I Quantum field theory: an informative approach

gtorassa
Messages
6
Reaction score
1
TL;DR Summary
Looking for a book that tries to explain the basis of quantum field theory in an informative approach, without complex formulas but with the spirit used by Brian Greene for his fantastic The Elegant Universe
I'm looking for a book that describes the quantum field theory without going deeply in the theory with formulas or complex description of the mathematics under the theory.
I know that this theory is really complex and it needs a deep knowledge of quantum physics in order to be understood.
But Brian Green succeeded in writing a book about String Theory for everybody, I'm wondering if such a book exists for quantum field theory too.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, Brian Greene's books are indeed fantastic but everything else than good textbooks about physics. You cannot understand quantum theory without math. A much more honest approach to make QT as simple as possible but not simpler is Susskinds corresponding volume in the "Theoretical Minimum" series.
 
  • Like
Likes weirdoguy and gtorassa
gtorassa said:
Looking for a book that tries to explain the basis of quantum field theory in an informative approach, without complex formulas but with the spirit used by Brian Greene for his fantastic The Elegant Universe

Here is a fantastic book about quantum field theory, fully featuring the Vacuum Fluctuation Myth (the fantasy about QFT intended solely for lay people):
In the Introduction, he writes:
Martinus Veltman said:
we cannot assume the reader to be familiar with the mathematical methods of quantum mechanics, so he will have to swallow strange facts without the support of equations.
... not only strange facts but also strange fiction!

Veltman won in 1999 the Nobel prize for physics for much more serious work. He also wrote a serious textbook on quantum field theory,
which is free of virtual particle fantasy, featuring instead a valid formal approach - but it is therefore a bit more difficult to understand. This technically precise (though not mathematically rigorous) book contains not a single mention of the word 'fluctuation' or ‘virtual’. In the Introduction, he writes:
Martinus Veltman said:
No one should have an excuse not understanding this book. Knowing about ordinary non-relativistic quantum mechanics and classical relativity one should be able to understand the reasoning.
This much to your excuse...
gtorassa said:
I know that this theory is really complex and it needs a deep knowledge of quantum physics in order to be understood.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes gtorassa and vanhees71
A book about physics promising "mysteries" is usually not worth the paper it's printed on...
 
Three books and a video, now I can't say I don't have something to read at night :biggrin:
 
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
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
This is still a great mystery, Einstein called it ""spooky action at a distance" But science and mathematics are full of concepts which at first cause great bafflement but in due course are just accepted. In the case of Quantum Mechanics this gave rise to the saying "Shut up and calculate". In other words, don't try to "understand it" just accept that the mathematics works. The square root of minus one is another example - it does not exist and yet electrical engineers use it to do...
Back
Top