The non-triviality of the in light-front : An elementary treatment

John Collins∗ Department of Physics, Penn State University, University Park PA 16802, USA (Dated: 11 January 2018) It is often stated that the vacuum is trivial when light-front (null-plane) quantization is applied to a quantum field theory, in contrast to the situation with equal-time quantization. In fact, it is has long been known that the statement is false, and that in certain cases the standard rules for light-front perturbation theory need modification. This paper gives an elementary review of these issues, including an explanation of how and when there is a failure of the elementary derivation of the rules for light-front perturbation theory.

I. INTRODUCTION In view of the continuing and prominent assertions of the triviality of the light-front vacuum, the purpose of It is commonly asserted (e.g., [1–3]) that the vacuum is this paper is to give an elementary treatment of the pri- trivial in a quantum field theory constructed using light- mary issues, especially concerning actual calculations: front (null-plane) quantization, at least within light-front 1. I review, using a very simple example, the demon- perturbation theory. This is unlike the situation with stration that an inconsistency arises from the cal- standard Feynman perturbation theory. Associated with culational method that gives vanishing of vacuum vacuum triviality appear to be a number of important bubbles. consequences. Among these is the possibility of making a useful and natural definition of wave functions for particle 2. I provide a new analysis to locate the failure in the states in the interacting theory; the definition appears to derivation of the rules for light-front perturbation arise directly from the property that the state space of theory. The failure is only for graphs (and sub- the theory is a free-particle Fock space. graphs) for which the plus components of external Perhaps the most striking consequence that is claimed momenta are constrained to be zero. in Ref. [3, 4] is a solution of the cosmological constant The problem is an unrestricted use of the standard problem. This solution arises because vacuum theorem R dx eixq = 2πδ(q) that implements mo- bubbles appear to be zero in light-front perturbation the- mentum conservation in terms of a delta function. ory instead of being power-law divergent as they are in This formula is incorrect when integrated with a standard calculations. The vacuum bubbles give the vac- function that is discontinuous at q = 0, as hap- uum expectation value of the energy- tensor, pens in the situations where there is a failure of and hence a contribution to an effective cosmological con- the derivation of the standard rules for light-front stant. The divergence must be canceled by a correspond- perturbation theory. ing counterterm, a bare cosmological constant. The cos- mological constant problem is that the value of the coun- 3. I explain that, nevertheless, the non-triviality of the terterm must be extremely fine tuned. light-front vacuum does not itself affect the possi- However, it has been known for nearly 50 years, since bility of defining light-front wave functions. (Other the work of Chang and Ma [5] and of Yan [6], that the issues do intervene in a or when a non- argument leading to the triviality of the light-front vac- trivial ultra-violet field is needed.) uum is in fact incorrect, as are the calculations of a zero value for vacuum bubbles. It was shown that the rules This paper should be regarded as an elementary comple- for light-front perturbation theory must be modified, and ment to Refs. [5–8, 11, 12]. Some parts of the argument

arXiv:1801.03960v1 [hep-ph] 11 Jan 2018 that then the results always agree between light-front and here were already presented in a similar form in Sec. 7.2 Feynman perturbation theory, including for vacuum bub- of my QCD book [13]. Most of the specific points made bles. Further work, by Nakanishi and Yabuki [7], and by here are undoubtedly known to many experts. I hope the Nakanishi and Yamawaki [8], showed among other things presentation here will be useful to give an overall picture that triviality of the light-front vacuum conflicts with the also accessible to interested outsiders. well-established theorem of Haag [9, 10]. This theorem The discussion given here is in terms of the contin- shows that the representations of the commutation rela- uum theory. The issues appear in a different form when tions of field operators are unitarily inequivalent between Discrete Light-Cone Quantization is used [14–16]. These free and interacting theories.1 need a separate discussion that goes far beyond the scope of the present paper.

∗ [email protected] 1 Technically, an extension of Haag’s theorem is used [7] so that it applies for the commutation relations on a null plane as well as for the equal-time commutation relations. 2

k p p

FIG. 1. Example of vacuum bubble. k′ = p k − (a) (b)

II. A PARADOX AND ITS RESOLUTION IN + LIGHT-FRONT PERTURBATION THEORY FIG. 2. The two orderings in x for the Green function of two φ2 operators in free-field theory. Only graph (a) is non-zero when the external plus-momentum p+ is positive. A. Light-front perturbation theory; conventions

