Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Quantum Field Theory Demystified (David McMahon)

  1. Feb 11, 2009 #1
    Hi all,

    I bought a book recently of this title. I wanted this one to compliment the field theory book I have already (Peskin and Schroeder) because I find the latter a little hard to follow on my own (I am currently taking Relativistic Quantum Mechanics and will be taking QFT course at some time in the future).

    I am always skeptical about these self-teaching series, especially when it comes to quantum field theory. It seems like it goes through all the basic elements of QFT and I can actually read and follow, however there are several obvious typos (such as "charge of strange quark is +2/3") and the author is "a researcher at Sandia National Laboratories".

    Does anyone have experience with this book? Should I keep reading, or will I get myself into a whole nonsense about QFT?
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 11, 2009 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

  4. Feb 11, 2009 #3
    Thanks tiny-tim.

    It seems obvious that the audience for this book is not someone who wants to rigorously study this field of physics, which is fine since I have Peskin and Schroeder, which is THE book for QFT. As much as his (McMahon) mathematics in the book is not universal and not consistent (I have also noticed his non-conventional notations - perhaps to appeal to undergraduate or hobby physicists), I was hoping that explanations would be more clearer than other books. Now I am skeptical.

    Perhaps I will keep reading the book and question everything he states. It may help me learn more efficiently, who knows. I just hoped the publisher would have an errata page associated with this book, there seems to be quite a few typos and general mistakes.
  5. May 6, 2011 #4
    Unfortunately this typos are not the only errors in this book. There are quite a lot of technical errors in the book. For example the representation of Lorentz' tensor is incorrect in chapter 1. It is also true about current and energy-momentum four-vector. I don't know why, but the author seems to repeat the same error throughout the book.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook