Where Can I Continue Learning QFT on My Own?

  • Thread starter StatusX
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Qft
In summary, if you want to learn QFT on your own, I would recommend reading Griffiths, Halzen and Martin, and Zee's Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell.
  • #1
StatusX
Homework Helper
2,570
2
I just finished an introduction to quantum mechanics class, and I was wondering where I could learn QFT on my own (including any more QM I might need to learn before I could start QFT). I have Griffiths book, and in class we covered the first 7 chapters (which includes all the basics, hydrogen, time-indep. perturbation, identical particles, and the variational principle), so I'm comfortable with this material and could learn the stuff in the rest of the book on my own. Where should I go after this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
StatusX said:
I just finished an introduction to quantum mechanics class, and I was wondering where I could learn QFT on my own (including any more QM I might need to learn before I could start QFT). I have Griffiths book, and in class we covered the first 7 chapters (which includes all the basics, hydrogen, time-indep. perturbation, identical particles, and the variational principle), so I'm comfortable with this material and could learn the stuff in the rest of the book on my own. Where should I go after this?

I would strongly suggest you wait till you have done perturbation theory and Second Quantization.

Zz.
 
  • #3
What about dynamical systems with constraints...?All nonzero spin classical fields have either I-st class or second class constraints.

It's not only QM.:wink: Classical field theory,too.

Daniel.
 
  • #4
StatusX said:
I just finished an introduction to quantum mechanics class, and I was wondering where I could learn QFT on my own (including any more QM I might need to learn before I could start QFT). I have Griffiths book, and in class we covered the first 7 chapters (which includes all the basics, hydrogen, time-indep. perturbation, identical particles, and the variational principle), so I'm comfortable with this material and could learn the stuff in the rest of the book on my own. Where should I go after this?

Well, you should probably first become a bit more confortable with QM. I strongly suggest you read "Modern Quantum Mechanics" by J.J. Sakurai. I know that there are other people preferring other books for quantum mechanics per se, but you have to know that Sakurai wrote this book _especially_ as a preparation for QFT afterwards.

A while ago I organized an internet course on this book, and some material from that period is still left on a website I set up for the occasion:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/patrick.vanesch/nrqmJJ/NRQM_main_page.html

In fact the course fell on its face after the first part, because there was not much very active participation anymore. So I never got to the second part, that's why there is less material.

cheers,
Patrick.
 
  • #5
StatusX said:
I just finished an introduction to quantum mechanics class, and I was wondering where I could learn QFT on my own (including any more QM I might need to learn before I could start QFT). I have Griffiths book, and in class we covered the first 7 chapters (which includes all the basics, hydrogen, time-indep. perturbation, identical particles, and the variational principle), so I'm comfortable with this material and could learn the stuff in the rest of the book on my own. Where should I go after this?

Hey Status,

I'll put in my two cents as someone who has taken a basic hardcore QM class and then learned a lot more on my own over the years. By profession I'm not a physicist, so take it for what it's worth :wink: . I'd say that Feynman's Lectures on Physics, Volume III on QM, is a fantastic resource for getting a strong intuitive feel for QM, even though it's over 40 years old now. If you like Feynman's way of thinking, you could go from his Lectures to the Feynman and Hibbs text Quantum Mechanics and Integrals, which lays out the Feynman path integral formulation.

I don't know enough about QFT to know how the FPI fits into QFT. But I would also strongly recommend a very short paper by Dan Styer, "Nine formulations of quantum mechanics," Am J Physics 70(3), March 2002, p 288, that gives an overview of, well, you can guess from the title. (The FPI is one of the nine.) It may be that one of these various formulations is particularly better suited than the others as a foundation for QFT, I don't know. If you or anyone else knows, I'd be interested!

David
 
  • #6
I would go to the bookstore and browse Zee's Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell, and see how much of it you can handle. Zee is a fairly new book, and has a modern approach to QFT.

Griffiths' Introduction to Elementary Particles is fairly accessible to a person who knows some QM, and covers Feynman diagrams at a very basic level. Also Halzen and Martin, which is a bit more difficult than Griffiths. Griffiths pretty much rips off Halzen and Martin, actually, but that's an issue independent of the quality of the textbook.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Or you can do it another way:Read Feynman & Hibbs with their Path Integral text and then go to Bailin & Love "Introduction to Gauge Field Theory",Adam Hilger,2-nd Edition,1993. It covers pretty much everything from the SM,but u need to know path integrals and why are they useful in a quantum theory.

Daniel.
 
  • #8
Steven Weinberg is all one needs.
 
  • #9
dextercioby said:
Or you can do it another way:Read Feynman & Hibbs with their Path Integral text and then go to Bailin & Love "Introduction to Gauge Field Theory",Adam Hilger,2-nd Edition,1993. It covers pretty much everything from the SM,but u need to know path integrals and why are they useful in a quantum theory.

Daniel.

It'd be nice if they could republish Feynman and Hibbs. Costs $325 on Amazon, and all the copies in the Caltech library system are checked out.

There's a relatively book by Mosel on path integration. No reviews on Amazon though.
 
  • #11
dextercioby said:
Check out #4 from this list.The .pdf files are FREE !

http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/kleiner_re.html

Daniel.

Cool - but more than half of the text appears to be in German.

However, there's another one further down the list that is fully in English.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
OK, thanks for all your help so far. So what exactly do I need to learn before I'll be ready for QFT, and where can I find it? dexter, you mentioned "nonzero spin classical fields": what is that, and do I need to know it?
 
Last edited:
  • #13
The name says it all:QFT is Quantum Field Theory.That is:the quantum theory of fields.It deals with quantized fields.So u'll have to get a grip on fields:what are they and what do they do and why do we need to quantize them...?What does quantization mean...?

"Spin" of a field:the dimension of the irreducible representation of the restricted Lorentz group.Example:the scalar field corresponds to the (0,0) representation of the restricted Lorentz group and its operator is the unit operator acting on the linear space of this representation.

That's classical field theory.What are fields & what do they do.

Daniel.

P.S.Will u be taking QFT in college,eventually,or not?
 
  • #14
dextercioby said:
Or you can do it another way:Read Feynman & Hibbs with their Path Integral text and then go to Bailin & Love "Introduction to Gauge Field Theory",Adam Hilger,2-nd Edition,1993. It covers pretty much everything from the SM,but u need to know path integrals and why are they useful in a quantum theory.

Daniel.

I suppose you are implying that Status should focus more on the FPI than on some other formulation of QM, eg Heisenberg's matrix formulation or Schrodinger's wave mechanics, as prerequisite for QFT. Is this what you mean, and do others agree? At a conceptual level, how does the FPI lead to QFT?

David
 
  • #15
Depends...I've been taught QFt both ways.In QCD and EW,the operatorial approach is useless,so why not do everything path integral...?After all,Wick's theorem looks a lot simpler playing with nonconnected Green functions,right?

Anyway,i still hope the OP will not attempt to study QFT all by himself.He needs a teacher,lecture notes,explanations and just then self-study.

My say.

Daniel.
 
  • #16
I'm finishing up my sophomore year now, and I'll be going on to grad school, where I presume I'll take some classes QFT. I just wanted to get started now because (a) I'm curious and interested in it and (b) I want to do research next year and I'd like to actually be useful, or at least stand out from some of the other undergrads. And by the way, I've always learned much, much better on my own out of a book than by going to class or talking to professors or other students.
 
  • #17
I see your point.If "research"is your goal,then mathematics should come first.U can't understand the physics without a proper education in higher mathematics.And shouls have been clear ever since the first theoretical physics course you've ever had (if u have).

Daniel.
 
  • #18
OK, that's why I started this thread, because I don't know what I should be doing. What math should I learn? I've always just learned the math along with the physics as it was needed.
 
  • #19
StatusX said:
And by the way, I've always learned much, much better on my own out of a book than by going to class or talking to professors or other students.

Well it's not an either-or thing, of course. You should continue your formal studies AND continue your self-study. (I know you know that, but it's worth saying anyway.)

David
 
  • #20
StatusX said:
I want to do research next year

Do you have an idea what kind of research you're interested in? I suppose as a start: theoretical or experimental?

