Non Mathematical Quantum Field Theory Books?

[BadgerBadger92]

Are there any QFT books that use little to no math? If there is a little math that is okay. I don't know much about math. I am looking for good explanations on how it works without math. Any help would be great!

 

[Demystifier]

Huang, Fundamental Forces of Nature
Schmitz, Particles Fields and Forces

 

[PeroK]

Are there any QFT books that use little to no math? If there is a little math that is okay. I don't know much about math. I am looking for good explanations on how it works without math. Any help would be great!

Whoever then has the effrontery to study physics while neglecting mathematics must know from the start that he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom.

Roger Bacon (1214-84)

 

[Vanadium 50]

Huang, Fundamental Forces of Nature
Schmitz, Particles Fields and Forces

I don't own either, but I clicked "surprise me" on Amazon. Both had pages of equations: partial derivatives in Huang.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You can't start in the middle and expect to learn anything. QFT builds on relativistic QM, and relativistic QM builds on QM. And they all build on the mathematics. Your best option is a popularization, so long as you understand that the goal of a popularization is not to teach you any physics.

 

[vanhees71]

You don't need relativistic QM to learn relativistic QFT. I'd even say it's conceptually much better to jump directly from non-relativistic QM to QFT. Relativistic QM is conceptually very difficult and to a certain extent inconsistent. For fermions you end up with a heuristics known as the "Dirac sea" and the hole-theoretical formulation of QED, i.e., you assume to formulate a one-particle theory and then you are forced to reinterpret it as a many-body theory. Since today we know this already and can argue with the zillions of HEP experiments creating and destroying particles all the time, it's much more convenient to use right away the QFT formulation, which you need anyway.

Instead of bothering you with relativistic QM it's rather a good idea to use the time to learn the QFT formulation of non-relativistic QM to see that in this case it's an alternative equivalent description (although historically it's called "second quantization").

 

[Demystifier]

I don't own either, but I clicked "surprise me" on Amazon. Both had pages of equations: partial derivatives in Huang.

You were just (un)lucky, the books have a rather small number of equations.

 

[Demystifier]

Your best option is a popularization, so long as you understand that the goal of a popularization is not to teach you any physics.

But popularization is not pure entertainment, it teaches something. How would you call this thing that popularization of physics teaches?

 

[BadgerBadger92]

Whoever then has the effrontery to study physics while neglecting mathematics must know from the start that he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom.

Roger Bacon (1214-84)

I am just starting to teach myself math. I don’t have money for school so I’m teaching myself. I just want to know the facts of QFT for now before I’m done teaching myself math. I understant that particles and waves and forces are due to underlying excitations of these fields and that’s about it.
Do you know any good self teaching math books?

 

[PeroK]

I am just starting to teach myself math. I don’t have money for school so I’m teaching myself. I just want to know the facts of QFT for now before I’m done teaching myself math. I understant that particles and waves and forces are due to underlying excitations of these fields and that’s about it.
Do you know any good self teaching math books?

There are a number of Internet-based options now, such as Khan Academy and others that you may have to subscribe to, such as brilliant.org.

There's also a website that covers the entire UK high-school mathematics syllabus:

https://www.examsolutions.net/

 

[haushofer]

If you're just starting to learn math, maybe Stewart's Calculus book suits you. You can also use it to elavate your computer screen or to barricade doors with.

 

[paralleltransport]

If you're just starting to learn math, maybe Stewart's Calculus book suits you. You can also use it to elavate your computer screen or to barricade doors with.

Stewart's calculus was how I learned calculus. Pretty good book I'd say.

Now if you just want to know QFT at a laymen perspective, Sean carroll has pretty good explanation of what it's about roughly, using only basic algebra on youtube.

If you want to be able to do QFT (like calculate) you'll need multivariable calc, diffEQ, linear algebra, complex integration. Anything less than that is hopeless.

 

[vanhees71]

Don't forget some group/Lie algebra representation theory!

 

[paralleltransport]

Don't forget some group/Lie algebra representation theory!

Absolutely agreed. I was referring to the absolute minimum. You're correct that a sophisticated understanding of QFT requires lie algebra and representation theory, however a lot of introductory QFT texts do not require it as a prerequisite. If your goal is to read weinberg or more sophisticated treatments, yes it helps a lot of understand how lie algebras work, which is treated somewhat in graduate level QM texts. The rest usually for most students is picked up as you go while learning QFT. For example, peskin, srednicki, and even weinberg all include sections that summarize lie algebra or representation of the lorentz group. The first time I learned about dynkin index and casimirs was from a QFT textbook.

 

[vanhees71]

That's of course true. My favorite introductory QFT book is

M. D. Schwartz, Quantum field theory and the Standard
Model, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York
(2014).

Then you are very well prepared for Weinberg's 3 volumes and

A. Duncan, The conceptual framework of quantum field
theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012).

which is an ideal complement to Weinberg's books.