What are some recommended textbooks for graduate level QED studies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter exmarine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Qed Textbook
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around recommendations for graduate-level textbooks on Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), including inquiries about relevant journals and recent papers in the field. Participants share various resources, highlighting both foundational texts and more specialized literature.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests recommendations for graduate-level QED textbooks and recent papers.
  • Another participant suggests a link to a resource on quantum field theory.
  • Several participants recommend textbooks, including Weinberg's "The Quantum Theory of Fields," Ryder's "Quantum Field Theory," and others like Bailin & Love, Böhm et al., and Ramond.
  • Some participants mention historical texts, such as Schweber's "QED and the Men who made it," and classic works by Jauch/Roehrlich and Landau/Lifschitz.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of understanding QED through older texts that focus on propagators, recommending Greiner & Reinhardt's book and Sakurai's "Advanced Quantum Mechanics."
  • Another participant discusses the significance of group theory in understanding QFT, recommending Gilmore's "Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Some of Their Applications" and Georgi's "Lie Algebras In Particle Physics."
  • There are mentions of the need for a solid mathematical background to fully grasp the concepts presented in these texts, with specific recommendations for preparatory materials.
  • One participant reflects on the philosophical implications of theoretical physics and the nature of understanding in the field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the value of various textbooks for studying QED, but there is no consensus on a single recommended text or approach. Multiple competing views on the best resources and methodologies remain present throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of mathematical background and understanding, which influences their textbook recommendations. Some discussions touch on the historical context of QED and the evolution of theoretical approaches, indicating a rich interplay between physics and mathematics.

exmarine
Messages
241
Reaction score
11
Am interested in grad level QED textbooks. Any recommendations appreciated.
Also, what are the latest papers on the subject? What journals should I try to get access to?
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Any textbook on relativistic quantum field theory treats also QED. My favorite is Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields. QED is contained in volume 1.

Good books are also

Ryder, Quantum Field Theory
Bailin, Love, Introduction to Gauge Field Theory
Böhm, Denner, Joos Gauge Theories of the Strong and Electroweak Interaction
Ramond, Field Theory a Modern Primer

If you are interested in the history of the subject I recommend

Schweber, QED and the Men who made it
 
I could also recoomend the good old books by Jauch / Roehrlich, Landau / Lifschitz vol.4 or Itzykson / Zuber.
 
I liked the Bailin & Love books on Gauge Field Theory and SUSY, also Peshkin and Schroeder on QFT.

If you want to go back QED done through propagators (old style), I recommend:

Quantum Electrodynamics, W Greiner and J Reinhardt, 3rd ed., Springer. Another pedagogical text, this book presents, detail by detail, QED the old fashioned way, the way people, including Feynman, first developed QED. I believe this is an essential read if you want to understand QFT, including some of the early issues with divergences.

Advanced Quantum Mechamics by Sakurai, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1967 is also good for QED.

For QFT, I storngly recommend Quantum Field Theory, 2nd ed., L. H. Ryder—This is a very well written introductory text on QFT up through introductory supersymmetry (SUSY). Ryder surveys relativistic wave equations and Lagrangian methods, the quantum theory of scalar and spinor fields, and then the gauge fields. In chapter 3, Ryder carefully explains the principle of minimal coupling by requiring local invariance of, firstly, the Lagrangian for the complex scalar field before moving on to treat Yang-Mills fields. Also in chapter 3, Ryder points out the parallels originating from parallel transport in general relativity in the framework of a manifold, and parallel transport in the algebra of quantum fields in the framework of continuous Lie groups. Is this parallel an accident? Is there a deeper level of grammar? The answers to these questions are not easily found in popular QFT texts, nor in books on the mathematics of differential geometry, group theory, or algebraic topology. In fact, most books purportedly treating these areas of mathematics for the physicist also fail to deliver the deeper grammar.

To get a better grasp of the algebra used in fields and particles, I recommend:
Lie Groups, Lie Algebras, and Some of Their Applications, R. Gilmore, Dover, was originally published in 1974. In the same sense that the two books on the calculus of variations, Elsgolc 1961, and W. Yourgrau and S. Mandelstam 1968 provide the fundamental least action underpinnings of classical and quantum physics, Gilmore provides the foundations to the prescriptions in standard QFT books. The physicist’s book, “Lie Algebras In Particle Physics, From Isospin to Unified Theories,” 2nd ed., H. Georgi makes a ton more sense after Gilmore. If I had stumbled across Gilmore sooner, I probably wouldn’t have spent years pouring over a ton of pure mathematics texts, never quite understanding how to bridge pure algebraic topology back to quantum fields. The following books should probably be read in reverse order from the way I found and read them. They are:

Groups, Representations And Physics, 2nd ed., H. F. Jones, Institute of Physics Publishing. This was the first book that took me a long way into both understanding and being able to apply group theoretic methods to quantum mechanics and quantum fields. After working through Jones, however, I still felt there was a deeper plane of truth, or a better grammar if you will. There was still too much “genius”, too much particularization. Before reading Jones, I recommend as a minimal prerequisite an introductory text on group theory at the Schaum’s outline level. I personally like, “Modern Algebra, An Introduction”, 2nd ed., J. R. Durbin, Wiley. You need only cover the material up through group theory. Take with you the notion of a normal subgroup when you proceed to read Gilmore.

Lie Algebras In Particle Physics, From Isospin to Unified Theories, 2nd. ed., H. Georgi, Frontiers in Physics. I couldn’t have read this book without first having read and worked through Jones. Georgi was difficult for me, but when I cracked it, I began to feel like I was starting to understand the physicist instead of the mathematician. Ideally, read the first four chapters of R. Gilmore’s text first. The 5th chapter covers applications to areas typically presented in graduate physics coursework. Then read Jones, then Georgi. There will be much less for you to have to accept by fiat.

To understand gauge potentials is QFT, look at:

Geometry, Topology and Physics, M. Nakahara, Graduate Student Series in Physics, chapter I read the first four chapters before skipping to chapter 9. To me, chapter 9 seems fairly self-contained. However, by the time I happened upon Nakahara, my background in mathematics was far beyond my 36 hour masters degree in pure mathematics, and I also knew what the goal was beforehand thanks to another book, namely, “Topology, Geometry, and Gauge Fields, Foundations,” G. L. Naber. Naber sucks. Naber is part of the reason I overdid mathematics, but Naber put the goal, the mature grammar in easy to understand words. “…These Lie algebra-valued 1-forms…are called connections on the bundle (or, in the physics literature, gauge potentials).” The gauge fields in QFTs are connections over principle bundles. If anything, you have to read Naber’s chapter 0 for motivation, and I’ve reluctantly come to appreciate all of the mathematics I studied trying to get through Naber, especially differential forms. At this point I began to see that there is probably no end to physics theoreticians cooking up hypothetical universes that don’t necessarily have to have anything to do with what we perceive to be our universe. Even theorizing over our own apparent universe is probably unlimited. The creative degrees of freedom to cook up mathematical universes that behave at low energy like what we observe seem infinite. As our experimental knowledge grows, we exile certain theories of physics into the realm of mathematics, only to quickly create a whole new frontier of endless physics-based possible universes. This realization took the wind out of my pursuing my belief in Einstein’s dream of a final theory. By the way, I found a pretty tidy review of differential forms online, namely, “Introduction to differential forms,” D. Arapua, 2009. I was never satisfied by any of the physics books purportedly written to teach forms.

I actually reviewed a path of books/literature/key physics ideas/key math methods from junior physics texts to postgraduate books at https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=540829

Hope this is useful,

Alex
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
12K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K