Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 18 references

What is electric charge?: Charge as a local observable in relativistic quantum field theory

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that electric charge can be defined locally, as the spectrum of a finite-rank projection in the CAR algebra, giving rigorous statements of the integer charge law and charge conservation.

desk verdict A transparent, exploratory proposal for a local charge observable, but the physical interpretation is assumed rather than derived and the main new calculation is incomplete at boundary cases. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00468 v1 pith:LU5HOTML submitted 2026-08-01 quant-ph

Hideyasu Yamashita This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81T0581R15
keywords electricchargelocalobservableCARalgebraAraki-Wyssmapintegerlawconservationscope-localalgebraicquantumfieldtheory
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

The paper tackles a basic gap in relativistic quantum field theory: the total charge operator is not local, and the 4-current that might localize it is hard to define and, even in 1+1 dimensions, has continuous spectra and non-commuting components. It proposes instead that charge should be measured "in a scope"—a finite-rank projection $P$ on the one-particle space—through the operator $Q_\zeta(P)=d\Gamma(P)-\frac12\operatorname{Tr}(P)\mathbf{1}$, built from the Araki\,--\,Wyss second-quantization map. For even-rank scopes this operator has a finite integer spectrum, which the author reads as the integer charge law, and it commutes with every observable inside the scope, a local form of charge conservation. If the proposal holds, it supplies a rigorous, representation-independent way to talk about local charge without invoking currents or localized particles.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Araki\,--\,Wyss map $d\Gamma:\mathrm{FR}(V)\to\mathrm{CAR}(V)$, $K\mapsto\sum_i \Psi^*(Ke_i)\Psi(e_i)$, which sends finite-rank (and trace-class) operators on the one-particle space into gauge-invariant elements of the CAR algebra. From it the paper forms $Q_\zeta(P)=d\Gamma(P)-\frac12\operatorname{Tr}(P)\mathbf{1}$ for a finite-rank projection $P$, called a scope. This operator is central in the finite-dimensional subalgebra $\mathcal{A}_P$ generated by $\Psi^*(f)\Psi(g)$ with $f,g$ in the range of $P$, and for even-rank $P$ its spectrum is a finite set of integers; this central position plus integral spectrum is what carries the argument for charge conservation and the integer charge law.

What would settle it

One concrete check is to measure the charge in a fixed finite-rank scope and see whether the outcomes are always integers for an even-rank scope, and to measure the two-atomic-scope conditional probability $\frac14\det((1+P_1P_2)|_{\operatorname{ran}P_1})$; a persistent non-integer outcome, or a correlation that departs from this determinant formula in a controlled fermionic-mode experiment, would falsify the proposal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms: in a charged fermion theory described by a CAR $C^*$-algebra over a one-particle space $V$, neither the non-local total charge $Q=N_+-N_-$ nor the smeared current operators can serve as the local charge observable; the current route fails because of Schwinger terms, continuous spectra, and representation dependence. The paper therefore defines the scope-local charge $Q_\zeta(P)=d\Gamma(P)-\zeta(P)\mathbf{1}$ for $P$ a finite-rank projection, with $\zeta(A)=\frac12\operatorname{Tr}A$ and $d\Gamma$ the Araki\,--\,Wyss map, and adopts Working Hypotheses 2.3 and 2.4: every scope is such a projection, and scopes have even rank. Under these hypotheses the spectrum is the finite integer set $\{k\in\mathbb{Z}: |k|\le \operatorname{rank}(P)/2\}$, which is presented as a rigorous expression of the integer charge law; Lemma 2.6 shows $Q_\zeta(P)$ lies in the center of the scope algebra $\mathcal{A}_P$, which is presented as a local expression of charge conservation. A $C$-compatibility condition on $P$, paired under charge conjugation, aligns the sign of $Q_\zeta(P)$ with particle and antiparticle charge.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Working Hypotheses 2.3 and 2.4: every measurement scope is a finite-rank projection and the scope-charge operator has a finite integer spectrum; the author concedes that the empirical meaning of "scope" is not yet clear, so the identification of $Q_\zeta(P)$ with electric charge rests on an unverified postulate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any measurement of charge inside a fixed even-rank scope returns one of the integers between $-\operatorname{rank}(P)/2$ and $\operatorname{rank}(P)/2$, so the integer charge law holds locally rather than only for the unmeasurable total charge.
  • No local operation performed within the scope $P$ can change $Q_\zeta(P)$, because it commutes with all of $\mathcal{A}_P$; this gives a precise sense in which charge conservation is local.
  • Scope charges for commuting scopes commute, and in particular nested scopes $P'\le P$ have compatible charge assignments, so finer scopes can refine coarser ones.
  • Under charge conjugation, a $C$-compatible scope satisfies $\mathcal{C}(Q_\zeta(P))=-Q_\zeta(P)$, so swapping particles and antiparticles flips the sign of the measured scope charge.
  • For two atomic scopes $P_1,P_2$ inside a common scope $P$, the prior conditional probability that both have charge $+1$ is $\frac14\det((1+P_1P_2)|_{\operatorname{ran}P_1})$, independent of the containing scope $P$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If accepted, the proposal reframes "charge in a spacetime region" as "charge in a mode", closely analogous to photon-number measurements in quantum optics; the scope concept would need an operational definition, which the author leaves open.
  • The finite-rank construction may generalize to interacting or curved-spacetime settings where global charges and currents are ill-defined, because it requires only a finite-dimensional subspace of a one-particle space; this is not pursued in the paper.
  • The explicit conditional-probability formula is a measurable prediction that could be tested with engineered fermionic modes even before a full operational theory of scopes is settled.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. The paper asks whether electric charge can be defined as a local observable in relativistic quantum field theory. It argues that the global charge operator is nonlocal and that the 4-current approach has both mathematical and interpretive problems, even in 1+1 dimensions. The author instead proposes a 'scope-local charge' Q_ζ(P) = dΓ(P) − ζ(P)1, where P is a finite-rank projection on the one-particle space and dΓ is the Araki–Wyss second-quantization map. Under Working Hypotheses 2.3 and 2.4, every 'scope' is a finite-rank projection and ζ(A) = (1/2)Tr A on even-rank projections, so Q_ζ(P) has finite integer spectrum. Lemma 2.6 states that Q_ζ(P) lies in the center of the finite-dimensional algebra A_P, which the author interprets as an expression of charge conservation. Section 5 adds charge-conjugation hypotheses and derives a trace formula, Theorem 5.9, for prior conditional probabilities of atomic scopes. The paper is an explicitly tentative proposal of a mathematical framework rather than a derivation from established physics.

