lett. B 272, 54-60 (1991) Heinzl, T., Stern, C., Werner, E., Zellermann, B.: The vacuum structu re of light frontφ4 in (1 + 1)-dimensions theory. Z. Phys. C 72, 353-364 (1996)

    1991

  6. [10]

    Robertson, D.G.: On spontaneous symmetry breaking in discret ized light cone field theory. Phys. Rev. D 47, 2549-2553 (1993) McCartor, G., Robertson, D.G.: Bosonic zero modes in discretized ligh t cone field theory. Z. Phys. C 53, 679-686 (1992)

    1993

  7. [11]

    Bender, C.M., Pinsky, S., van de Sande, B.: Spontaneous symmet ry breaking of φ4 in (1 + 1) dimensions in light front field theory. Phys. Rev. D 48, 816-821 (1993) Pinsky, S.S., van de Sande, B.: Spontaneous symmetry breaking of ( 1 + 1)- dimensional φ4 theory in light front fie...

    1993

  8. [12]

    Pinsky, S.S., van de Sande, B., Hiller, J.R.: Spontaneous symmetry breaking of (1 + 1)-dimensionalφ4 theory in light front field theory. 3. Phys. Rev. D 51, 726-733 (1995)

    1995

  9. [13]

    Tsujimaru, S., Yamawaki, K.: Zero mode and symmetry breaking o n the light front. Phys. Rev. D 57, 4942-4964 (1998) 22

    1998

  10. [14]

    Martinovic, L., Vary, J.P.: Fermionic zero modes and spontaneou s symmetry breaking on the light front. Phys. Rev. D 64, 105016 (2001) Martinovic, L.: Spontaneous symmetry breaking in light front field th eory. Phys. Rev. D 78, 105009 (2008)

    2001

  11. [15]

    Aslan, F.P., Burkardt, M.: Singularities in twist-3 quark distributio ns. Phys. Rev. D 101, 016010 (2020) Ji, X.: Fundamental Properties of the Proton in Light-Front Zero M odes. Nucl. Phys. B 960, 115181 (2020)

    2020

  12. [16]

    Burkardt, M., Chabysheva, S.S., Hiller, J.R.: Two-dimensional light -frontφ4 the- ory in a symmetric polynomial basis. Phys. Rev. D 94, 065006 (2016) Chabysheva, S.S., Hiller, J.R.: Light-front φ4 2 theory with sector-dependent mass. Phys. Rev. D 95, 096016 (2017)

    2016

  13. [17]

    Vary, J.P., Huang, M., Jawadekar, S., Sharaf, M., Harindranath , A., and Chakrabarti, D.: Critical coupling for two-dimensional φ4 theory in discretized light-cone quantization. Phys. Rev. D 105, 016020 (2022)

    2022

  14. [18]

    JHEP 1708, 056 (2017)

    Anand, N., Genest, V.X., Katz, E., Khandker, Z.U., Walters, M.T.: R G flow from φ4 theory to the 2D Ising model. JHEP 1708, 056 (2017)

    2017

  15. [19]

    Lee, D., Salwen, N.: The diagonalization of quantum field hamiltonian s. Phys. Lett. B 503, 223-235 (2001)

    2001

  16. [20]

    JHEP 05(2004), 007 (2004)

    Sugihara, T.: Density matrix renormalization group in a two-dimen sional lambda φ4 Hamiltonian lattice model. JHEP 05(2004), 007 (2004)

    2004

  17. [21]

    Schaich, D., Loinaz, W.: An improved lattice measurement of the c ritical coupling inφ4 2 theory. Phys. Rev. D 79, 056008 (2009)

    2009

  18. [22]

    Bosetti, P., De Palma, B., Guagnelli, M.: Monte Carlo determination o f the critical coupling in φ4 2 theory. Phys. Rev. D 92, 034509 (2015)

    2015

  19. [23]

    Milsted,A., Haegeman, J., Osborne, T.J.: Matrix product states a nd variational methods applied to critical quantum field theory. Phys. Rev. D 88, 085030 (2013)

    2013

  20. [24]

    Rychkov, S., Vitale, L.G.: Hamiltonian truncation study of the φ4 theory in two dimensions. Phys. Rev. D 91, 085011 (2015) Hamiltonian truncation study of the φ4 theory in two dimensions. II: The Z2-broken phase and the Chang duality. Phys. Rev. D 93, 065014 (2016)

    2015

  21. [25]

    JHEP 1808, 120 (2018)

    Fitzpatrick, A.L., Kaplan, J., Katz, E., Vitale L.G., Walters, M.T.: Ligh tcone effective Hamiltonians and RG flows. JHEP 1808, 120 (2018)

    2018

  22. [26]

    JHEP 2010, 092 (2020) 23

    Fitzpatrick, A.L., Katz, E., Walters, M.T.: Nonperturbative Matc hing Between Equal-Time and Lightcone Quantization. JHEP 2010, 092 (2020) 23

    2020

  23. [28]

    Hornbostel, K.: Nontrivial vacua from equal time to the light con e. Phys. Rev. D 45, 3781-3801 (1992)

    1992

  24. [29]

    Ji, C.-R., Mitchell, C.: Poincare invariant algebra from instant to ligh t front quantization. Phys. Rev. D 64, 085013 (2001) Ji, C.-R., Suzuki, A.T.: Interpolating scattering amplitudes between t he instant form and the front form of relativistic dynamics. Phys. Rev. D 87, 06...

