Researching in QFT without prior problem-solving experience: Is it possible?

[med17k]

Hi all , I'm self Studying quantum field theory by reading textbooks and following the derivations of results carefully but never done any problem on my own . I can Understand Concepts and derivations but did not calculate anything on my own . Is it Possible for me to do research without that experience in solving difficult problems ? I have not studied Physics in college but I self learned Theoretical Physics mostly QFT and General relativity . Its extremely hard for me to do research but I want to make a contribution to the field. Also I can't still Read many Papers in ArxiV .any advice ? How can i come over this problem?

 

[Vanadium 50]

If you can't follow papers in the arXiv, how can you contribute? Journal articles are a scientific conversation, and if you do not understand what you are hearing, how can you have a conversation.

The traditional path to learning this is to get a university degree.

 

[med17k]

If you can't follow papers in the arXiv, how can you contribute? Journal articles are a scientific conversation, and if you do not understand what you are hearing, how can you have a conversation.

The traditional path to learning this is to get a university degree.

I know and this is actually my problem . I still lack necessary knowledge in math and physics like algebraic topology and geometry however all textbooks on these subjects seems to be written for mathematicians . Also , I'm not well familiar in string theory , D-branes , SUSY etc and it seems that most research is on these subjects . To learn String theory , I'm in need of some textbook or review papers that talk about advanced topics like M theory , Matrix theory , Orbifolds etc but can't find one . All texts on string theory seems to be introductory . Even Polchinski textbook seems to be outdated

 

[med17k]

The most difficult part is finding high energy physics review papers

 

[med17k]

How can I find review papers on Arxiv ?

 

[DivisionByZro]

I think you are confusing what researching physics is all about. Being able to solve the problems in the textbook isn't an optional part of learning physics, it's the essential part. Most of the knowledge that can be gained in a traditional physics textbook is gained by doing the problems, encountering difficulties, realizing what is before you, overcoming the difficulties and hence becoming more familiar with the subject.

What you're doing is kind of like this: I read a book on the fundamentals of a language I'm trying to learn, let's say German. I tell myself, I can't understand anything of what people are saying in German, I can't read it nor can I write it. Maybe I should write a book in German, I feel like I should contribute to the German language.

Do you see the problem now? You can't possibly gain enough insight and wisdom of QFT by simply reading a chapter or two, or ten. I would strongly recommend you follow Vanadium's advice.

 

[med17k]

I think you are confusing what researching physics is all about. Being able to solve the problems in the textbook isn't an optional part of learning physics, it's the essential part. Most of the knowledge that can be gained in a traditional physics textbook is gained by doing the problems, encountering difficulties, realizing what is before you, overcoming the difficulties and hence becoming more familiar with the subject.

What you're doing is kind of like this: I read a book on the fundamentals of a language I'm trying to learn, let's say German. I tell myself, I can't understand anything of what people are saying in German, I can't read it nor can I write it. Maybe I should write a book in German, I feel like I should contribute to the German language.

Do you see the problem now? You can't possibly gain enough insight and wisdom of QFT by simply reading a chapter or two, or ten. I would strongly recommend you follow Vanadium's advice.

you are right but most advanced physics textbooks do not contain problems to solve or may contain few problems with no solutions

 

[yenchin]

you are right but most advanced physics textbooks do not contain problems to solve or may contain few problems with no solutions

But then again most books also jump a lot of steps in the so-called "derivations", did you fill in the blanks when you say you understood them? Just to be sure.

 

[med17k]

Well , Some textbooks do the derivations explicitly like Srednicki's text and I do not have to fill many steps . Others like Weinberg textbook do not do it so I have to calculate things myself but this takes me a lot of time in many cases and some of them would be rather difficult . However , I try to fill in the blanks as much as possible . But I did not solve any problems in any textbook

 

[Chunkysalsa]

Advanced textbooks assume you have a solid foundations in physics including good problem solving techniques.

 

[DivisionByZro]

Well , Some textbooks do the derivations explicitly like Srednicki's text and I do not have to fill many steps . Others like Weinberg textbook do not do it so I have to calculate things myself but this takes me a lot of time in many cases and some of them would be rather difficult . However , I try to fill in the blanks as much as possible . But I did not solve any problems in any textbook

This does not mean you shouldn't do the derivations yourself. Just because the author explains something does not imply that you shouldn't put effort into explaining it to yourself. You might think it was clear when you read it, but wait a day or two, and try to explain it logically to yourself, you'll see that it's slightly harder. The point is, even at the advanced level, being able to work through examples/derivations/proofs is invaluable. How can you race in a F-1 race if you've never driven one?

 

[med17k]

Yes , got it . So I should solve problems as much as I can , but where do I get the solutions to verify my results??

 

[DivisionByZro]

Although time consuming, being able to know if your results make sense with the problem is a very valuable skill to have, especially in research where you do not have an answer beforehand, you normally find the answer yourself.

Otherwise, there are some books, such as the White Book (For relativity/quantum?) that provides a lot of solutions, I think. You might be able to find some of those for QFT.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yes , got it . So I should solve problems as much as I can , but where do I get the solutions to verify my results??

See this is another problem with not having gone through the usual course of starting from the ground up. It's not so much about the exact right answer. It's about gaining an intuition about what an answer should be. You will gain an intuition as to what kind of qualities an answer should have (a spherically symmetric problem should have a spherically symmetric solution for example). You will also gain an intuition as to what kind of qualities your answer shouldn't have as well. Maybe you'll get a 1/2 missing here and there, but that's not the point, everyone does. Whenever it really is important to know if you should have a 1/2 or not, you should do the problem multiple times and if possible, through multiple methods to see what the right answer really is.

 

[med17k]

Thank you guys , I've been solving some problems on Quantum field theory from the textbook by Srednicki and until now most of these are straightforward . may be because I only have solved those behind the first 3 chapters but I think maybe non trivial problems in the other chapters will be not that easy but I will do my best to solve em all