Significance. If the identification of Q_ζ(P) with electric charge could be justified, the paper would offer a genuinely new way to discuss local charge observables without invoking operator-valued currents, and the algebraic calculations in Lemmas 2.2 and 5.1 and Theorem 5.9 appear correct. The author is transparent about the provisional status of the working hypotheses, which is a virtue. However, the physical content is carried entirely by unverified assumptions: the notion of 'scope' is not operationally defined, and the author explicitly states that no clear empirical explanation is currently available. As it stands, the paper establishes a consistent formal construction, not an answer to the question posed in its title. The value of the manuscript therefore depends on whether the working hypotheses can be anchored to experiments, or whether the claims are substantially weakened in a revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2, Working Hypotheses 2.3 and 2.4] The identification of Q_ζ(P) with electric charge is assumed rather than derived. Under the stated hypotheses, every even-rank finite-rank projection (later also C-compatible) qualifies as a 'scope', so the construction provides one charge observable for each arbitrary choice of P. The integer spectrum is obtained by imposing finite rank, even rank, and ζ(A) = (1/2)Tr A; it is a property of a shifted fermion-number operator, not a derived physical law. The author's own statement in Section 2 that 'currently I have no clear explanation of the empirical meaning of scope' confirms that the link to experiment is missing. This is the load-bearing gap of the manuscript.
  2. [Sec. 2, Lemma 2.6] The statement that Q_ζ(P) is in the center of A_P is an algebraic consequence of the definitions: Q_ζ(P) = dΓ(P) − ζ(P)1, and dΓ(P) is built from the same operators that generate A_P and commutes with them by Lemma 2.5. No Hamiltonian, time evolution, or relation between scopes at different times is involved. Therefore Lemma 2.6 cannot by itself express the dynamical charge conservation law; interpreting it as a rigorous expression of that law requires additional dynamical input that the paper does not provide.
  3. [Sec. 5.2, Eq. (5.2) and Theorem 5.9] The prior conditional probabilities in Eq. (5.2) are defined by a normalized trace on the finite-dimensional algebra A_P. No argument connects these traces to measurement statistics or to the relativistic dynamics of the quantum field. Theorem 5.9 is a finite-dimensional trace computation; the P-independence noted in Remark 5.10 is a mathematical property of the formula, not evidence of an empirical universal law. Without a measurement-theoretic or dynamical justification, Eq. (5.5) does not constitute a testable prediction about electric charge.
  4. [Sec. 5.1, Working Hypotheses 5.2 and 5.4] The additional assumptions that scopes are C-invariant and C-compatible are introduced to make the construction consistent with charge conjugation, but they are not derived from any independent principle. The author's discussion admits that the decomposition P = P_+ + P_- is non-unique and that the justification of ζ(A) = (1/2)Tr A is heuristic. The even-rank condition and the trace normalization therefore remain free parameters of the model, weakening the claim that the integer spectrum is an expression of a physical law.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Thm. 5.9 proof] The proof explicitly treats only the generic case 0 < λ1 ≤ λ2 < 1; the boundary cases λ_i = 0 or 1 should be handled explicitly or by a continuity argument.
  2. [Sec. 2 and Sec. 3] The notation FR(V)_sa is introduced without a clear definition, and the phrase 'for every A∈FR(V) sa' in Section 2 is typeset ambiguously; a consistent notation for the self-adjoint part would help.
  3. [Sec. 5.2] The references [Yam25, Yam26a, Yam26b] are central to the notion of prior conditional probability but are cited only as preprints; a brief summary of the relevant definitions or results would improve readability and verifiability.
  4. [Sec. 4] The example illustrating Lemma 3.4(2) is announced but the trace computation is not shown, so the reader cannot verify the non-real Schwinger term without consulting [CHO83, CR87].
  5. [Sec. 2] The phrase 'the usual trace Tr of matrices induces the canonical trace Tr_P on A_P' should specify the normalization of Tr_P, since the probabilities in Section 5.2 depend on the trace convention.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The 'derived' integer charge spectrum and charge conservation law are restatements of the paper's Working Hypotheses, not independent results.

  1. self definitional [Section 2, Working Hypothesis 2.3 and the paragraph following Working Hypothesis 2.4]
    "Working Hypothesis 2.3. Any 'scope' is mathematically expressed by a finite-rank projection operator P on V, i.e., P∈FRP(V). ... We assume that the spectrum of Qζ(P) is a (finite) subset of Z for all P∈Scope(V). This can be interpreted as an expression of the integer charge law. ... By Working Hypothesis 2.4, for any P∈Scope(V), the spectrum of Qζ(P) is the integers {k∈Z:|k|≤n_P/2}."

    The integer charge law is not derived; it is inserted as the spectral assumption in Working Hypothesis 2.3. Working Hypothesis 2.4 then fixes ζ=(1/2)Tr and restricts scopes to even rank, so Qζ(P)=dΓ(P)−(1/2)Tr(P)1 automatically has spectrum {k∈Z: |k|≤Tr(P)/2}. The sentence 'By Working Hypothesis 2.4 ... spectrum is the integers' merely restates the chosen assumptions. No independent input—such as the Dirac dynamics, gauge invariance, or an operational definition of scope—produces integrality. The claimed expression of the integer charge law is the assumption itself.

  2. self definitional [Section 2, Lemma 2.6 and the following interpretive paragraph]
    "Lemma 2.6. Qζ(P) is in the center of A_P, i.e., [Qζ(P),X] = 0 for all X∈A_P. This can be understood as one of the rigorous expressions of the charge conservation law, in terms of local observables."

    A_P is defined as the algebra generated by 1 and {Ψ*(f)Ψ(g) | f,g∈ran(P)}, and Lemma 2.5 already proves that every such generator commutes with dΓ(P). Since Qζ(P)=dΓ(P)−ζ(P)1 differs by a scalar, the centrality is built into the definition of A_P, not derived from the field dynamics or from a conservation principle. The commutativity holds for every finite-rank projection P, independent of time evolution or interaction. Calling this 'one of the rigorous expressions of the charge conservation law' is a restatement of the construction, not an independent physical result.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain reduces to its own postulates. The integer charge law is explicitly assumed in Working Hypothesis 2.3 as the statement that the spectrum of Qζ(P) is a finite subset of Z, and Working Hypothesis 2.4 (ζ=(1/2)Tr, even rank) is chosen so that the spectrum is exactly the integers between −Tr(P)/2 and Tr(P)/2. The later claim that this 'can be interpreted as an expression of the integer charge law' is therefore the assumption re-labeled as a consequence. Similarly, the charge conservation claim of Lemma 2.6 is a direct corollary of the definition of A_P: the algebra is generated by operators that commute with dΓ(P), hence with Qζ(P), for every finite-rank P; no dynamical or empirical content is added. This is a genuine circularity in the claimed derivation, rather than a mere self-citation issue. The paper is admirably honest in labeling these as Working Hypotheses and in conceding that the empirical meaning of 'scope' is unspecified, but the honesty does not change the fact that the headline results are not derived from independent first principles. The later probabilistic formula (5.5) is a well-defined computation from the trace-based prior probability; its physical status is questionable, but that is an interpretational gap, not an additional circular step. I do not count the self-citations to [Yam25, Yam26a, Yam26b] as load-bearing because the prior conditional probability is fully defined in the present paper. Overall, the central claims reduce by construction to the paper's own assumptions, warranting a score of 7.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on several explicitly labeled working hypotheses rather than on derived results. The most important are the finite-rank projection model of scopes, the spectral assumption that builds integer charges in, the choice ζ = (1/2)Tr, and the even-rank and C-compatibility conditions. The mathematical framework of CAR algebras and the Araki-Wyss map is standard, and the prior conditional probability framework is taken from the author's earlier papers.

free parameters (2)
  • ζ(A) = (1/2) Tr A = ζ(A) = (1/2) Tr A for all A ∈ FR(V)
    Chosen by hand to make the spectrum of Q_ζ(P) symmetric around zero and integral for even-rank projections; the author acknowledges in Subsec. 5.1 that this choice is not uniquely justified, and it is introduced to realize the integer charge law.
  • Even-rank condition for scopes = Tr P ∈ 2Z for all P ∈ Scope(V)
    Working Hypothesis 2.4(2); adopted so that Q_ζ(P) has integer spectrum; no independent justification is offered, and the author explicitly says in Sec. 2 that he has no sufficient justification at present.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math The CAR algebra CAR(V) and the Araki-Wyss map dΓ have the properties stated in [AW64] and [BR97].
    Used throughout Sec. 2 to define Q_ζ(P), Lemma 2.2, and Lemma 2.6.
  • domain assumption The existence of the sharp-time field, so that the time-zero field is described by a CAR algebra.
    Stated at the start of Sec. 2: 'the existence of the sharp-time field is assumed'; this excludes general interacting fields in 3+1 dimensions beyond lattice or cutoff approximations.
  • ad hoc to paper Working Hypothesis 2.3: every scope is a finite-rank projection P and the spectrum of Q_ζ(P) is a finite subset of Z.
    This is the load-bearing assumption that turns Q_ζ(P) into a charge-like observable; it is assumed without independent derivation or empirical support.
  • ad hoc to paper Working Hypothesis 2.4: ζ(A) = (1/2) Tr A and all scopes have even rank.
    Adopted for interpretability of the spectrum; the author states in Sec. 2 that he currently does not have enough justification and hypothesizes it.
  • ad hoc to paper Working Hypothesis 5.2: scopes must be C-invariant (CPC = P).
    Imposed so that charge conjugation maps Q_ζ(P) to -Q_ζ(P); the author notes it is not consistent with time evolution and is introduced for convenience.
  • ad hoc to paper Working Hypothesis 5.4: scopes must be C-compatible, P = P+ + P- with C P± C = P∓.
    Used to justify ζ = (1/2)Tr and the local decomposition of charge into positron and electron parts; no unique decomposition exists, so this is a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption The prior conditional probability framework from the author's prior work [Yam25, Yam26a, Yam26b].
    Assumed without proof in Sec. 5.2; it is a self-cited framework rather than a standard tool in the broader literature.
invented entities (2)
  • Scope-local charge Q_ζ(P)
    purpose: Proposed local observable for the total charge inside a scope P.
    No experimental prediction is derived; the author explicitly says the empirical meaning of 'scope' is not clear (Sec. 2, after Working Hypothesis 2.4).
  • Scope (a finite-rank projection P)
    purpose: Mathematical object intended to represent a restricted region or mode for charge counting, analogous to a photonic mode in quantum optics.
    The paper provides no operational definition; the set Scope(V) is left unspecified, and the paper states that a good definition has not yet been found.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of What is electric charge?: Charge as a local observable in relativistic quantum field theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LU5HOTML

@misc{pith2026260800468,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: What is electric charge?: Charge as a local observable in relativistic quantum field theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LU5HOTML}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00468}
}
abstract

It is rather surprising that modern quantum physics does not appear to have provided any clear answer to the simple question ``what is electric charge?''. Even when the total charge operator $Q$ is well-defined, the non-locality of $Q$ implies that it is not an observable in the usual sense, which can be measured by a (local) experimental apparatus. A candidate for the ``local version'' of charge operator is the 4-current operator $j=(j^{\mu})_{\mu=0,1,2,3}$. However, it is known that the rigorous definition of $j$ is difficult in $(3+1)$-dimensional Minkowski space. Although it was found that the current can be defined in $(1+1)$-dimensions (Carey et al.), I argue that even when $j$ can be suitably defined, the interpretability of $j$ as the ``local charge operator'' is dubious. Instead I return to Araki and Wyss (1964), and propose the concept of ``scope-local charge'' $Q_{\zeta}(P)$ for a ``scope'' $P$, expressed by a finite-dimensional projection. I work in an abstract $C^{*}$-algebraic setting.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    9, 11 [Lan94] Edwin Langmann

    Chapter 5, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-21353-8_5, arXiv:1412.5945. 9, 11 [Lan94] Edwin Langmann. Fermion current algebras and Schwinger terms in (3+1)-dimensions. Commun. Math. Phys., 162:1–32,

    arXiv

  2. [14]

    Charge density and electric charge in quantum electrodynamics

    DOI: 10.1063/1.1623928, arXiv:hep-th/0301111. 2 [Req76] M. Requardt. Symmetry conservation and integrals over local charge densities in quan- tum field theory.Commun. math. Phys., 50:259–263,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [17]

    1, 3, 4 [Wal94] Robert M

    DOI: 10.1016/j.aop.2022.168988,arXiv:2111.12304. 1, 3, 4 [Wal94] Robert M. Wald.Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Ther- modynamics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [18]

    The conditional probabilities and the empirical laws in a free scalar QFT in curved spacetime

    9 [Yam25] Hideyasu Yamashita. The conditional probabilities and the empirical laws in a free scalar QFT in curved spacetime. 2025.arXiv:2511.12311. 12 [Yam26a] Hideyasu Yamashita. The empirical laws for Majorana fields in a curved spacetime. 2026.arXiv:2602.16907. 12 [Yam26b] Hideyasu Yamashita. A skepticism on the concept of quantum state related to quan...

    arXiv 2025

  5. [1964]

    5 14 [BBS20] Marco Benini, Simen Bruinsma, and Alexander Schenkel

    DOI: 10.5169/seals-113476. 5 14 [BBS20] Marco Benini, Simen Bruinsma, and Alexander Schenkel. Linear Yang-Mills theory as a homotopy AQFT.Commun. Math. Phys., 378:185–218,

    work page doi:10.5169/seals-113476

  6. [1967]

    2 [Tha92] Bernd Thaller.The Dirac Equation

    DOI: 10.1007/bf02739287. 2 [Tha92] Bernd Thaller.The Dirac Equation. Springer, Berlin,

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02739287

  7. [1972]

