| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Kyle" |
| Date: |
31 Aug 2005 09:43:02 PM |
| Object: |
Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
Hi,
What is the best QFT book you have read? I can't find the
info about canonical quantization in Feynman Lectures in
Physics vol 1-3 nor in Penrose Road to Reality and Griffith's
Introduction to Elementary Particles.
I know the basic conceptual basis of quantum mechanics, special
relativity, particle physics and some maths like integration,
differentiation, fourier, calculus, etc.
I want to understand why someone who spent over 30 years
(that is Tony Fleming) totally miscomprehends the basic
of Quantum field theory (see his recent exchanges with
the whizkid Bjoern).
Anyway. Dirac is said to quantize the field. What is
the method he used and how. If you know it by head. Pls.
summarize in intuitively friendly words.
When Einstein discovers the particle property of the
EM wave as in photons. Isn't it that the idea of
quantization already holds. So what Dirac does is applying
quantum mechanics to fields with the addition of special
relativity (to accomodate the fact of the time/energy
relationship where virtual particles can pop out of pure
energy hence you can no longer model it with one particle
but a number of them due to the electron electric field
popping out virtual electron-positron, etc.)
Even though the field is quantized in the form of photons.
But the 3D wave in the field is still continuous right?
What the self proclaimed genius Fleming is saying is that
in each peak or other regular locations of the wave, there
are particles equally distributed. QFT said on the other
hand that the locations of the particles are probabilistics
and can't be pinpointed with accuracy. Maybe Fleming
miscomprehends the self field concept of barut and messed
up so badly.
Pls. recommend good QFT books for us and for him for
reeducation. Don't let him ruin Physics Essays and other
great journals with ridiculous papers that physicists can
easily detect. Doesn't that journal have any physicists
in the review panels or do they just accept any junk to
fill up the monthly requirements?
kyle
.
|
|
| User: "Guy Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
01 Sep 2005 04:58:16 AM |
|
|
"Kyle" <kylejetyer@yahoo.com> wrote:
What is the best QFT book you have read?
I reccomend both Zee's "Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell"
and Aitchison & Hey - "Gauge Theories in Particle Physics"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
02 Sep 2005 04:59:11 PM |
|
|
In article <1125542581.976435.169210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Kyle <kylejetyer@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi,
What is the best QFT book you have read? I can't find the
info about canonical quantization in Feynman Lectures in
Physics vol 1-3 nor in Penrose Road to Reality and Griffith's
Introduction to Elementary Particles.
I know the basic conceptual basis of quantum mechanics, special
relativity, particle physics and some maths like integration,
differentiation, fourier, calculus, etc.
Greiner's book Field Quantization carefully shows how quantum and
classical field theories largely have the same foundations, and how to
turn a classical field theory into a quantum field theory. He covers a
lot of things in great detail that other authors, like the popular Peskin
& Schroeder, seem to breezily pass over. P&S is certainly a good book to
get you to a point of practical calculation, though.
I want to understand why someone who spent over 30 years
(that is Tony Fleming) totally miscomprehends the basic
of Quantum field theory (see his recent exchanges with
the whizkid Bjoern).
I can't say much about that.
Anyway. Dirac is said to quantize the field. What is
the method he used and how. If you know it by head. Pls.
summarize in intuitively friendly words.
field variable -> field operator
commutation relation = i*hbar*Poisson bracket
In practical calculations, express fields in a basis of momentum
eigenstates and call your basis vectors "photons". Any basis may be
chosen, but the momentum basis seems to be universally used in practice.
When Einstein discovers the particle property of the
EM wave as in photons. Isn't it that the idea of
quantization already holds. So what Dirac does is applying
quantum mechanics to fields with the addition of special
relativity (to accomodate the fact of the time/energy
relationship where virtual particles can pop out of pure
energy hence you can no longer model it with one particle
but a number of them due to the electron electric field
popping out virtual electron-positron, etc.)
The process of field quantization has been called second quantization.
First, you have the quantum mechanics of single particles. Then you
define fields that can contain an arbitrary number of particles. But, as
Peskin & Schroeder said, they quantized the field exactly once. It's
probably better to think of second quantization as "Quantization Mark II",
or the other type of quantization, because quantum field theory is a
theory of fields. Particles in QFT are an interpretation of the fields.
Even though the field is quantized in the form of photons.
But the 3D wave in the field is still continuous right?
What happens when you add a photon to the vacuum? You get something like
a_k^dag |0> = exp i(kx-wt)
A plane wave, or a momentum eigenstate. "A" photon exists everywhere. A
localized wavepacket consists of a superposition of an infinite number of
photons, which are given by a Fourier transform of the desired wave
packet, just as in regular quantum mehcanics you can express the
wavepacket of a single particle as a superposition of plane waves.
What the self proclaimed genius Fleming is saying is that
in each peak or other regular locations of the wave, there
are particles equally distributed. QFT said on the other
hand that the locations of the particles are probabilistics
and can't be pinpointed with accuracy. Maybe Fleming
miscomprehends the self field concept of barut and messed
up so badly.
I don't think that's a field theory issue. That's an undergrad QM issue.
Pls. recommend good QFT books for us and for him for
reeducation. Don't let him ruin Physics Essays and other
great journals with ridiculous papers that physicists can
easily detect. Doesn't that journal have any physicists
in the review panels or do they just accept any junk to
fill up the monthly requirements?
I recommend you not bother with it for his sake. It will take a lot more
time for you to research and write something up than it will for him to
glance at it and say "Wrong, you're an idiot." By all means, study the
subject for yourself. But Fleming probably won't appreciate your help or
benefit by it.
--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kyle" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
02 Sep 2005 06:10:16 PM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1125542581.976435.169210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Kyle <kylejetyer@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi,
What is the best QFT book you have read? I can't find the
info about canonical quantization in Feynman Lectures in
Physics vol 1-3 nor in Penrose Road to Reality and Griffith's
Introduction to Elementary Particles.
I know the basic conceptual basis of quantum mechanics, special
relativity, particle physics and some maths like integration,
differentiation, fourier, calculus, etc.
Greiner's book Field Quantization carefully shows how quantum and
classical field theories largely have the same foundations, and how to
turn a classical field theory into a quantum field theory. He covers a
lot of things in great detail that other authors, like the popular Peskin
& Schroeder, seem to breezily pass over. P&S is certainly a good book to
get you to a point of practical calculation, though.
Thanks I will get Greiner's book. It looks more ok than Zee's
QFT in a Nutshell or those more complicated books suggested
by Bjoern. Hope Greiner book is worth the $85.
I just want to know the basic of Quantum Field Theory and
understand how Tony Fleming miscomprehended the foundation.
For example. After I got Griffith's Introduction to Elementary
Particles. I can clearly see how Tom Lockyer got it so twisted
in his modified particle physics.
We Laymen need to be defended with so many cranks here by concise
clear physics text which Greiner's Field Quantization seems to
be one. Thanks again.
Kyle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kyle" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
02 Sep 2005 07:13:59 PM |
|
|
BTW... Greg... does Greiner's "Field Quantization" covers relativistic
QFT too.. or only nonrelativistic QFT?
K.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kyle" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
02 Sep 2005 07:23:48 PM |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
BTW... Greg... does Greiner's "Field Quantization" covers relativistic
QFT too.. or only nonrelativistic QFT?
K.
quantum field theory is supposed to be a marriage of quantum
mechanics and special relativity... what I'm saying is whether
the book covers relativistic field quantization or only
nonrelativistic field quantization... pls. enumerate what
topics are covered in relativistic vs nonrelativistic
field quantization, tnx.
k.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
03 Sep 2005 07:50:58 PM |
|
|
In article <1125707028.166780.54210@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Kyle <kylejetyer@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kyle wrote:
BTW... Greg... does Greiner's "Field Quantization" covers relativistic
QFT too.. or only nonrelativistic QFT?
K.
quantum field theory is supposed to be a marriage of quantum
mechanics and special relativity... what I'm saying is whether
the book covers relativistic field quantization or only
nonrelativistic field quantization... pls. enumerate what
topics are covered in relativistic vs nonrelativistic
field quantization, tnx.
There's nothing especially relativistic about quantum field theories.
They're also used in condensed matter physics, which is usually an
entirely non-relativistic problem. When you go with relativistic quantum
mechanics there's a little matter of the particle number not being
conserved, and so field theories are sensible. But there's a lot you can
do with relativistic wave mechanics.
Greiner's Field Quantization book covers the relativistic field. A nice
book on the side of condensed matter is Mattuck's Dover book with a title
like "Feynman Diagrams in the Many-Body Problem". But I think Mattuck
focuses more on practical calculations than on foundations. There's a lot
of books I haven't read, but Greiner's is the only one I've seen that does
what I'd consider a proper treatment of quantum field theories. For
instance, showing how much field theory you can do without deciding
whether it's quantum or classical, like finding the stress-energy tensors
associated with various field theories and picking the momentum, angular
momentum, and etc., from that. As another example, he deliberately
delayed the choice of a basis for as long as possible, making it clear
that the choice is arbitrary, before he ultimately chose the momentum
basis that everyone else uses. Not easy reading, but enlightening.
--
"Outside the camp you shall have a place set aside to be used as a
latrine. You shall keep a trowel in your equipment and with it, when you
go outside to ease nature, you shall first dig a hole and afterward cover
up your excrement." -- Deuteronomy 23:13-14
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
03 Sep 2005 07:38:05 PM |
|
|
In article <1125702616.134462.153010@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Kyle <kylejetyer@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1125542581.976435.169210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Kyle <kylejetyer@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi,
What is the best QFT book you have read? I can't find the
info about canonical quantization in Feynman Lectures in
Physics vol 1-3 nor in Penrose Road to Reality and Griffith's
Introduction to Elementary Particles.
I know the basic conceptual basis of quantum mechanics, special
relativity, particle physics and some maths like integration,
differentiation, fourier, calculus, etc.
Greiner's book Field Quantization carefully shows how quantum and
classical field theories largely have the same foundations, and how to
turn a classical field theory into a quantum field theory. He covers a
lot of things in great detail that other authors, like the popular Peskin
& Schroeder, seem to breezily pass over. P&S is certainly a good book to
get you to a point of practical calculation, though.
Thanks I will get Greiner's book. It looks more ok than Zee's
QFT in a Nutshell or those more complicated books suggested
by Bjoern. Hope Greiner book is worth the $85.
$85! Holy moley! I wouldn't have paid $85 for it, Kyle. Get the
paperback version.
Greiner can deal with the material in such detail, and with many fully
worked examples, because he doesn't cover a lot of ground in each book.
He has a series of books. For instance, a book on relativistic quantum
mechanics that's wave mechanics rather than field theory. And one on
quantizing the field. Another book on quantum electrodynamics. Another
on weak force interactions. A book on particle physics that's actually an
introduction to group theory that doesn't suck. His books are treasures,
but just be aware of the limited scope. I recommended Field Quantization
because you were asking about the foundations. He doesn't move far beyond
the foundations in that book. Just so you know.
--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kyle" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
03 Sep 2005 07:59:10 PM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1125702616.134462.153010@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Kyle <kylejetyer@yahoo.com> wrote:
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1125542581.976435.169210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Kyle <kylejetyer@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi,
What is the best QFT book you have read? I can't find the
info about canonical quantization in Feynman Lectures in
Physics vol 1-3 nor in Penrose Road to Reality and Griffith's
Introduction to Elementary Particles.
I know the basic conceptual basis of quantum mechanics, special
relativity, particle physics and some maths like integration,
differentiation, fourier, calculus, etc.
Greiner's book Field Quantization carefully shows how quantum and
classical field theories largely have the same foundations, and how to
turn a classical field theory into a quantum field theory. He covers a
lot of things in great detail that other authors, like the popular Peskin
& Schroeder, seem to breezily pass over. P&S is certainly a good book to
get you to a point of practical calculation, though.