    2001

  25. [31]

    Burkardt, M.: Phys. Rev. D 47, 4628 (1993) Much ado about nothing: Vacuum and renormalization in the light-fro nt framework. Nucl. Phys. A 670, 72-75 (2000) Light-front quantization of the sine-Gordon model. Phys. Rev. D 47, 4628-4633 (1993)

    1993

  26. [32]

    arXiv:2311.16290 [hep-th]

    Fitzpatrick, A.L., Katz, E., Xin, Y.: Lightcone Hamiltonian for Ising Field Theory I: T <Tc. arXiv:2311.16290 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  27. [33]

    Mannheim, P.D., Lowdon, P., Brodsky, S.J.: Structure of light fro nt vacuum sector diagrams. Phys. Lett. B 797, 134916 (2019)

    2019

  28. [34]

    Chang, S.-J., Ma, S.-K.: Feynman rules and quantum electrodyna mics at infinite momentum. Phys. Rev. 180, 1506-1513 (1969)

    1969

  29. [35]

    Yan, T.M.: Quantum field theories in the infinite momentum frame. 4 . Scattering matrix of vector and Dirac fields and perturbation theory. Phys. R ev. D 7, 1780-1800 (1973)

    1973

  30. [36]

    Mannheim, P.D.: Equivalence of light-front quantization and insta nt-time quan- tization. Phys. Rev. D 102, 025020 (2020) Mannheim, P.D., Lowdon, P., Brodsky, S.J.: Comparing light-front qua ntization with instant-time quantization. Phys. Rept. 891, 1-65 (2021)

    2020

  31. [37]

    Polyzou, W.N.: Relation between instant and light-front formulat ions of quantum field theory. Phys. Rev. D 103, 105017 (2021)

    2021

  32. [38]

    arXiv:1801.03960 [hep-ph]

    Collins, J.: The non-triviality of the vacuum in light-front quantiza tion: An elementary treatment. arXiv:1801.03960 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  33. [39]

    Martinovic, L., Dorokhov, A.: Vacuum loops in light-front field the ory. Phys. Lett. B 811, 135925 (2020) 24

    2020

  34. [40]

    Girgus, M., Glazek, S.D.: Spiral cutoff-flow of quantum quartic os cillator. Nucl. Phys. B 1010, 116776 (2025)

    2025

  35. [41]

    Pauli, H.-C., Brodsky, S.J.: Solving field theory in one space one time dimension. Phys. Rev. D 32, 1993-2000 (1985) Discretized light cone quantization: Solution to a field theory in one sp ace one time dimension. Phys. Rev. D 32, 2001-2013 (1985)

    1985

  36. [43]

    Lepage, G.P.: Adaptive multidimensional integration: VEGAS enha nced. J. Com- put. Phys. 439, 110386 (2021) A New Algorithm for Adaptive Multidimensional Integration. J. Compu t. Phys. 27, 192-203 (1978)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Maskawa, T., Yamawaki, K.: The problem of P + = 0 mode in the null plane field theory and Dirac’s method of quantization. Progr. Theor. Phys. 56, 270-283 (1976)

    1976

  38. [46]

    In: Johnson, M.B., Kisslinger, L.S

    Wittman, R.S.: Symmetry breaking in the φ4 2 theory and the light-front vacuum. In: Johnson, M.B., Kisslinger, L.S. (eds.) Nuclear and Particle Physics on the Light Cone, pp. 331-335. World Scientific, Singapore (1989)

    1989

  39. [47]

    Baym, G.: Inconsistency of cubic boson-boson interactions. P hys. Rev. 117, 886- 888 (1960)

    1960

  40. [48]

    Gross, F., Savkli, C., Tjon, J.: The stability of the scalar χ2φ interaction. Phys. Rev. D 64, 076008 (2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    Rozowsky J.S., Thorn, C.B.: Spontaneous symmetry breaking at infinite momen- tum without P + zero modes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1614-1617 (2000)

    2000

  42. [50]

    Hellerman, S., Polchinski, J.: Compactification in the lightlike limit. Phy s. Rev. D 59, 125002 (1999)

    1999

  43. [51]

    Taniguchi, M., Uehara, S., Yamada, S., Yamawaki, K.: Does DLCQ S m atrix have a covariant continuum limit?. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16, 2177-2185 (2001) Recovering Lorentz invariance of DLCQ. arXiv:hep-th/0309240 Heinzl, T.: Light-cone zero modes revisited. arXiv:hep-th/0310165

    2001 arXiv

  44. [52]

    McCartor, G.: Light cone quantization for massless fields. Z. Ph ys. C 41, 271-275 (1988) Heinzl,T., Ilderton, A., Seipt, D.: Mode truncations and scattering in s trong fields. Phys. Rev. D 98, 016002 (2018) 25

    1988

  45. [53]

    Herrmann, M., Polyzou, W.N.: Light-front vacuum. Phys. Rev. D 91, 085043 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Chabysheva S.S., Hiller, J.R.: A light-front coupled-cluster metho d for the nonperturbative solution of quantum field theories. Phys. Lett. B 711, 417-422 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    Chabysheva S.S., Hiller, J.R.: Zero modes in the light-front coupled -cluster method. Ann. Phys. 340, 188-204 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Harindranath, A., and Vary, J.P.: Variational calculation of the s pectrum of two- dimensionalφ4 theory in light-front field theory. Phys. Rev. D 37, 3010-3013 (1988)

    1988

  49. [57]

    Bartnik, E.A., Glazek, S.D.: Light-front variational approach to scalar field theories. Phys. Rev. D 39, 1249-1250 (1989)

    1989

  50. [58]

    Martinovic, L.: Non-trivial Fock vacuum of the light-front Schw inger model. Phys. Lett. B 400, 335-340 (1997) Martinovic, L., Vary, J.P.: Theta-vacuum of the bosonized massive lig ht-front Schwinger model. Phys. Lett. B 459, 186-192 (1999) Bhamre, D., Gogia, S., Misra, A.: Ca...

    1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.