QFT Textbook Recommendations and Discussion

[vanesch]

Hello all,

I'm reading through this book now and I'd like to know if there are other people who are also doing so, have read it or are planning to read it in order to have a discussion about it.
In fact, I've read before about the first half (a bit more) of Peskin and Schroeder and I think that Zee gives a lot more insight, but probably only because I already went through P&S. Do you think that the approach of Zee is intelligible on a first contact ?

cheers,
patrick.

 

[rick1138]

They complement one another well - they each have what the other lacks. Another book I am reading is Kaku's book on field theory - it has a very strong group theory flavor, and again is strong in what P and S, and A. Z's books lack.

 

[da_willem]

What exactly are the prerequisites for any course in QFT? And is Zee's text the best as an introductory text? Do you have to study relativistic QM in advance? and what is a good book about that subject to read at first?

 

[humanino]

What exactly are the prerequisites for any course in QFT?

Several lifes to study math I guess
You might prefer to learn the new math whenever you encounter it. The problem is that group theory is a rather long way. See Georgi's "Lie Algebras in particle physics" (FIP). You would also need a serious background in Hilbertean analysis. Topology is welcome when it comes to nonperturbative stuff... But math are so beautiful, they are woth by themselves

And is Zee's text the best as an introductory text? Do you have to study relativistic QM in advance? and what is a good book about that subject to read at first ?

I would advise Zee's book as a first reading. And I really agree with the fact that PS and Z are complementary. PS is far more technical. Z goes straight to the point, sometime hiding difficulties.

For an introduction to RQM, see 2nd chapter of Weinberg's fisrt volume. (maybe : by also Wainberg's 3-volumes book. )

Another subject on which I would like to have people's opinion : would you advise student to avoid Greiner's series ? I should have I guess

 

[meteor]

I have the book, but it's still too advanced for me

 

[vanesch]

Another subject on which I would like to have people's opinion : would you advise student to avoid Greiner's series ? I should have I guess

I have the series for years now on my bookshelf, and never got beyond the second volume, god is that boring ! The advantage of Greiner is that you calculate yourself to death :zzz:
So I can't judge for the other volumes (relativistic qm, qed, electroweak and qcd) which I have there, unopened. If they are in the same flavor they are boring, uninsightful, but on the other hand, they really help you through each calculation in meticulous detail. Maybe it is a good thing to browse through if you want to sharpen your calculational skills, after having learned the subject somewhere else.


cheers,
patrick.