How much mathematics do I need to know to start Quantum Field Theory?

HakimFaizaan
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I plan to study from Peskin and Schroeders book if it helps, I just need to know what topics I need to study and it would be greatly appreciated if someone could tell me what books are good on the subject, I have a limited budget however and if I could get a single or only 2 or 3 books covering all the material it would help a lot.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
HakimFaizaan said:
I plan to study from Peskin and Schroeders book if it helps, I just need to know what topics I need to study and it would be greatly appreciated if someone could tell me what books are good on the subject, I have a limited budget however and if I could get a single or only 2 or 3 books covering all the material it would help a lot.
That depends on your current level of mathematical knowledge. Off the top of my head, the Peskin and Schroeder treatment makes use of (and these are more keywords than subject areas): techniques from complex analysis (like contour integration), Fourier transforms, and Green's functions for the introductory material. You'll need some group theory to understand symmetries in particle physics. A base understanding of calculus up through differential equations, and linear algebra, is assumed.
 
You need to have a solid understanding of quantum mechanics and classical electrodynamics. If you've done these, then you have most of the mathematical prerequisites. I think the one main thing you may not have seen before is contour integration. You don't really need a textbook just for that; you can Google up plenty of information. bapowell mentions group theory, but QFT textbooks, including P&S, generally include an introduction to the group theory you need, so I don't think you necessarily need to study that separately.
 
So I don't need to study topology?
 
HakimFaizaan said:
So I don't need to study topology?
No, not for the fundamentals. There are certain topics in field theory that require it, like the Bohm-Aharanov effect, but these are ancillary.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top