I am familiar with the basic ideas of quantum field theory but I feel uncomfortable when I have to derive Feynman rules by myself for a given action  (for example in non-linear sigma models or electrodynamics). Could you provide a list of good books, articles, lecture notes and/or any other sources (except Peskin), where Wick's theorem and the Feynman rules are derived from the functional integral in detail, preferably with examples?
59607
I'm looking for a textbook in quantum mechanics that relies heavily on Green functions and the path integral formalism to supplement my QM books. I want to do some calculations using alternative methods (path integrals, green functions, Lagrangians etc).
5484
seems like a really hot topic and I'd like to start reading about. I am looking for the best introduction at my level, i.e. I have a background in QFT, CFT and general relativity at the level of a master student in theoretical physics. What would you recommend me to start tackling the subject? I have been looking for resources and so far I have noticed:  -this synthetic introductory lectures by Horatiu Nastase:   -the videos of lectures done by P. Vieira at Perimeter for Perimeter Scholar International students:   -the subject starts entering the most recent textbooks on string theory. We have the Schwartz and Becker (  ) and also the Kiritsis (  )  I probably missed a lot of resources, as the literature on the subject is already quite huge. I would really appreciate some advice on that, as I already had the frustration of losing my time on not-so-good books when started to learn something new, so if I could (to the best) avoid that this time...
79938
I'm a mathematician. I have good knowledge of superior analysis, distribution theory, Hilbert spaces, Sobolev spaces, and applications to PDE theory. I also have good knowledge of differential geometry. I would like to study the Semiclassic Analysis, but perhaps I must first study the foundations of quantum mechanics. So I would like to know what book you recommend me to begin studying quantum mechanics. I'm primarily interested in a mathematical point of view. I have seen some books of this type, but I would like to have some other opinion.  Thanks for every reply
49374
I'm interested in reading Dr. Peter Woit's article, Quantum field theory and representation theory: a sketch .  What math and physics background would be needed?  (A list of topics from the two fields would be more than sufficient.)  With great appreciation and regards.
53205
In Weinberg's book The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume 1 on p.388 (Chapter 9), the following identity is used (with $f$ being any "reasonable" function):  $$f(+\infty) + f(-\infty) = \lim_{\epsilon \rightarrow 0^+} \epsilon \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\tau f(\tau) e^{-\epsilon |\tau|}.\tag{9.2.15} $$  I don't understand the identity in a qualitative / heuristic way.
5422
What is the reason for the observation that across the board fields in physics are generally governed by second order (partial) differential equations?    If someone on the street would flat out ask me that question, then I'd probably mumble something about physicists wanting to be able to use the Lagrangian approach. And to allow a positive rotation and translation invariant energy term, which allows for local propagation, you need something like $-\phi\Delta\phi$.  I assume the answer goes in this direction, but I can't really justify why more complex terms in the Lagrangian are not allowed or why higher orders are a physical problem. Even if these require more initial data, I don't see the a priori problem.  Furthermore you could come up with quantities in the spirit of $F\wedge F$ and $F \wedge *F$ and okay yes... maybe any made up scalar just doesn't describe physics or misses valuable symmetries. On there other hand in the whole renormalization business, they seem to be allowed to use lots and lots of terms in their Lagrangians. And if I understand correctly, supersymmetry theory is basically a method of introducing new Lagrangian densities too.   Do we know the limit for making up these objects? What is the fundamental justification for order two?
1207
I am looking for a good source on group theory aimed at physicists. I'd prefer one with a good general introduction to group theory, not just focusing on Lie groups or crystal groups but one that covers "all" the basics, and then, in addition, talks about the specific subjects of group theory relevant to physicists, i.e. also some stuff on representations etc.  Is Wigner's text a good way to start? I guess it's a "classic", but I fear that its notation might be a bit outdated?