We use light-front coordinates where components of + − analyticity properties. To make a very simple situa- a Lorentz vector are defined as x = (x , x , xT ), and tion, let us examine the connected part of the following where, given a choice of Cartesian coordinates, x+ = 0 3 − 0 3 momentum-space Green function of composite operators (x + x )/√2, x = (x x )/√2, and xT denotes the in the theory of a free scalar field of m: remaining transverse coordinates.− Graphs in light-front perturbation theory — e.g., [1] Z 2 2 ip·x 1 2 1 2 — are specified with particular orderings in the space- Π(p ) = d x e 0 T 2 φ (x) 2 φ (0) 0 conn.. (2) time coordinate x+ for the vertices. There are integrals h | | i + over the values of momentum components kj and kj,T for the lines, constrained by conservation of the plus and The factors of 1/2 are to get a standard normalization + convention, and the use of the connected part means transverse components. The values of k are restricted 2 + that from each instance of the φ is subtracted to physical positive values kj > 0 for forward moving momenta. The integrand has an “energy denominator its . To make the calculations factor” of the following form for each intermediate state maximally simple, while still exhibiting the principles at I stake, we work in 1 + 1 space-time dimensions, with- out any transverse dimensions. A standard textbook i property is that Π(p2) is an analytic function whose , (1) k2 + m2 only singularity is a branch point at the threshold point − P j,T j P + i p2 = 4m2. If the second φ2 operator were at a general ext − j∈I 2k+ j position y, we would change x in the exponent to x y 2 − where the sum is over particles in the intermediate state, without change in Π(p ), by translation invariance. corresponding to lines in the graph. Each denominator The use of time-ordering of the operators in Eq. (2) is the difference between the external minus-component might appear to suggest the use of equal-time quantiza- of momentum and the on-shell plus-component of mo- tion. However, it is known that the definition is fully mentum for the intermediate state. In graphs, we use covariant. When x is space-like, the operators commute, the convention that x+ increases from left to right, and and then the ordering is irrelevant. When x is time-like, + it is frame-independent as to which position is future- correspondingly the flow of positive kj is from left to right. Note that plus momentum is conserved, so that most, and then the corresponding operator is defined to + P + be on the left. The situation with light-like separation Pext = j∈I kj . With the basic rules for light-front perturbation the- is governed by the usual rules for analyticity and for the ory, vacuum bubbles like Fig. 1 are zero. This is because distributional nature of the fields. the external momentum is zero. Hence it has zero plus A Green function of composite operators is used in- + stead of an actual S-matrix element to give maximum component: Pext = 0, and there are no possible interme- diate states: All the lines have positive plus momentum simplicity. In QCD, we often use such Green functions from left to right, and these can never sum to the zero to formulate the strong-interaction part of a scattering external plus momentum. The vanishing of the vacuum with electroweak particles, with the composite operators bubbles is what leads to the statement of the triviality of corresponding to the coupling between an electroweak the vacuum. field and QCD fields. Given that free-field theory is used, there are exactly two x+-ordered graphs for Π(p2), as in Fig. 2. B. A paradox When the external momentum has a positive plus com- ponent, i.e., p+ > 0, the rules for x+-ordered perturba- In this section, I show how the basic rules for light- tion theory give a single allowed ordering in x+, symbol- front perturbation theory applied at vanishing external ized in Fig. 2(a). The value of the graph, including its plus momentum lead to an inconsistency with standard symmetry factor 1/2, is 3

+ 1 Z p dk+ i Π(p2) = + + + − m2 m2 4π 0 4k (p k ) p + i − − 2k+ − 2(p+−k+) i Z 1 1 = dξ , (3) 8π p2ξ(1 ξ) m2 + i 0 − − where ξ = k+/p+. for light-front perturbation theory fail when the exter- When p+ is negative, the other x+ ordering, Fig. 2(b), nal momentum is zero, we must then expect them to fail is used and gives the same value for Π(p2). also in the computation of vacuum bubbles. Correspond- But when p+ = 0, the graphs appear to be zero, be- ing results also apply in a higher space-time dimensions cause the two internal lines are required to have a phys- where there is also a transverse momentum integral. ical momentum, with positive plus momentum, and this is prohibited by momentum conservation. However, we also know that the Green function is analytic at p2 = 0, and hence the value at p+ = 0 is the limit as p2 0 of C. Diagnosis within Feynman perturbation theory Eq. (3), which is i/(8π2m2) and non-zero. Something→ is therefore wrong− in the calculation at p+ = 0. To diagnose the situation, consider the calculation of Once we realize that in this example the standard rules the same graph in Feynman perturbation theory:

1 Z 1 Π(p2) = d2k −8π2 [k2 m2 + i][(p k)2 m2 + i] − − − 1 Z 1 = dk+dk− . (4) −8π2 [2k+k− m2 + i][2(k+ p+)(k− p−) m2 + i] − − − − To get a result corresponding to light-front perturbation theory, we perform the k− integral at fixed k+. We first take p+ > 0, and use contour integration on k−. This gives zero unless 0 < k+ < p+, and then closing the contour in the upper or lower half plane of k− gives the same result as was calculated in light-front perturbation theory in Eq. (3). This is an example of the established result [5, 6] that in this case both methods of calculation agree. Next set p+ = 0. The integral is now 1 Z 1 Π(0) = dk+dk− . (5) −8π2 [2k+k− m2 + i][2k+(k− p−) m2 + i] − − −

If k+ is positive, then both k− poles are in the lower and blindly using the zero result. The correct result, half plane. We can deform the contour to infinity in the as found by Chang and Ma [5] and Yan [6], is that the opposite half plane to get zero. Similarly if k+ is negative, integral over k− in Eq. (5) gives a delta function at k+. both poles are in the upper half plane, and we again get To understand better what has happened, notice that zero. we deformed the k−-contour infinitely far into the upper Hence it would appear that the graph is zero when half plane when k+ > 0 and infinitely far into the lower p+ = 0, in agreement with the result of standard light- half plane when k+ < 0. The two-dimensional contour front perturbation theory. But the result is surely wrong. over both of k+ and k− is now broken at k+ = 0. To If nothing else, we could choose to perform the k+ inte- complete the contour, we must couple these pieces by a gral first, which would correspond to obtaining the result section that goes from (k+, k−) = (0, +i ) to (k+, k−) = for the opposite kind of light-front perturbation theory, (0, i ), as in Fig. 3. In deforming the∞ unbroken two- i.e., ordered in x−. Provided that p− is still non-zero, we dimensional− ∞ contour, we inevitably encounter a region get the expected non-zero result for the graph, i.e., the where the integrand is unsuppressed. limit of Eq. (3) as p2 0. Another way of seeing the issue is to observe that when → Evidently there is a mathematical error in evaluating k+ is fixed and non-zero, and we deform k− to infinitely the integral in Eq. (5) by first performing the k− integral large imaginary k−, the integrand is of order 1/(k−)2, 4

− Im k counter their arguments, one must understand the situa- tion solely within terms of light-front perturbation theory and its derivation.