David
 
  • #21
straycat said:
Do you have an idea what kind of research you're interested in? I suppose as a start: theoretical or experimental?

I started a thread about this in the academic guidance forum. Down the line, I'd prefer to do pure, theoretical physics, but I don't know if I'm cut out for it, so I'd fall back on aerospace engineering. If it's possible, I'd love to do research on theoretical physics. I'm just not sure how much you need to know to do that.
 
  • #22
In short,a lot.Anyway,i don't see the connection.Aerospace engineering and theoretical physics.No offense,a million miles apart.

Daniel.
 
  • #23
True, but I'm talking about advanced (maybe theoretical) propulsion methods for spacecraft . Either way, I want to go as deep into physics as I can. I just want a backup plan if I find out I'm not smart enough to do theoretical work for a living. By the way, right now I'm majoring in applied and engineering physics, the only major that might bridge that gap.
 
  • #24
StatusX said:
If it's possible, I'd love to do research on theoretical physics.

Any idea what branch of theoretical physics? This may not be a fair question since you're just in your sophomore year. QM, as well as the mathematics behind it, are hugely vast fields. I think it is fair to say that there are entire branches of both that some physicists do not know even exist.

For example: if you get into theoretical physics, and study GR as well as QM (as you better do if you're going to be a theoretician!), you might learn differential forms, or maybe even Clifford algebra/geometric algebra, as two possible alternatives to the more standardized, tensor-based approach to studying curved spacetimes.

I'd once again put in a plug for the Styer paper that I mentioned earlier. Once again, some physicists are not even aware that some of these various formulations even exist!

Here's a question for you: do you consider yourself a "physicist" or a "mathematician" first? I'm guessing the former based on what you've said earlier.

David
 
  • #25
StatusX said:
I just want a backup plan if I find out I'm not smart enough to do theoretical work for a living.

That's a smart plan, my man. Just don't sell yourself short too quickly.

D
 
  • #26
StatusX said:
True, but I'm talking about advanced (maybe theoretical) propulsion methods for spacecraft . Either way, I want to go as deep into physics as I can. I just want a backup plan if I find out I'm not smart enough to do theoretical work for a living. By the way, right now I'm majoring in applied and engineering physics, the only major that might bridge that gap.

I did something quite similar, in fact. I always wanted to do theoretical physics, but let's say that when I was studying, the prospects in that domain were meager. It's a hard battle to try to get one of the very few permanent positions, and the battle is not purely in your own hands: it depends on your thesis adviser, department politics, what wind will blow 6 years from now etc...
My dad thought that I first had to do some "real" studies, so I did electromechanical engineering. After that, I could "go and play" if I wanted to. So after that I did my physics degree. The problem was that, given my engineering background, I could easily get into an applied physics or an experimental physics program (where I was offered the possibility of starting a PhD right away) ; theory was harder to get into (simply on paper). So I took the surest path, and did experimental stuff, while taking most of the theory courses I could get.
The problem afterwards is that with an engineering degree and a PhD in experimental physics, let's say that the job market doesn't really push you into into considering a theory postdoc career: too many nice other opportunities are open. So I made a compromise: I'm working as a research engineer on rather applied physics problems, and I like reading theory on my own. Do I regret it ? Some days, I think I might have been a great theorist :-)) Then I look in the mirror again, and well, probably I would have ended up in a more lousy situation than I'm in right now (can't complain). After all, a correct income and some "job security" are things that get appreciated more over the years.
What I can say, however, is that my playing around in theoretical stuff makes the problems I'm working on for a living look very easy! It doesn't replace labwork, but where I see many of my collegues spend weeks and weeks in the lab to find out rather elementary results, it takes me half a day to work it out on a computer, and another day to check a few points in the lab. Which then leaves me some time to spend in the library, reading some interesting stuff :-)

cheers,
Patrick.
 
