Modern Quantum Field Theory: A Concise Introduction

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

This thread discusses participants' opinions on various science textbooks they consider poorly written or ineffective. The scope includes critiques of books across different fields, particularly focusing on quantum field theory, general relativity, optics, statistical mechanics, and calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant criticizes T. Banks' "Modern Quantum Field Theory: A Concise Introduction" for being difficult to understand, even for familiar concepts.
  • Another participant finds Hobson and Efstathiou's "General Relativity: An Introduction for Physicists" to be confusing and poorly written.
  • Multiple participants express strong dislike for Hecht's "Optics," describing it as verbose and lacking clarity.
  • One participant recalls a bad G.E.D. book but cannot remember the title or author, noting poor discussions and examples.
  • Born & Wolf's "Principles of Optics" is described by one participant as nearly unreadable, with another agreeing on its difficulty.
  • Huang's book on statistical mechanics is mentioned multiple times as traumatizing, with participants sharing negative experiences related to it.
  • One participant criticizes Ichimaru's "Statistical Plasma Physics, Vol. 1" for being mathematically dense with little physical insight.
  • Stewart's "Calculus" is criticized for being wordy and tedious, with concerns about its publishing practices affecting students.
  • Another participant shares a negative experience reviewing a poorly written C++ book, noting significant errors and poor formatting.
  • One participant mentions "Applications of Lie Groups to Differential Equations" by Peter Olver as challenging and difficult to understand.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express individual negative opinions about various textbooks, with no consensus on which books are the worst. Multiple competing views and experiences are shared, indicating a lack of agreement on specific titles.

Contextual Notes

Some critiques are based on personal experiences and may reflect individual preferences or teaching styles. The discussion highlights a variety of subjects, and the effectiveness of the books may depend on the reader's background and expectations.

  • #31
vanhees71 said:
I don't know that book yet. I'll see whether I can get it from the library.
Do you have a verdict?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
jasonRF said:
I thought statistical plasma physics, vol. 1 by Ichimaru was somewhat traumatizing and not very good. It seemed to have a lot of math and little physical insight. If it wasn’t required for a class I never would have spent so much time with it.

jason
I liked the book, but I did not have it for a class. I just supported some research with it. There was a lot of math. Not sure about the physical insight. I think this is probably not the right book for a first book in Plasma Physics. Many Universities use Chen, but I really did not like Chen.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jasonRF
  • #33
caz said:
Do you have a verdict?
We are talking about Baierlein, Atoms and Information. I've glanced over it, and it looks very nice to me. I'm a bit biased though, because I like the information theoretical approach to statistical physics very much, because I think it gives a clear meaning to the somewhat complicated idea of entropy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Frabjous
  • #34
Demystifier said:
We usually talk about good books, but we rarely talk about bad books. And that is good.

But sometimes, we find that some book is so bad, so really bad, that we strongly want to tell this to the others. So I open this thread to inform others about science books which you find so bad that it needs to be told.

---------------------------

Here is my choice:
T. Banks, Modern Quantum Field Theory: A Concise Introduction
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521850827/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I've seen many textbooks on QFT, and for me this one is really the worst. From this book I was not able to understand even those things which otherwise I already understand pretty well.
Normally I read books too little, so still have no experience about the bad book, I just read those books which are really good, so I can't list any of bad book.
 
  • #35
BJU Press Physics Grade 12 Student Text
.
The book is a bottom feeder and it is segregated from my real texts and other books. I actually keep it next to my fiction and literature books. It is written to prove the literal interpretations of the Christian Holy Bible and hence, tosses out all types of science, especially of radiological decay as well other science. The book often delves into biblical reference vs addressing issues that the book will (perhaps cannot) not acknowledge.
.
Sadly, such books get published and the graduates from such program KNOW they have the best education available.
.
NO ONE is qualified to argue with God!
.
Who here, can argue with that?
.
Mike drop!
.
A perfect example of a Dunning Kruger exponetial function (Do I get to hog credit for a new term?)
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: SolarisOne, weirdoguy and Demystifier

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
930
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K