Re k+

III. WHAT WENT WRONG IN DERIVATION

FIG. 3. How to join the segments of contour used for positive In this section, I locate the error in the derivation of and negative k+ in evaluating Eq. (5). The horizontal axis is the basic rules for light-front perturbation theory when + a slice at fixed Re k− from the 2-dimensional space of Re k+ the external p is zero, and I do this purely within light- and Re k− front methods, avoiding reference, for example, to stan- dard Feynman perturbation theory. Without correctly and precisely locating the error, there can be generalized and thus the contour at infinity gives a zero integral. But doubts as to the validity of light-front methods; outsiders the coefficient of this asymptote is 1/(k+)2, and hence to the field can wonder what other errors are so far un- the convergence of the integrand to zero is not uniform perceived. in k+. Instead we get an unsuppressed contribution if we take k− to infinity while keeping k+ of order 1/ k− . This| problem| does not arise in the| integral| for the| case| that p+ non-zero, for then one of the 1/k− factors has a A. Momentum-conservation condition coefficient 1/(k+ p+) 1/p+ instead of 1/k+, and there is a suppression− of→ the − otherwise dangerous region. Textbook derivations of perturbation formalisms in This dangerous region corresponds to modes with ex- quantum field normally start with a coordinate space tremely large negative rapidity which propagate almost formulation and then use Fourier transforms into mo- within the surfaces of equal x+ on which light-front quan- mentum space. This is what we do here. In formulating tization is applied. Thus they involve large distances on light-front perturbation theory, the field operators are these surfaces in the x− direction within the surfaces. stratified by the values of their x+ position coordinates. Of course, the diagnosis just given relies on assum- Within a surface of constant x+ we perform the inte- ing that Feynman perturbation theory is correct, while gral over x−. We would also integrate over transverse the authors of at least [1, 3] give the impression that coordinates if the problem were in a higher space-time light-front methods could give a different and better so- dimension than our example. lution of a theory. If nothing else, they wish to formulate We apply this procedure to the graphs of Fig. 2, in- the theory purely in terms of light-front methods and cluding both orderings in x+. Then, Eq. (3) is replaced avoid any appeal to other methods. Therefore to fully by its effective predecessor in the derivation, which is

∞ + ∞ 0+ ∞ " 1 Z dk Z dk Z − + + 0+ i Π(p2) = dx−eix (p −k −k ) θ(k+)θ(k0+) 2 + 0+ − m2 m2 8π −∞ 2k −∞ 2k −∞ p + + i − 2k+ − 2k0 # i +θ( k+)θ( k0+) . (6) − − p− + m2 + m2 + i − 2k+ 2k0+

This equation applies for any value of p+. The integral would obtain a momentum-conservation delta function, over x+ has already been performed to give the energy from the theorem that denominator factors. The integrals over k+ and k0+ are Z − ix−(p+−k+−k0+) + + 0+ over basis states corresponding to the possible interme- dx e = 2πδ(p k k ). (7) − − diate states. The θ functions implement the physical- state conditions for the lines’ momenta for each of the This reproduces the previously given results for the graph x+-ordered graphs. The convention for the signs of k+ in light-front perturbation theory. However, the theorem and k0+ is chosen to give the same imaginary exponent must be interpreted in the sense of distributions, not as for both graphs. Thus the positive, forward-moving mo- a theorem about functions. That is, the theorem applies menta in Fig. 2(b) are k+ and k0+. provided that the left- and right-hand sides are integrated − − with a function that is smooth enough, In particular, the We now evaluate the integral over x−. Normally, we function must be continuous at k+ + k0+ = p+, other- 5 wise the result of integrating with the delta function is line k+ + k0+ = 0. In fact, the integrand diverges as that undefined. point is approached from some directions. So we must investigate the situation in more detail. Now, if p+ is non-zero, the rest of the integrand in Eq. We evaluate the integral by changing variables to (6) is indeed continuous at the relevant points. Then Eq. + + + k+ + k0 and ξ, with k+ = ξ(k+ + k0 ) and k0 = (7) applies, and the standard result is correct in this case. (1 ξ)(k+ + k0+). The use of k+ + k0+ ensures that However when p+ is zero, the integrand is not contin- one− of the independent integration variables is exactly uous on the relevant line, which is k+ + k0+ = 0. The the variable that appears in the exponential and hence integrand has discontinuities when one or both of k+ and in the argument of the would-be delta function. This k0+ is zero, and hence at the point k+ = k0+ = 0, on the gives

∞ 1 ∞ 1 Z Z Z − + + 0+ i Π(p2) = d(k+ + k0+) dξ dx−eix (p −k −k ) . (8) 2 − + 0+ 2 16π −∞ 0 −∞ 2p (k + k )ξ(1 ξ) m + i − −

The integrand is now smooth, even at k+ + k0+ = 0, with the one used in Eq. (3). There ξ was defined as and we can therefore always use Eq. (7) to give a delta k+/p+, which does not work when p+ is zero. Here it function that gives exactly the same value as the bot- is defined as k+/(k+ + k0+), which does not depend on tom line in Eq. (3). But now the derivation is valid for p+. Of course, after application of the delta function the any p+, including zero, and this was arranged by using a definitions agree, but only when p+ is strictly positive. coordinate-space expression as a starting point.