  • #27
Gentlemen,
IMO, the quantum field is intrinsically broadcast by electrostatic radiation from within the nucleus of all atoms including the hydrogen atom whose radiant electrostatic field is manifested in the Lyman-Balmer etc series. With the Helium nucleus, the 1s orbit begins and is different from all other "s" orbits in that its momentum increases (relative to the traditional unitary Planck unit) systematically as a function of "Z". This phenomenon has been experimentally determined for decades; yet this fact has never been addressed in all the books I have studied including Feynman's Lectures, Weinberg, Bohm, Einstein, Bohr, Gell-Mann etc. Doesn't this absence from QM field behavior make it seem that Bohm's Hidden Variable concept is real? Another unexplained variable that is due to the nature of the quantum field is how that field is able to control the order and details of the distinct difference between the 2-electron planar "s" orbits and the 6-electron "p" spherical orbitals. It is really problematic for me to understand what the heck "line integrals" might have to do with quantum field behavior. Cheers, Jim
 
  • #28
NEOclassic said:
Gentlemen,
IMO, the quantum field is intrinsically broadcast by electrostatic radiation from within the nucleus of all atoms including the hydrogen atom whose radiant electrostatic field is manifested in the Lyman-Balmer etc series. With the Helium nucleus, the 1s orbit begins and is different from all other "s" orbits in that its momentum increases (relative to the traditional unitary Planck unit) systematically as a function of "Z". This phenomenon has been experimentally determined for decades; yet this fact has never been addressed in all the books I have studied including Feynman's Lectures, Weinberg, Bohm, Einstein, Bohr, Gell-Mann etc. Doesn't this absence from QM field behavior make it seem that Bohm's Hidden Variable concept is real? Another unexplained variable that is due to the nature of the quantum field is how that field is able to control the order and details of the distinct difference between the 2-electron planar "s" orbits and the 6-electron "p" spherical orbitals. It is really problematic for me to understand what the heck "line integrals" might have to do with quantum field behavior. Cheers, Jim

This seems so misguided that I don't even know where to begin.
 
  • #29
The study of Feynman,Bohm,Gell-Mann really cracks me up...

Daniel.
 
  • #30
StatusX said:
OK, that's why I started this thread, because I don't know what I should be doing. What math should I learn? I've always just learned the math along with the physics as it was needed.

I found this thread very helpful and interesting since I'll be starting on QFT myself in the next few weeks, and I found myself reviewing a lot of stuff. :bugeye: I don't have Zee, so I'll probably be using Schroeder and Peskin (and probably dipping into Bjorken and Drell). I found an eBook on QFT by Warren Siegel, where, among other things, he helpfully lists down some QFT prerequisites:

(1) Classical mechanics: Hamiltonians, Lagrangians, actions; Lorentz transformations;Poisson brackets

(2) Classical electrodynamics: Lagrangian for electromagnetism; Lorentz transformations for electromagnetic fields, 4-vector potential, 4-vector Lorentz force law; Green functions

(3) Quantum mechanics: coupling to electromagnetism; spin, SU(2), symmetries; Green functions for Schrodinger equation; Hilbert space, commutators, Heisenberg and Schrodinger pictures; creation and annihilation operators, statistics (bosons and fermions); JWKB expansion

Hope it helps people in the same situation. :biggrin:
 
  • #31
No wonder Siegel's book is still free.It's not a textbook and is not aimed at rookies.

Zee's book is excellent in giving explanations to thorny subjects.Peskin & Schroeder is more towards a textbook,though.It would be excellent,if u had them both.

Daniel.
 
  • #32
dextercioby said:
No wonder Siegel's book is still free.It's not a textbook and is not aimed at rookies.

Zee's book is excellent in giving explanations to thorny subjects.Peskin & Schroeder is more towards a textbook,though.It would be excellent,if u had them both.

Daniel.

I second that

marlon
 
  • #33
Ive seen requirements to take relativistic qm before qft, what do you guys think of that ? Any more links to free books covering relativistic qm dextercioby ?
 
  • #34
If you've studied the quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator (creation and annihilation operators), and the Lagrangian/ Hamiltonian formulation of classical mechanics, you'll be able to understand cannonical (operator-based) QFT. A lot of QFT textbooks revise the Lagrangian mechanics stuff in one of the early chapters anyway, so even that might not be too important.

