Quantum Which QFT textbooks complement Schwartz, Zee, Peskin, and Mandl?

[dyn]

Hi.
I'm self-studying QFT. I already have the books by Schwartz , Zee , Peskin and Mandl. I like to have as many books as possible. Would the book by Itzykson & Zuber be useful as a complement to these books or is it a bit out of date ?
Also does anybody have any opinions on the book "From Classical to Quantum Fields " by Baulieu and Ilipoulos ?
Thanks

 

[vanhees71]

Ityzkson&Zuber is a very nice book, if you already know some QFT. The only book, I'd explicitly NOT recommend is Zee's "Nutshell". It's an amusing read if you know QFT already, but it's not accurate enough to learn it from scratch. In other words, the nutshell is too small for what Zee wants to pack into it. My favorite as an introductory textbook is Schwartz.

The ultimate reference is the three-volume work by Weinberg: S. Weinberg, Quantum theory of fields, 3 vols. Cambridge University Press

On the other hand, I'm not sure that it is a good idea to start with too many books at once. It's better to check out some in the beginning (your university library is your friend!) and then choose one which fits your needs best. Often different books have different conventions (e.g., for the Minkoski metric for instance you have the choice between east- and west-coast convention), and this can be quite confusion (particularly for a beginner in the field).

 

[dyn]

Thanks. I don't know any QFT at the moment. I'm just starting that journey. So I'm looking for books that start from the beginning. At the moment I like the look of Schwartz and the book by Lancaster "QFT for the gifted amateur". But from my experience self-studying QM I have found that it's impossible to have too many books ! But I don't want out of date information or strange conventions/notation as QFT is difficult enough already.

 

[Wrichik Basu]

You can use "Quantum Field Theory Demystified" by David McMohan, a Tata McGraw-Hill publication.

And yes: self studying QFT is an appreciable endeavour. Have you finished Quantum mechanics?

 

[dyn]

Thanks. I have finished QM. I do actually like the Mcmahon books on relativity , QM and QFT. I notice they get quite a bad rep on here but I think they are very good as introductions.

 

[smodak]

In addition to the books that you have, the following are good.

1. David Tong.
2. Manoukian & Manoukian
3. Das
4. Duncan
5. Banks
6. Srednicki
7. Padmanabhan
8. Hatfield
9. Lancaster Blundell
10. Harris
11. Klauber

None of the books are complete but you can learn from each of them.

Vanhees71 is right. You should only focus on one or two in the beginning. Just use Klauber & Lancaster Blundell. Once you finish those, start reading the others. You can also start with David Tong.

 

[Buffu]

Thanks. I have finished QM. I do actually like the Mcmahon books on relativity , QM and QFT. I notice they get quite a bad rep on here but I think they are very good as introductions.

I don't like books that have titles like "(Subject) - for dummies, for newbies, demystified, simplified etc ... ". I tried some but they were bad. They might be good on introductory topics but what is the point in reading a book after which you ought to read another. I prefer reading one good book rather 2 bad books.

 

[Wrichik Basu]

I don't like books that have titles like "(Subject) - for dummies, for newbies, demystified, simplified etc ... ". I tried some but they were bad. They might be good on introductory topics but what is the point in reading a book after which you ought to read another. I prefer reading one good book rather 2 bad books.

I disagree. Not all books with that subject (s) are bad.

 

[Daverz]

I've never seen a better introduction than Quantum Field Theory for the Gifted Amateur. I don't recommend the Zee book, either, and the Demystified books never seem to demystify anything.

 

[Demystifier]

I don't like books that have titles like "(Subject) - for dummies, for newbies, demystified, simplified etc ... ". I tried some but they were bad. They might be good on introductory topics but what is the point in reading a book after which you ought to read another. I prefer reading one good book rather 2 bad books.

Unless you are exceptionally smart, the point of reading a simple book is to prepare you for the difficult one.

 

[Demystifier]

In addition to the books that you have, the following are good.

1. David Tong.
2. Manoukian & Manoukian
3. Das
4. Duncan
5. Banks
6. Srednicki
7. Padmanabhan
8. Hatfield
9. Lancaster Blundell
10. Harris
11. Klauber

They are all good, except (IMHO) Banks.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/bad-books.693040/

 

[dyn]

Is the book by Duncan a useful textbook for self-studying QFT from the beginning ? Does it cover everything that a standard textbook covers eg Peskin ?
Also I notice the Harris book is from 1972. Is it still relevant and is the terminology and notation still up to date ?

 

[smodak]

Is the book by Duncan a useful textbook for self-studying QFT from the beginning ? Does it cover everything that a standard textbook covers eg Peskin ?
Also I notice the Harris book is from 1972. Is it still relevant and is the terminology and notation still up to date ?

Klauber or Lancaster Blundell will be better for starting.

In fact, there is another book that I like very much - it is not a QFT book exactly but describes the standard model pretty efficiently for a beginner (as a mini QFT introduction)

The Standard Model in a Nutshell by Goldberg

 

[noir1993]

I recently started studying quantum field theory and after wasting a considerable amount of time going through a number of books, I chose

• A First Book of Quantum Field Theory, 2nd Ed by Amitabha Lahiri and Palash B. Pal, Narosa
• Lectures on Quantum Field Theory by Ashok Das, World Scientific.

What I found very appealing about these books was that they appear to be self contained. However these books don't have a lot of exercises and for that I am referring to another book,

• Problem Book in Quantum Field Theory, by Voja Radovanovic, Springer.