C. General case B. Immediate implications The calculation just given is, of course, specific to one When p+ is zero, the integral over x− in Eq. (8) gives particular pair of graphs. But we can now draw some a delta function at k+ + k0+ = 0. Then because k+ and more general conclusions. 0+ First, the problem does not arise if we use time-ordered k are restricted to have the same sign, and because ξ + + 0+ instead of x -ordered perturbation theory. This because is bounded, the values of k and k that are relevant + are both zero. Thus we have a kind of zero-mode contri- it is only x -ordered perturbation theory that has bound- aries on the allowed range of physical momenta. bution. + When one or both of k+ and k0+ goes to zero, the en- As for a general graph in the x -ordered case, each vertex has a factor that is a simple generalization of the ergy denominators in (6) go to infinity. This would give − a zero in the integrand were it not for a divergence in the x integral in Eq. (6). To avoid a long technical discus- factor 1/(4k+k0+) that is associated with the Lorentz in- sion, let us leave to other work a general derivation of variant integration over the momenta of the lines. The the final answer strictly using only light-front methods. combined limiting behavior from these factors and the Here we just appeal to Refs. [5, 6]. There it was shown Jacobian of the transformation of variables gives the non- by derivation from Feynman graphs that the only cases zero final result. The distributional nature of the calcula- when the basic rules fail to be valid is in graphs where tion with an integral over all plus-momenta as a starting the momentum-conservation conditions require that one or more lines are constrained to have vanishing plus- point allows the calculation to involve a limiting behavior + from nonzero values of plus-momenta. momenta, just as in our example graphs at p = 0 and in vacuum bubbles. Those references showed how to obtain Zero plus-momentum implies infinitely large minus- corrected rules for light-front perturbation theory. momentum, and hence infinitely large and negative ra- pidity for each of the lines. Thus the physical contribu- tion concerns contributions from intermediate states with D. Overall summary arbitrarily negative rapidities. Smoothness (and analyticity, in fact) of the integrand in (8) is only obtained after summing both x+ ordered We can now summarize the results of this section graphs in Fig. 2. This results from the relationship be- The failure of the standard derivation of the tween the two energy denominators in (6), which is pre- basic rules for light-front perturbation the- sumably a fundamental property related to the CPT in- ory occurs where there is a failure of theo- variance of relativistic quantum field theories. But I will rems like Eq. (7) that give delta-functions for leave that issue to others to investigate in generality. momentum conservation. Momentum con- There is a difference in the definition of ξ compared servation does continue to hold. But when 6

some lines are constrained to be at zero plus- functions even given non-triviality of the vacuum. In a momentum, the standard delta function must sense the difficulties are all confined to the nature of the be changed to a different kind of delta func- vacuum. Haag’s theorem itself cannot be prevented from tion that correctly takes into account the lim- applying, but its consequences can be limited. iting behavior as the zero mode configuration is approached. A. Overall framework

IV. CONSEQUENCES, OR LACK THEREOF, To be able to easily relate different viewpoints, let us FOR LIGHT-FRONT WAVE FUNCTIONS use the Heisenberg picture. We conceive of a theory being defined in terms of operators and commutation2 relations A conspicuous contrast between relativistic quantum specified on a quantization surface (e.g., fixed time or + + field theory and non-relativistic con- fixed x ), and then evolution in t or x is applied. In the cerns the status and use of wave functions. Their use Heisenberg picture, it is the operators that are evolved is routine in atomic, molecular, and condensed matter rather than the states. physics, and gives a lot of useful information about the We now work in a field theory framework. Suppose states. For example, crucial insights into new structures that we are able to define and creation op- † emerging for interacting in condensed matter erators ak and ak from the Fourier transform of the fields physics has arisen from thinking about wave functions, on the quantization surface, that they obey the standard two prominent examples being superconductivity [17] commutation relations for annihilation and creation op- and the fractional quantum Hall effect [18]. erators3, and that the annihilation operators give zero In contrast, in work with relativistic quantum field when acting on the vacuum: theory there is little systematic use of wave functions, ak 0 = 0. (9) and correspondingly a paucity of information about the | i detailed microscopic nature of the quantum mechanical For the purposes of this discussion we assume there is states involved. This is a particular important issue for only one kind of each operator; the extension to multiple non-perturbative bound states in QCD, i.e., for fields is elementary. and nuclei. The most general state constructed by applying cre- The one known exception is with light-front quantiza- ation operators to the vacuum, has the form tion. Interesting progress has been made in applications, e.g., [3, 19–22] and references therein. However, the stan- Z N X 1 Y † dard formulation, as in [1], appears to rely on the vacuum ψ = a 0 ψk ,...,k , (10) | i N! kj | i 1 N being trivial, so that a given state can be expressed as a N j=1 non-pathological sum and integral over basis states that are in the same Fock space as free particles, e.g., for a with an integration measure appropriate to the mo- in QCD in terms of states of and . mentum variables and the normalization of the op- In general, a gives an expression for erators. The numerical coefficient functions we call a quantum-mechanical state in terms of a set of basis the momentum-space wave functions of the state. states, which are fixed independently of the presence and Coordinate-space wave functions are defined by Fourier nature of the interactions in a theory. Thus the basis is transformation of the momentum-space wave functions. defined before one has found a solution of the theory. In Then the wave functions of a state can be obtained a non-relativistic system the basis is commonly of eigen- from a matrix element of annihilation operators between states of the position operators, but a momentum-space the vacuum and the state: basis could also be used. It gives a representation of the N canonical relations for the fundamental operators, which Y ψk ,...,k = 0 ak ψ . (11) are coordinates and canonical momenta in a standard 1 N h | j | i non-relativistic system. j=1 But in a relativistic theory, these natural ideas appear This is proved using the commutation relations for the to conflict with Haag’s theorem. Inequivalent representa- annihilation and creation operators, together with the tions of the canonical commutation relations are needed vacuum-annihilation condition. in the free and interacting theories. In a sense, the states In the case of non-relativistic systems, wave func- for the interacting theory are in a different space than tions with the above definition are the same as ordinary those of a corresponding free theory. One appears to need to solve the theory before knowing what the basis states are; equivalently, finding a solution of the theory includes a construction of its state space. 2 Anticommutation relations in the case of fermionic fields. In this section, I show how light-front quantization 3 Derived from the canonical commutation relations of the fields evades this issue sufficiently to allow a definition of wave on the quantization surface. 7