38589
I'll be generous and say it might be reasonable to assume that nature would tend to minimize, or maybe even maximize, the integral over time of $T-V$.  Okay, fine.  You write down the action functional, require that it be a minimum (or maximum), and arrive at the Euler-Lagrange equations.  Great.  But now you want these Euler-Lagrange equations to not just be derivable from the Principle of Least Action, but you want it to be equivalent to the Principle of Least Action.  After thinking about it for awhile, you realize that this implies that the Principle of Least Action isn't really the Principle of Least Action at all:  it's the "Principle of Stationary Action".  Maybe this is just me, but as generous as I may be, I will not grant you that it is "natural" to assume that nature tends to choose the path that is stationary point of the action functional.  Not to mention, it isn't even obvious that there is such a path, or if there is one, that it is unique.  But the problems don't stop there.  Even if you grant the "Principle of Stationary Action" as fundamentally and universally true, you realize that not all the equations of motions that you would like to have are derivable from this if you restrict yourself to a Lagrangian of the form $T-V$.  As far as I can tell, from here it's a matter of playing around until you get a Lagrangian that produces the equations of motion you want.  From my (perhaps naive point of view), there is nothing at all particularly natural (although I will admit, it is quite useful) about the formulation of classical mechanics this way.  Of course, this wouldn't be such a big deal if these classical ideas stayed with the classical physics, but these ideas are absolutely fundamental to how we think about things as modern as quantum field theory.  Could someone please convince me that there is something natural about the choice of the Lagrangian formulation of classical mechanics (I don't mean in comparison with the Hamiltonian formulation; I mean period), and in fact, that it is so natural that we would not even dare abandon these ideas?
3628
I am reading and following along the appendices of , and trying to learn how he derives Schrödinger's Equation from his Matrix Mechanics, but I have run into a bit of trouble. It seems like for his derivation to work, it must be necessary for the integral of a function times the Dirac Delta Function's derivative be: $$\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}f(\xi)\delta'(a-\xi)d\xi=f'(a). \tag{36}$$ But the actual identity is $$\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}f(\xi)\delta'(\xi-a)d\xi=-f'(a).$$ Does anybody care to explain why it is like this in Heisenberg's book, or provide a derivation along the same vein, but with the correct identity for the delta function?
76427
In the book "Quantum Field theory and the Standard Model" by Matthew Schwartz, , the position space wavefunction is defined as   $$\psi(x)=\langle 0|\phi(x)|\psi\rangle, \tag{2.82+2.83}$$  where $|\psi\rangle$ is any state in the Fock space. Then he uses the equations (i) $\partial_t^2\phi_0=(\nabla^2-m^2)\phi_0$ (i.e., the Klein-Gordon equation for the free massive scalar field $\phi_0(\textbf{x},t)$) and (ii) $[H,\phi_0]=-i\partial_t\phi_0$ to derive Eq. 2.85, in following 3 steps:  $$i\langle 0|\partial_t\phi_0(\textbf{x},t)|\psi\rangle=\langle 0|\int \frac{d^3\textbf{p}}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{\sqrt{\textbf{p}^2+m^2}}{\sqrt{2\omega_\textbf{p}}}(a_p e^{-ip\cdot x}-a^\dagger_p e^{ip\cdot x})|\psi\rangle\\ =\langle 0|\sqrt{m^2-\nabla^2}\phi_0(\textbf{x},t)|\psi\rangle.\tag{2.85}$$  This equation is used to successfully derive the Schrodinger equation in quantum mechanics for the state $\psi(\textbf{x},t)\equiv \langle 0|\phi_0(\textbf{x},t)|\psi\rangle$.   The first equality follows from differentiation of $\phi_0(x)$ w.r.t $t$. How does the second equality follow from the first? How are the inputs (i) and (ii) are utilized to derive the second equality from the first? Is it true that the operator $$i\partial_t\sim\sqrt{m^2-\nabla^2}~?$$ If yes, what is the use of doing the middle step?
