- #26

haushofer

Science Advisor

- 2,500

- 900

See also the recent beautiful insight about how to obtain GR from Poincare symmetries :P

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter bhobba
- Start date
- Featured

- #26

haushofer

Science Advisor

- 2,500

- 900

See also the recent beautiful insight about how to obtain GR from Poincare symmetries :P

- #27

strangerep

Science Advisor

- 3,240

- 1,131

At the risk of being a wet blanket, I think you should try to stop that purchase until you've had a chance to examine at least parts of the book for yourself. I'll send you a PM shortly.I have asked the library at my institution to buy it. Hope I didn't make a mistake

I just had a quick skim and I will say that I was underwhelmed.

I apply a "test" to any physics book that waxes lyrical about the wonders of symmetries [] :- I look for how it develops the Kepler laws, especially the 3rd law. The latter arises from a symmetry which is not connected to a Noetherian conserved quantity. Thus, it reminds us that not everything follows from an algebra of conserved quantities, but rather from the full dynamical group that maps solutions of the equations of motion among themselves. Noetherian symmetries, although very important, are nevertheless not the be-all and end-all of everything.

Schwichtenberg does not mention Kepler at all, afaict. Nor does he mention "hydrogen" which is a marvelous example of the power of group theory in QM.

Further, when I look at his derivation of the half-integer spectrum for su(2), there's some leaps in there that I don't like. Look at sect 3.6.1 on pp 53-54. He introduces ladder operators ##J_\pm## and shows that they act on ##J_3## eigenvectors to raise/lower the eigenvalue. Then he concludes that, because he's working in a finite dimensional space, there must be a point where repeated application of ##J_\pm## yields 0. Although this is technically correct, (because his space happens to also be a Hilbert space, and eigenvectors of a Hermitian operator with distinct eigenvalues are orthogonal, and span the space according to the spectral thm), but he doesn't explain any of this. It works out because he's working with SU(2), hence unitarity is there automatically, and hence also Hermiticity of its generators (see sect 3.4.3).

Contrast this with the treatment in Ballentine sect 7.1. There's no comparison, imho.

It's also disappointing that he hasn't enabled the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon. That makes it hard for people to get a feel of the book for themselves before committing their money.

Last edited:

- #28

- 906

- 223

OT, does anyone have a link to an intro level explanation of Noether's theorem.

- #29

bhobba

Mentor

- 9,691

- 2,771

OT, does anyone have a link to an intro level explanation of Noether's theorem.

From our very own science advisor:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html

Thanks

Bill

- #30

bhobba

Mentor

- 9,691

- 2,771

At the risk of being a wet blanket, I think you should try to stop that purchase until you've had a chance to examine at least parts of the book for yourself. I'll send you a PM shortly.

https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Physics_from_Symmetry.html?id=_vLLCQAAQBAJ

http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319192000

There is a bit of public info about.

Thanks

Bill

- #31

- 906

- 223

thanks, i'm on it.

- #32

- 13,048

- 595

- #33

strangerep

Science Advisor

- 3,240

- 1,131

Well, the Kepler problem is classical, last time I checked.Strangerep, there's no mentioning of the Kepler problem and its symmetries (dynamical group SO(2,4) etc), because the focus of the book is on classical field theory, not on quantum mechanics.

The author definitely tried to address a certain amount of QM and QFT -- see chapters 5,8,9.

- #34

- 11,590

- 4,086

My main criteria for reading a new book on old subject is - does it offer a new perspective? (Otherwise, what's the point of either writing or reading it in the first place?) And I think this book definitely satisfies this criterion.I apply a "test" to any physics book

- #35

- 95

- 41

- #36

- 11,590

- 4,086

Well, Pauli was also a kid when he has written a book on relativity (both special and general). Yet, it is still considered one of the best books on relativity ever written.The author is a kid and that says it all.

Speaking of kids, Wolfram, the creator of Mathematica, has written a review of weak interactions in particle physics when he was a kid. This review can be found by google, but I cannot tell how good it is.

- #37

- 13,048

- 595

Well, Pauli was also a kid when he has written a book on relativity (both special and general). Yet, it is still considered one of the best books on relativity ever written. [...]

He was 20 when he wrote it and 21 when published. It was the first monograph on General Relativity (appeared in the same year with the one by Max von Laue) and it is very good, even though it is written with no differential geometry content. But you can't expect that any physics undergraduate in Germany being offered the chance of a lifetime (i.e. publish a book on science at Springer Verlag) turn out to be a prodigy and a future Nobel Prize winner.

- #38

- 11,590

- 4,086

OK, fair enough, but answer this one. If the book is so bad, why do so many people (on this forum at least) find the book very good? There must beHe was 20 when he wrote it and 21 when published. It was the first monograph on General Relativity (appeared in the same year with the one by Max von Laue) and it is very good, even though it is written with no differential geometry content. But you can't expect that any physics undergraduate in Germany being offered the chance of a lifetime (i.e. publish a book on science at Springer Verlag) turn out to be a prodigy and a future Nobel Prize winner.