Schr¨odingerwave functions. This is shown by the equiv- Haag’s theorem, one could have the free and interacting alence, e.g., [23], between a theory of non-relativistic vacua being different. Alternatively, as a mathematical Schr¨odingerfield(s) and a collection of Schr¨odingerwave device one could take the abstract state spaces to be the function theories for arbitrarily many particles. same in the free and interacting theories; but then some Given the expression for the annihilation operators in pathologies must arise in how the free and interacting terms of the fields, the right-hand side of Eq. (11) can fields act on this space; that is, in how one constructs be expressed as a Fourier transform of a corresponding fields obeying the equations of motion in the free and matrix element of field operators restricted to the quan- interacting theories. See [12, 24] for explanations of how tization surface. Thus the formula can be applied inde- this works out in terms of the field operators when light- pendently of the method by which calculations are made. front quantization is used: essentially the complications For example, with a surface of fixed x+ one can equiv- are avoided in light-front quantization by projecting out alently use Feynman perturbation theory or x+-ordered of the field operator its behavior at k+ = 0. 4 perturbation theory. For the case of fields specified on a surface of fixed time Formulas like the above, or some equivalent, can be t, there is no way of defining annihilation and creation op- found in many places in the literature, e.g., in the review erators by Fourier transformation of fields on the surface, [1] for the case of light-front quantization. Our ability to such that they give the vacuum-annihilation conditions. use them now depends on whether or not we can find a Certainly none has been discovered; see the literature on useful definition of the annihilation and creation opera- light-front quantization for details. tors in terms of the field operators. As regards the implications of Haag’s theorem, we now see an interesting change of status of a wave function between non-relativistic and relativistic theories. In a B. Wave functions and light-front quantization non-relativistic theory, the state space is the same with and without interactions, and the vacuum is the same state. In a relativistic theory, provided that the vacuum- Compared with equal-time quantization, the situation annihilation condition is obeyed, we have a labeling of a radically changes in light-front quantization. On a sur- standard set of basis states that is the same as in the free face of fixed x+, we define annihilation and creation op- theory, as shown by Eq. (10). To avoid a conflict with erators by Fourier transformation:

+ 2 Z dk d k  + − + −  + − T + + −ik x +ikT ·xT † + ik x −ikT ·xT φ(x , x , xT ) = θ(k ) ak+,k (x )e + a + (x )e 16π3 k+ T k ,kT + |2 | Z dk d k + −   T −ik x +ikT ·xT + + † + + = e ak+,k (x )θ(k ) + a + (x )θ( k ) . (12) 16π3 k+ T −k ,−kT − | |