117672
There seems to be something very strange about the relationship between quantum field theory and quantum mechanics.  It is bothering me; perhaps somebody can help.  I'll consider a free Klein-Gordon field.  In standard treatments (e.g. Peskin &amp; Schroeder and Schwartz) the one-particle momentum eigenstates $| \vec{k} \rangle$ are normalized so that  $$ \langle \vec{p} | \vec{k} \rangle = 2 \omega_{\vec{p}} (2\pi)^3 \delta^{(3)}(\vec{p}-\vec{k}), \qquad 1 = \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{2 \omega_{\vec{p}}}| \vec{p} \rangle \langle \vec{p} |. $$ Now, assuming $\langle \vec{x}' | \vec{x} \rangle = \delta^{(3)}(x-x')$ as usual, it follows that $$ \langle \vec{x} | \vec{p} \rangle = \sqrt{2 \omega_{\vec{p}}} e^{i \vec{p} \cdot \vec{x}}. $$ Now, one can compute (here in the Schrodinger picture; see Schwartz 2.76 or P&amp;S 2.42) that $$ \langle 0 | \phi(\vec{x}) | \vec{p} \rangle = e^{i \vec{p} \cdot \vec{x}}. $$ This is supposed to mean that $\phi$ creates a particle localized at position $\vec{x}$.  P&amp;S are a little cautious about the details, but Schwartz claims that the calculation implies  $$ \phi(\vec{x}) |0 \rangle = | \vec{x} \rangle. $$ But this is false because $\langle \vec{x} | \vec{p} \rangle \neq e^{i \vec{p} \cdot \vec{x}}$ with the normalization conventions used.  I suppose it could be true with some weird normalization of $| \vec{x} \rangle$, but I can't see what that might be (and at the very least this is not spelled out on the text).    Even if this works out, it seems extremely strange for there to be a relative normalization between the one-particle states of field theory and the states of one-particle relativistic quantum mechanics.  One ought to be able to redo the correspondence to make the normalization work out, but I don't see how.  (Note that the normalizations can be easily made to agree in the non-relativistic limit $\omega \approx m$, but that's besides the point.  Even if fully relativistic quantum mechanics is inconsistent [as some texts claim without reference], at the very least the perturbative corrections for $v \ll 1$ should be recoverable from field theory.)  [Edit: This seems to go beyond normalization.  We can get a feel for what kind of state $\phi(\vec{x})|0\rangle$ is by computing its wavefunction as a function of $\vec{x}'$, $$ \langle \vec{x}' | \phi(\vec{x}) |0 \rangle = \int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \omega_{\vec{p}}}} e^{i\vec{p} \cdot (\vec{x}-\vec{x}')}. $$ This wavefunction is peaked (I think divergent) at $\vec{x}'=\vec{x}$, so in some sense the particle is centered at $\vec{x}$, but it seems to be quite a stretch to say that it is at $\vec{x}$ (as the books do).  I would go so far as to say the claim is incorrect, since in quantum mechanics saying the particle is at particular position means the wave function is a delta-function there. I guess the same language is used in the Heisenberg picture, when two-point functions are called amplitudes for particles to propagate from one spacetime point to another.  This similarly seems false by the conventional meaning of amplitude as the overlap between two localized states.  Words of wisdom would be appreciated.]
12161
It's coming up to Christmas so I can ask to have all the books I can't afford from begrudging relatives! I'm really interested (mainly from looking at some of the answers cleo and other fantastic users!) in being able to approach integrals from a variety of different ways and learning how to tackle  non-elementary integrals.   I've gone over a lot of the standard techniques in my undergrad and this is just for a hobby, so don't want anything too 'heavy', just great explanations and a lot of questions to tackle. So far I've found Irresistible Integrals: Symbolics, Analysis and Experiments in the Evaluation of Integrals. Many thanks.
3675
I know classical physics, quantum mechanics, special relativity, and basic nuclear physics. I would like to get into some particle physics.   Where can I find a good introduction? It might be useful to segment books by whether they require quantum field theory or not.
117199
I have just begun studying quantum field theory and am following the book by Peskin and Schroeder for that. So while quantising the Klein Gordon field, we Fourier expand the field and then work only in the momentum space. What is the need for this expansion?
26120
I am looking for a multivariable calculus book that is really physics oriented.  Anyone know of any?  EDIT: My wife is looking to brush up on multivariable at the same time she needs to brush up on the related physics.
42011
In $\phi^3$ theory, are there any formula for determining the Symmetry factor as that is found for the $\phi^4$ theory in any standard book of Quantum Field Theory?
112140
How to get  $f_{i}$ (more or less strictly)? What are the requirements for getting them, excluding $||f_{i}|| = 1$, commutational law $[f_{i}, f_{j}] = if_{ijk}f_{k}$ and hermitian nature? Is that enough?