- #39

- 13,048

- 595

The material in this book is found in a dozen other books, but I presume it's the relatively low level of mathematics that is a magnet for some readers.

- #40

- 11,590

- 4,086

You have mentioned that errors are not only technical (which are probably easy to fix), but also conceptual. Can you pinpoint to some of the conceptual errors?

The material in this book is found in a dozen other books, but I presume it's the relatively low level of mathematics that is a magnet for some readers.

- #41

bhobba

Mentor

- 9,691

- 2,771

You have mentioned that errors are not only technical (which are probably easy to fix), but also conceptual. Can you pinpoint to some of the conceptual errors?

I have now gone through the book.

It has technical errors, but gee so do other textbooks I read - its in fact a good exercise picking them up. It is also too cumbersome in places - I can find more elegant explanations to replace some of the long calculations he does.

But actually wrong - not so sure about that. Its advantage is exactly what I said. A professor that posts here has said, and IMHO its totally true as far as reactions go - it was mine when I learnt about it and had a very deep effect on me - when he teaches Noether's Theorem there is stunned silence as its import sinks in. This whole book is built around that famous theorem at a level 2-3 year undergrads would understand. It contains nothing new - but being exposed to exactly why the Higgs theoretically was thought to exist and other areas not usually at the undergrad level is very uplifting. And for many that genuinely likes theoretical physics seeing the importance of symmetry early on is - well uplifting.

It's like Landau - Mechanics. It contains nothing new - but is presented in such a brilliant, different and concise manner you sit in awe - all physicists should study it. Of course this guy is nowhere in Landau's class but like Landaus book, its different perspective is so inspiring.

Thanks

Bill

- #42

- 17,548

- 8,543

Another masterpiece of Pauli's is the book on quantum mechanics. Although from the 1930ies it's astonishingly up to date.

- #43

- 17,548

- 8,543

I don't know, what you mean. It's been some time I've looked into Pauli's relativity book, but I cannot remember that I found any technical errors. Can you point specifically to some? I wish more textbooks today had the quality of Pauli's book!I have now gone through the book.

It has technical errors, but gee so do other textbooks I read - its in fact a good exercise picking them up. It is also too cumbersome in places - I can find more elegant explanations to replace some of the long calculations he does.

Bill

- #44

- 11,590

- 4,086

That was not about the Pauli's book.I don't know, what you mean. It's been some time I've looked into Pauli's relativity book, but I cannot remember that I found any technical errors. Can you point specifically to some? I wish more textbooks today had the quality of Pauli's book!

- #45

bhobba

Mentor

- 9,691

- 2,771

That was not about the Pauli's book.

No it wasn't. Its not even approaching the class of those all time classics.

It's far from perfect. Why I like is it is a different take on physics not usually presented at the level of its intended audience ie the importance of symmetry unifying all of physics. It was written by a 22 yo masters degree candidate so don't expect anything earth shattering. Guys like Pauli etc are very very rare and this guy is no Pauli.

If you like it as I do - great - if you don't - that's great as well. Its just different.

We have a number of professors that post here - they may or may not use it in their classes, but what I can say for sure is the ideas it presents would have been of great value to me if I was taught it second or third year of my degree. So maybe, perhaps not using this book, something along those line could be done.

Another similar book at that level, although it doesn't cover as much material, is:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801896940/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I have a copy - and really like it as well.

Have a look at:

She wanted to be a writer. But after being exposed to Noether saw the real beauty of physics. Want more people to study physics? Expose them to these ideas early on. That's why I like these books - physics real beauty can be taught a bit earlier than is usually done. I don't mean hand-wavy pseudo science - but the real deal. These ideas were life changing for me, for the girl in the video and if exposed to it I suspect for many others. She wanted to be a writer - me applied math - but physics real essence and beauty had me hooked once I understood it.

Thanks

Bill

Last edited:

- #46

joneall

Gold Member

- 39

- 3

What is the name of this book by a guy named Ballentine that many of you are talking about?

- #47

- 17,548

- 8,543

Singapore, New Jersey, London, Hong Kong (1998).

This RMP is about his "minimal statistical interpretation":

L. E. Ballentine, The Statistical Interpretation of Quantum

Mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.

https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.42.358.

- #48

joneall

Gold Member

- 39

- 3

Thanks. Which one is better for symmetries and gauge theory?

- #49

- 17,548

- 8,543

It's not particularly about gauge theory. Here I'd rather take some textbook on relativistic QFT, where the subject usually is treated (both the Abelian case for QED and the non-Abelian case for QCD and QFD). Here, I'd recommend

M. D. Schwartz, Quantum field theory and the Standard

Model, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York

(2014).

Share: