Can anyone teach me quantum field theory?

[Johnny5]

I am interested in learning quantum field theory as fast as possible. Is there anyone here who can help me learn it quickly? Assume that I already know classical electrodynamics.

 

Thank you

[Severian]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201503972/qid%3D1109770995/026-2811211-6333217

[Johnny5]

[url']http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201503972/qid%3D1109770995/026-2811211-6333217[/url]

 

Thanks, but I wanted someone who already knows it to explain it.

 

Regards

[Tom Mattson]

Johnny,

 

What you are asking is too tall an order for anyone to reasonably fill, unless they have already set aside the time to do it. Your best bet is to go to http://www.superstringtheory.com, where they regularly offer free online courses in QM and QFT. If you can't find the next starting date at that site, the you should go to http://www.physicsforums.com and send a PM to the member named vanesch. He is the one who led the last QFT course from Peskin and Schroeder.

[Johnny5]

Johnny' date='

 

What you are asking is too tall an order for anyone to reasonably fill, unless they have already set aside the time to do it. Your best bet is to go to http://www.superstringtheory.com, where they regularly offer free online courses in QM and QFT. If you can't find the next starting date at that site, the you should go to http://www.physicsforums.com and send a PM to the member named vanesch. He is the one who led the last QFT course from Peskin and Schroeder.[/quote']

 

Thank you, I don't think I will end up doing all that though. It would have been easier for me to learn it here. But I guess you're right.

 

Regards

[5614]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory is quite good... try learning a few of the basics and then asking a more precise question, so rather than 'tell me everything' try 'why does the ____ theory work?' or 'how does the ___ equation work?'... not that I will be able to answer questions on QFT, just that that way you'd get somewhere and I could learn from it too!

[Johnny5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory[/url'] is quite good... try learning a few of the basics and then asking a more precise question, so rather than 'tell me everything' try 'why does the ____ theory work?' or 'how does the ___ equation work?'... not that I will be able to answer questions on QFT, just that that way you'd get somewhere and I could learn from it too!

 

That article is well written, thank you. Well from memory the Schrodinger equation is:

 

[math] \frac{-\hbar}{2M} \nabla^2 \Psi + U \Psi = i \hbar \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} [/math]

 

The reason I start here, is because I have used the equation above to derive the spherical harmonics for the hydrogen atom before. I used separation of variables. In the solution, M was the reduced mass. I still have all the mathematical work which went into the solution.

 

The wikipedia article starts out with the Schrodinger equation in a different form, it uses the 'bra' 'ket' notation, due to Dirac, which came years after Shrodinger formulated his equation. I think schrodinger wanted psi to represent energy density if I am not mistaken, and it was Born's idea to interpret psi times the complex conjugate of psi as related to the probability of the particles being in some region of space.

 

You asked for me to ask a question. I guess the intelligent first question to ask is, what mass does the letter m denote, in the first equation at the wikipedia site?

 

First of all I am already uncomfortable using the first equation at the wikipedia site, because it is not the one I derived the spherical harmonics of a hydrogen atom with. I don't immediately see the equivalence of it to the equation I have. (Perhaps demonstrating equivalence would be a good place to start)

 

I can see that the first term of the operator there represents "kinetic energy" the second term of the operator represents the potentially kinetic energy, and the operator operates on [math] | \Psi (t) > [/math], you would have to be blind not to notice that.

 

 

I see a whole lot of differences between the equation I am familiar with, and the starting point there. I can make a small adjustment to the original Schrodinger equation as follows:

 

[math] [\frac{-\hbar}{2M} \nabla^2 + U ]\Psi = i \hbar \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} [/math]

 

That starts off demonstrating equivalence, but of course the wikipedia site is already using the 'bra' 'ket' notation, which is highly abstract, not to mention anachronistic.

 

Regards

[Severian]

Thanks' date=' but I wanted someone who already knows it to explain it.

[/quote']

 

I will probably have to teach a graduate course on QFT next year. If I do, I will post a link to the lectures here. (But there is no way I can teach it via a few posts on a website.)

[Johnny5]

I will probably have to teach a graduate course on QFT next year. If I do, I will post a link to the lectures here. (But there is no way I can teach it via a few posts on a website.)

 

You can depending upon the student. It might help you to know that I know a lot already.

 

Thank you

[5614]

I don't think it's fair of you to ask Severian to teach you all of QFT over posts on the internet, its not realistic and would require massive amounts of time on his behalf which he probably doesn't have.

 

May I ask, like not meaning to be rude and fell free not to answer, but who are you? Like a school student, university studying physics (or anything else), adult in another profession but learning physics or what?.. just interested.

[Johnny5]

I don't think it's fair of you to ask Severian to teach you all of QFT over posts on the internet' date=' its not realistic and would require massive amounts of time on his behalf which he probably doesn't have.

 

May I ask, like not meaning to be rude and fell free not to answer, but who are you? Like a school student, university studying physics (or anything else), adult in another profession but learning physics or what?.. just interested.[/quote']

 

I am not a school student, and I am not studying physics at a university, I am not an adult in another profession, though I'm in my thirties.

 

As for learning physics, I will always be learning physics, until the day I know it all, which I hope never comes.

 

As for what in the world I am trying to do... the answer is unify physics.

 

Regards

[swansont]

Just ran across this

[Johnny5]

Just ran across this

 

Thanks

 

Basically, all I wanted was to have a look at what it was about, which is what that did for me. Thanks