The key thing is that values of physical plus momenta tions for the annihilation and creation operators follow are restricted to be positive, and we express this by the from the commutation relation of the field on a surface allowed values for k+ in each term. In the second line, of fixed x+. Furthermore, applying an annihilation oper- it is arranged to have a common exponential factor, and ator (with nonzero k+) to the vacuum gives zero. This is there we can distinguish annihilation and creation oper- simply because by the known properties of the field under ators by the sign of k+. (Observe the reversal of sign of translations (in the full theory including interactions), † + the argument of a between the two lines.) The explicit the state ak ,kT 0 would have negative plus momentum denominator factor of k+ gives a Lorentz-invariant form relative to the vacuum,| i which is not possible. of the integral over momenta.| | The annihilation and cre- + Thus all the conditions summarized in Sec. IV A for ation operators are given dependence on x , which is defining wave functions are obeyed, and we have not had determined by the solution of the theory. to invoke triviality of the vacuum to do this. It follows from Eq. (12) that annihilation and creation operators can be obtained from the field operator by a An immediate complication is that in a field theory, Fourier transformation on a surface of fixed x+, given a the most general state is obtained by repeatedly apply- non-zero value of k+. The standard commutation rela- ing field operators to the field and taking linear combi- nations. Normally it would be sufficient to restrict the field operators to the quantization surface, and this would show that the most general state is of the form (10). 4 But note that there are some further complications that need to The field operators get integrated with coordinate-space be handled in gauge theories — Sec. IV C. wave functions. This is compatible with the property 8 that the fields are not actual operators but are operator- 1, a fact reflected in the sign of its anomalous dimension, valued distributions; operators are only defined with an and in a negative value for the lowest-order correction to integration with a smooth test function. But in light- Z in perturbation theory. In the case that the lowest- front quantization, the creation (and annihilation) oper- order divergence is at one-loop order, the renormaliza- ators are restricted to non-zero k+. When the algebra tion group shows that the exact value obeys Z 0 as of the operators is examined [12, 24], this corresponds to the cut-off is removed, in an asymptotically free theory.→ a restriction to using test functions whose Fourier trans- To get finite wave functions, we must apply the same form is zero at zero k+. Correspondingly, the wave func- renormalization factor to the annihilation and creation + + tions ψ(k1 , k1,T ; k2 , k2,T ; ...) have to vanish when one operators, with the outcome that the renormalized an- + or more kj is zero. nihilation operators used to calculate finite wave func- There is the potential for extra states obtained by ap- tions in Eq. (10) are each an infinite factor 1/√Z times plying zero-mode operators on the vacuum. To imple- the ones obey the standard commutation relations. This ment this properly in terms of field operators one must needs a modification of the formula (10) for a state. I am go slightly off the light-front [12, 24]. In momentum- not aware of a systematic treatment of this issue. space, the use of the appropriate distribution-theoretic It is possible to do all calculations with a cutoff that is framework indicates that the implementation of the ex- not removed. But it is surely preferable to say that the tra zero-mode contributions uses integrals over a neigh- theory itself is the renormalized theory defined in the borhood of k+ = 0, rather like that found in our earlier limit that the cutoff is removed. Then Eq. (11) gives a calculation in Eq. (8) at p+ = 0. These are high rapid- valid definition of renormalized wave functions in terms ity modes, and presumably susceptible to a systematic of matrix elements of renormalized operators. In situ- analysis like those used in factorization or Regge theory. ations where perturbation theory applies, perturbative Further examination is needed. calculations of wave functions work. But the actual ex- pansion of the quantum mechanical state needs modifi- cation from (10). This is presumably a purely technical C. Complications problem, since ultra-violet renormalization is very well understood. Beyond general zero-mode issues of the kind just dis- cussed, there are two complications that require modifi- cations of the framework. One is to deal with non-trivial 2. Rapidity divergences in gauge theory field renormalization, and the other is for gauge theo- ries. Neither of these applies in a super-renormalizable Much more interesting is the problem with rapidity non-gauge model, e.g., Yukawa theory in 2+1 space-time divergences in any gauge theory. dimensions. The natural gauge condition to use with quantization on a plane of constant x+ is [25] the light-cone gauge A+ = 0, which gives the simplest version of the for- 1. Renormalization malism. Unfortunately, the wave functions defined us- ing this method have divergences [26] beyond those as- The commutation relations that give the standard in- sociated with ultra-violet renormalization. These diver- terpretation of annihilation and creation operators are gences have exactly the same cause as those that arise derived from the commutation relations of the fields on when the same annihilation and creation operators are the quantization surface. But in a renormalizable theory, used in the natural way to try to define transverse- the fields need a renormalization factor: momentum-dependent (TMD) parton densities. The di- vergences can be seen readily in perturbative calcula- φ0(x) = √ZφR(x). (13) tions, when going beyond lowest order. The divergences arise from regions of integration where rapidities of the Here φ0 is the bare field, having the standard normal- lines for the gauge fields go to negative infinity. ization for its commutation relations, and φR is the For example, Brodsky et al. [27] made calculations in renormalized field. It is the renormalized field whose QED of the light-front wave functions of a single . Green functions and matrix elements are finite. To de- The one-electron component is given in their Eq. (25) fine the theory an ultra-violet cut-off is applied. Order in terms of a quantity they call Z (not to be confused by order in perturbation theory, the renormalization fac- with the renormalization factor in Eq. (13) in the present tor Z diverges. The divergences can be resummed by paper). The one-loop value is given in their Eq. (29). It renormalization-group methods, at least if the theory is has an integral over a variable x from 0 to 1, and the asymptotically free. integral diverges logarithmically at x = 1. This contrasts When an on-shell “physical” renormalization prescrip- with the statement just after (25) that Z is finite when tion is used to define the normalization of Z, the K¨allen- the theory is regulated in the ultraviolet and infrared. Lehmann representation for the two-point functions can That such rapidity divergences are a general phenom- be used to show that the exact value of Z obeys 0 Z < ena can be seen by the same methods that Collins and ≤ 9

