Talk:Quartic interaction

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.

Suggestion for changes
Talking about how the KG field is quantized seems a bit out of scope to this. I think a new article specifically on the KG field should be introduced and that material moved there. This article could just cover the effects of introducing the interaction term. Threepounds 03:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree; the sections about the different quantization formalisms seem a little out of place in this article. 142.3.164.195 19:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree also, and since nothing's been done about it in 4 years, I just went ahead and moved it to the appropriate place on the Scalar Field Theory page, and eliminated some of the more excessively technical details associated with it. Dusty14 (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In the "Spontaneous breaking of discrete symmetries" section, clearly there is a contradiction: if the mu squared parameter is positive, how is the mass of the sigma field is positive with a minus sign? is this some kind of a bad joke?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.21.213 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't panic!
It's not gone, it's been merged with Scalar field theory. There was substantial duplication, so I took the best of both topics and put it under that heading, which had the better title and better-developed content. Most of the missing material can be found somewhere on those pages, though perhaps in a different form. Dusty14 (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Just so long as you keep in mind someone like me, who has a physics PhD, but hasn't studied quantum field theory for 30 years. Wikipedia can be a great substitute for digging out the old textbooks to refresh the memory, but I for one am too old and lazy to recreate too many proofs! Collieuk (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The link to Scalar field theory has to have no internal caps for the link to work. Collieuk (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Section "Exact Solutions"
Please clean up the equations in Exact Solution. Also, replace mu by mu-sub-0 as integration constant in the case that mu = 0.David in Cincinnati (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The equations are still a mess. 129.132.208.15 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The section called "Exact solutions" is rather narrow and its message is difficult to decipher.


 * The section appears to present the results of a single research paper. The underlying observation -- that a suitable form of "tanh" solves the equation -- is well known. What counts is the interpretation (physical or mathematical). But it's exactly here that the section needs work. As it stands, it is narrow and obscure. It needs a more universal view. It needs either more SOURCES or more EXPERTS to look at it. 129.132.208.15 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course, your claim is pure nonsense. The equation for the quartic interaction is reducible to the definition of the Jacobi elliptic function sn that has nothing to do with tanh being the former periodic and you should know that hyperbolic functions are not. The tanh solution appears when one treats the case of solitons but then you have already done severe hypotheses that are very far from the case of the Jacobi elliptic functions.--Pra1998 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)