If you just want an introduction, get Ryder and read the first 4 chapters (that's how I started). If you want more than that, you'll probably find it very tough going from books alone. I wouldn't start out with the path integral approach, it's much less physically intuitive.
 
  • #35
Check out MIT's graduate courses on QM http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-322Quantum-Theory-IISpring2003/LectureNotes/index.htm [Broken]

Daniel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<h2>1. What is QFT and why is it important to continue learning it on my own?</h2><p>QFT stands for Quantum Field Theory, which is a theoretical framework used to describe the behavior of subatomic particles and their interactions. It is an important concept to continue learning on your own because it is the foundation of modern physics and is used in many areas of research, such as particle physics, cosmology, and condensed matter physics.</p><h2>2. What resources are available for self-learning QFT?</h2><p>There are many resources available for self-learning QFT, including textbooks, online courses, lecture notes, and video lectures. Some popular textbooks include "Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur" by Tom Lancaster and Stephen J. Blundell, and "Quantum Field Theory" by Mark Srednicki. Online courses and lecture notes can be found on websites such as Coursera, edX, and MIT OpenCourseWare. Video lectures can be found on platforms such as YouTube and Vimeo.</p><h2>3. How much math background do I need to have in order to learn QFT on my own?</h2><p>A strong foundation in mathematics is essential for understanding QFT. You should have a good understanding of calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations. A basic knowledge of group theory and complex analysis is also helpful. It is recommended to have at least a year of undergraduate level mathematics before delving into QFT.</p><h2>4. How can I practice and apply my knowledge of QFT on my own?</h2><p>One of the best ways to practice and apply your knowledge of QFT is to work through problems and exercises. Many textbooks and online resources provide practice problems and solutions. You can also try to apply your knowledge to real-world problems in physics, such as calculating the energy levels of a hydrogen atom using QFT principles.</p><h2>5. Are there any online communities or forums for self-learners of QFT?</h2><p>Yes, there are several online communities and forums where self-learners of QFT can connect with others and discuss concepts, ask questions, and share resources. Some popular options include the Physics Stack Exchange forum, Reddit's r/QuantumFieldTheory community, and the Physics Forums website. These communities can be a valuable resource for getting help and connecting with other self-learners of QFT.</p>

1. What is QFT and why is it important to continue learning it on my own?

QFT stands for Quantum Field Theory, which is a theoretical framework used to describe the behavior of subatomic particles and their interactions. It is an important concept to continue learning on your own because it is the foundation of modern physics and is used in many areas of research, such as particle physics, cosmology, and condensed matter physics.

2. What resources are available for self-learning QFT?

There are many resources available for self-learning QFT, including textbooks, online courses, lecture notes, and video lectures. Some popular textbooks include "Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur" by Tom Lancaster and Stephen J. Blundell, and "Quantum Field Theory" by Mark Srednicki. Online courses and lecture notes can be found on websites such as Coursera, edX, and MIT OpenCourseWare. Video lectures can be found on platforms such as YouTube and Vimeo.

3. How much math background do I need to have in order to learn QFT on my own?

A strong foundation in mathematics is essential for understanding QFT. You should have a good understanding of calculus, linear algebra, and differential equations. A basic knowledge of group theory and complex analysis is also helpful. It is recommended to have at least a year of undergraduate level mathematics before delving into QFT.

4. How can I practice and apply my knowledge of QFT on my own?

One of the best ways to practice and apply your knowledge of QFT is to work through problems and exercises. Many textbooks and online resources provide practice problems and solutions. You can also try to apply your knowledge to real-world problems in physics, such as calculating the energy levels of a hydrogen atom using QFT principles.

5. Are there any online communities or forums for self-learners of QFT?

Yes, there are several online communities and forums where self-learners of QFT can connect with others and discuss concepts, ask questions, and share resources. Some popular options include the Physics Stack Exchange forum, Reddit's r/QuantumFieldTheory community, and the Physics Forums website. These communities can be a valuable resource for getting help and connecting with other self-learners of QFT.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
78
Views
8K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Views
502
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Science and Math Textbooks
Replies
6
Views
984
Back
Top