Soper [28, 29] devised for the TMD parton densities and [3, 4], thereby trivially solving the notorious cosmolog- fragmentation functions. To regulate the divergences ical constant problem. But this solution comes at the they changed to a definition [30] that uses the same for- price that it implies an inequivalence between the solu- mula in terms of field operators but with the use of space- tion of a quantum field theory by light-front quantization like axial gauge n A = 0. The matrix elements depend on and by conventional methods. · an extra parameter ζ. Collins and Soper derived an equa- However, it has long been known that the claim of vac- tion for the n-dependence and hence the ζ-dependence uum triviality is wrong [5–8]. Furthermore the validity of that is phenomenologically important. When n becomes the inconsistency between the results of different kinds of µ µ+ light-like, i.e., when n (0, 1, 0T ) = g , the parame- quantization was challenged by the demonstration [5, 6] → ter ζ goes to infinity. The Collins-Soper equation shows that an actual paradox is produced by the method of cal- in full generality that there is a divergence in this limit. culation that gives the vanishing vacuum bubbles. Chang An alternative method gives an explicitly gauge in- and Ma [5] and Yan [6] derived corrected rules for light- variant definition. It starts by writing operator matrix front perturbation theory. The corrections are confined elements such as the one in (11) in terms of integrals to situations typified by the vacuum bubbles used to cal- over gauge-invariant field operators. In the expression in culate the bare contribution to an effective cosmological terms of operators in the light-cone gauge, one inserts constant. But their starting point was an assumption Wilson lines in the minus direction, to make the opera- that Feynman perturbation theory is correct. In view tors gauge invariant. In the A+ = 0 gauge, the Wilson of a possible inequivalence between different methods of lines are unity, but we now have a definition that can quantization, this is not a sufficient argument. be used with any gauge condition. Calculations repro- Therefore, motivated by continuing assertions about duce the same rapidity divergences found earlier. A new vacuum triviality and the cosmological constant, the method [13] was devised to give a kind of rapidity renor- present paper tried to give an elementary account that I malization factor using vacuum matrix elements of cer- hope will lay this issue to rest. First, I gave an example tain specially chosen Wilson loops. The resulting matrix of the paradox mentioned above, and explained why it in- elements have a parameter ζ with the same significance dicates that there is almost certainly an error in the rules Collins and Soper’s ζ, and the evolution equations are of that lead to the vanishing of vacuum bubbles, etc. Then the same form. For related definitions in soft-collinear I located the error in the derivation of the rules for light- effective theory (SCET), see [31–33]. front perturbation theory. The flaw is in the unrestricted Although these methods were devised in the context use of a standard theorem to get a delta-function to im- of TMD parton densities, the principles apply equally to plement momentum conservation. In exactly the condi- light-front wave functions, as was shown by Ma and Wang tions needed for the cosmological constant calculation, [26]. An appropriate version of the modern definitions the theorem needs to be changed. The change restores was given by Li and Wang [34]. the equivalence between the results in different methods, Note the these considerations apply to the kind of in accordance with the old results of Chang and Ma and light-front wave function that has dependence on trans- Yan, but without needing the starting assumption that it verse momenta. In contrast, much phenomenology is is Feynman perturbation theory that is correct. Equally, done with a different kind of distribution amplitude that the results now support non-triviality of the vacuum. is integrated over transverse momentum. For these, ra- As we saw in Sec. IV, non-triviality of the vacuum does pidity divergences cancel, and the evolution equation is not affect the ability to define light-front wave functions. a kind of renormalization-group equation, the Efremov- However, in a gauge theory, the standard definitions have Radyushkin-Brodsky-Lepage (ERBL) equation. This is rapidity divergences, and modified definitions are com- the case at least when Radyushkin’s definition [35, 36] is pulsory to deal with this [26, 34], with complete similar- used. However, the Brodsky-Lepage definition [37, 38] ity to corresponding issues in the definition and use of is made in light-cone gauge with an explicit cutoff in transverse-momentum-dependent parton densities. The transverse-momentum. If that definition is taken liter- divergences to be dealt with in this fashion arise from an ally and its implications examined closely enough, it is integral over the rapidity of gluonic configurations, and expected to give rapidity divergences. give divergences when the plus momenta of these config- urations go to zero. V. DISCUSSION

The use of light-front quantization has a number of im- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS portant advantages [1, 2, 5], compared with equal-time quantization. Many are presented [3] as being directly This work was supported in part by the U.S. Depart- related to the vacuum being trivial. An interesting con- ment of Energy under Grant No. DE-SC0013699. I would sequence of vacuum triviality is that the effective cos- like to thank Stan Brodsky, Thomas Heinzl, Paul Hoyer, mological constant caused by vacuum bubbles is zero Jainendra Jain, and Ted Rogers for useful discussions. 10