    2, 3 [Mal96] David Malament

    DOI: 10.1007/bf02728884. 2, 3 [Mal96] David Malament. In defense of dogma: Why there cannot be a relativistic quantum mechanics of (localizable) particles. In Rob Clifton, editor,Perspectives on Quantum Reality, pages 1–10., Dordrecht,

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02728884

  8. [1976]

    On the Problem of Defining Charge Operators for the Dirac Quantum Field

    2 [RT24] Pablo Costa Rico and Roderich Tumulka. On the problem of defining charge operators for the Dirac quantum field. 2024.arXiv:2407.09126. 1, 3, 4 [Swi67] J. A. Swieca. Conserved currents, renormalization and zero-mass states.Nuovo Ci- mento A, 52(1):242–254,

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 18 references
  1. [1977]

    3 15 [HW15] Stefan Hollands and Robert M

    DOI: 10.1103/physrevd.15.1772. 3 15 [HW15] Stefan Hollands and Robert M. Wald. Quantum fields in curved spacetime.Physics Reports, 574:1–35,

    doi

  2. [1983]

    2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 [CR87] A

    DOI: 10.1063/1.525935. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 [CR87] A. L. Carey and S. N. M. Ruijsenaars. On Fermion gauge groups, current algebras and Kac-Moody algebras.Acta Applicandae Mathematicae, 10:1–86,

    doi

  3. [1994]

    second quantization

    DOI: 10.1007/BF02105184. 2 [Lun76] Lars-Erik Lundberg. Quasi-free “second quantization”.Commun. Math. Phys., 50:103– 112,

    doi

  4. [1999]

    10 [AW64] Huzihiro Araki and Walter Wyss

    Originally published in Japanese: Ryoshiba no Suri, Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo, 1993; Translated by Ursula Carow-Watamura. 10 [AW64] Huzihiro Araki and Walter Wyss. Representations of canonical anticommutation rela- tions.Helvetica Physica Acta, 37:136–159,

    1993

  5. [2002]

    4 [Heg98a] Gerhard C

    DOI: 10.1086/338939, arXiv:quant-ph/0103041. 4 [Heg98a] Gerhard C. Hegerfeldt. Causality, particle localization and positivity of the energy. In et al. A. Böhm, editor,Irreversibility and Causality, pages 238–245, New York,

    arXiv

  6. [2003]

    9, 11 [BGP07] Christian Bär, Nicolas Ginoux, and Frank Pfäffle.Wave Equations on Lorentzian Manifolds and Quantization

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-003-0815-7, arXiv:math-ph/0112041. 9, 11 [BGP07] Christian Bär, Nicolas Ginoux, and Frank Pfäffle.Wave Equations on Lorentzian Manifolds and Quantization. European Mathematical Society, Zürich,

    arXiv

  7. [2012]

    1 [FPS74] R

    DOI: 10.1007/s11005-012-0571-8,arXiv:1104.1374. 1 [FPS74] R. Ferrari, L.E. Picasso, and F. Strocchi. Some remarks on local operators in quantum electrodynamics.Commun. Math. Phys., 35:25–38,

    arXiv

  8. [2015]

    9, 11 [KM15] Igor Khavkine and Valter Moretti

    DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2015.02.001;arXiv:1401.2026. 9, 11 [KM15] Igor Khavkine and Valter Moretti. Algebraic QFT in curved spacetime and quasifree Hadamard states: an introduction. In R. Brunetti et al., editor,Advances in Algebraic Quantum Field Theory. Springer,

    2015 arXiv

  9. [2020]

    1 [BDM+97] Detlev Buchholz, Sergio Doplicher, Gianni Morchio, John E

    DOI: 10.1007/s00220- 019-03640-z,arXiv:1906.00999. 1 [BDM+97] Detlev Buchholz, Sergio Doplicher, Gianni Morchio, John E. Roberts, and Franco Strocchi. A model for charges of electromagnetic type. InOperator Algebras and Quantum Field Theory, Proceedings Rome 1996, pages 647–66...

    1906 arXiv

  10. [2022]

    7 [Dim82] J

    DOI: 10.1017/9781009290876. 7 [Dim82] J. Dimock. Dirac quantum fields on a manifold.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 269:133–147,

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.