[1] S. J. Brodsky, H.-C. Pauli, and S. S. Pinsky, “Quan- ings, Theory and Experiment for Hadrons on the Light- tum chromodynamics and other field theories on the Front ( 2016): Lisbon, Portugal, September 5- light cone,” Phys. Rept. 301, 299–486 (1998), hep- 8, 2016, Few Body Syst. 58, 56 (2017), arXiv:1612.03963 ph/9705477. [nucl-th]. [2] T. Heinzl, “Light-cone quantization: Foundations and [22] J. P. Vary, L. Adhikari, G. Chen, Y. Li, P. Maris, applications,” Lect. Notes Phys. 572, 55–142 (2001), hep- and X. Zhao, “Basis Light-Front Quantization: Recent th/0008096. Progress and Future Prospects,” Proceedings, Theory and [3] S. J. Brodsky, “Light-front holography, color confine- Experiment for Hadrons on the Light-Front (Light Cone ment, and supersymmetric features of QCD,” Proceed- 2015): Frascati , Italy, September 21-25, 2015, Few Body ings, Theory and Experiment for Hadrons on the Light- Syst. 57, 695–702 (2016). Front (Light Cone 2015): Frascati , Italy, Septem- [23] L. S. Brown, (Cambridge Univer- ber 21-25, 2015, Few Body Syst. 57, 703–715 (2016), sity Press, Cambridge, 1992). arXiv:1601.06328 [hep-ph]. [24] S. Schlieder and E. Seiler, “Remarks on the null plane de- [4] S. J. Brodsky and R. Shrock, “Condensates in Quantum velopment of a relativistic quantum field theory,” Com- Chromodynamics and the Cosmological Constant,” Proc. mun. Math. Phys. 25, 62–72 (1972). Nat. Acad. Sci. 108, 45–50 (2011), arXiv:0905.1151 [hep- [25] J. B. Kogut and D. E. Soper, “ th]. in the infinite momentum frame,” Phys. Rev. D1, 2901– [5] S.-J. Chang and S.-K. Ma, “Feynman rules and quantum 2913 (1970). electrodynamics at infinite momentum,” Phys. Rev. 180, [26] J. P. Ma and Q. Wang, “On transverse-momentum de- 1506–1513 (1969). pendent light-cone wave functions of light ,” Phys. [6] T.-M. Yan, “Quantum field theories in the infinite mo- Lett. B642, 232–237 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0605075 [hep- mentum frame. 4. Scattering matrix of vector and Dirac ph]. fields and perturbation theory,” Phys. Rev. D7, 1780– [27] S. J. Brodsky, D.-S. Hwang, B.-Q. Ma, and I. Schmidt, 1800 (1973). “Light-cone representation of the and orbital angu- [7] N. Nakanishi and H. Yabuki, “Null-plane quantization lar momentum of relativistic composite systems,” Nucl. and Haag’s theorem,” Lett. Math. Phys. 1, 371–374 Phys. B593, 311–335 (2001), hep-th/0003082. (1977). [28] J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, “Back-to-back jets in [8] N. Nakanishi and K. Yamawaki, “A consistent formula- QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B193, 381–443 (1981), erratum: tion of the null-plane quantum field theory,” Nucl. Phys. B213, 545 (1983). B122, 15–28 (1977). [29] J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, “Parton distribution and [9] R. Haag, “On quantum field theories,” Kong. Dan. decay functions,” Nucl. Phys. B194, 445–492 (1982). Vid. Sel. Mat. Fys. Med. 29, 1–37 (1955), [Phil. Mag. [30] D. E. Soper, “Partons and their transverse momenta in Ser.746,376(1955)]. QCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1847–1851 (1979). [10] R. F. Streater and A. S. Wightman, PCT, spin and statis- [31] T. Becher and M. Neubert, “Drell-Yan production tics, and all that (W. A. Benjamin, 1964). at small qT , transverse parton distributions and the [11] T. Heinzl, “Light-cone zero modes revisited,” (2003), collinear anomaly,” Eur. Phys. J. C71, 1665 (2011), hep-th/0310165. arXiv:1007.4005 [hep-ph]. [12] M. Herrmann and W. N. Polyzou, “Light-front vacuum,” [32] M. G. Echevarr´ıa,A. Idilbi, and I. Scimemi, “Factoriza- Phys. Rev. D91, 085043 (2015), arXiv:1502.01230 [hep- tion theorem for Drell-Yan at low qT and transverse mo- th]. mentum distributions on-the-light-cone,” JHEP 1207, [13] J. C. Collins, Foundations of Perturbative QCD (Cam- 002 (2012), arXiv:1111.4996 [hep-ph]. bridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011). [33] J. C. Collins and T. C. Rogers, “Equality of two defi- [14] T. Maskawa and K. Yamawaki, “The problem of P + = 0 nitions for transverse momentum dependent parton dis- mode in the null-plane field theory and Dirac’s method tribution functions,” Phys. Rev. D87, 034018 (2013), of quantization,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 56, 270 (1976). arXiv:1210.2100 [hep-ph]. [15] S. Tsujimaru and K. Yamawaki, “Zero mode and symme- [34] H.-n. Li and Y.-M. Wang, “Non-dipolar Wilson links try breaking on the light front,” Phys. Rev. D57, 4942– for transverse-momentum-dependent wave functions,” 4964 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9704171 [hep-th]. JHEP 06, 013 (2015), arXiv:1410.7274 [hep-ph]. [16] K. Yamawaki, “Zero-mode problem on the light front,” [35] A. V. Radyushkin, “Deep elastic processes of compos- (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802037 [hep-th]. ite particles in field theory and asymptotic freedom,” [17] P. G. DeGennes, Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys (1977), arXiv:hep-ph/0410276 [hep-ph]. (Addison-Wesley, 1966). [36] A. V. Radyushkin, “Shape of pion distribution ampli- [18] J. K. Jain, Composite Fermions (Cambridge University tude,” Phys. Rev. D80, 094009 (2009), arXiv:0906.0323 Press, Cambridge, 2007). [hep-ph]. [19] M. Alberg and G. A. Miller, “Chiral light front perturba- [37] G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, “Exclusive processes tion theory and the flavor dependence of the light- in : Evolution equations for nucleon sea,” (2017), arXiv:1712.05814 [nucl-th]. hadronic wave functions and the form-factors of mesons,” [20] J. R. Hiller, “Nonperturbative light-front Hamiltonian Phys. Lett. 87B, 359–365 (1979). methods,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 90, 75–124 (2016), [38] G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, “Exclusive processes arXiv:1606.08348 [hep-ph]. in perturbative quantum chromodynamics,” Phys. Rev. [21] J. P. Vary et al., “Trends and progress in nuclear and D22, 2157–2198 (1980). physics: a straight or winding road,” Proceed-