Thanks I will get Greiner's book. It looks more ok than Zee's
QFT in a Nutshell or those more complicated books suggested
by Bjoern. Hope Greiner book is worth the $85.
$85! Holy moley! I wouldn't have paid $85 for it, Kyle. Get the
paperback version.
Greiner can deal with the material in such detail, and with many fully
worked examples, because he doesn't cover a lot of ground in each book.
He has a series of books. For instance, a book on relativistic quantum
mechanics that's wave mechanics rather than field theory. And one on
quantizing the field. Another book on quantum electrodynamics. Another
on weak force interactions. A book on particle physics that's actually an
introduction to group theory that doesn't suck. His books are treasures,
but just be aware of the limited scope. I recommended Field Quantization
because you were asking about the foundations. He doesn't move far beyond
the foundations in that book. Just so you know.
--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
After you mentioned "foundations" I finally ordered it. To crack
a physics foundation, one has to understand the foundation. I want
to envision how Tony Fleming and Asim Barut managed to "crack" it.
Anyway. I ordered the $50 one from marketplace in amazon. It's new
too. I nearly got Mandl and Ryder "QFT".. but after seeing how many
pages Greiner has about the annihilation and creation operators in
the index. I decided to get his book. Also you own one you have
mastered every page and if I have inquiry. At least you are there...
hehe...
Kyle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Black" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
01 Sep 2005 02:23:09 PM |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
Hi,
Hello, Cinquirer.
What is the best QFT book you have read? I can't find the
info about canonical quantization in Feynman Lectures in
Physics vol 1-3 nor in Penrose Road to Reality and Griffith's
Introduction to Elementary Particles.
Before jumping into QFT, you may want to look at the quantum treatment
of the simple harmonic oscillator, which is not covered in the Feynman
Lectures. This could save you some pain and confusion when the QFT
books start throwing annihilation and creation operators at you as if
you're supposed to know what they mean. Being well-acquainted (i.e.
more than just the one chapter in Feynman) with Lagrangian and
Hamiltonian mechanics will also help. For example, you'll need to know
what conjugate variables (also not covered in Feynman) are, because
you'll be using them right away. When you do jump into QFT, you will
probably want to look at more than one book sometimes. Books are
expensive. Libraries are always good.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Stefanovich" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
01 Sep 2005 03:01:54 PM |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
Pls. recommend good QFT books for us
Try http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504062
Eugene.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr Photon" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
01 Sep 2005 11:06:39 AM |
|
|
Qile wrote:
I want to understand why someone who spent over 30 years
(that is Tony Fleming) totally miscomprehends the basic
of Quantum field theory (see his recent exchanges with
the whizkid Bjoern).
I'm still waiting for him to answer *one* of my questions, and they had
*nothing* to do with QFT.
Buy him a QM book too...
br
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
14 Sep 2005 11:35:43 PM |
|
|
again, brendan, i think you now know i do understand QFT
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
01 Sep 2005 04:44:10 AM |
|
|
This is Qion/Landle/Cinquirer *yet again*, right?
Hey, we recognize you anyway, no matter how often you change your
nickname, so what about keeping one nickname for a change?
Kyle wrote:
Hi,
What is the best QFT book you have read? I can't find the
info about canonical quantization in Feynman Lectures in
Physics vol 1-3
Duh. These are *introductory* text books, so they don't contain QFT.
nor in Penrose Road to Reality and Griffith's
Introduction to Elementary Particles.
Haven't read these two, but the first sounds like a pop science book,
the second like a book on *experimental* particle physics. Both I
would not expect to contain an explanation of QFT.
I know the basic conceptual basis of quantum mechanics, special
relativity, particle physics and some maths like integration,
differentiation, fourier, calculus, etc.
Well, for someone starting QFT, I would recommend a good familiarity
with Dirac's formulation of QM. Also helpful is understand the
differences between the Schroedinger, Heisenberg and interaction
representation, although these are generally explained in books on
QFT. And you should be familiar with the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian
formulation of laws of physics.
The books I have read are:
* Ryder, "Quantum Field Theory" (quite nice introduction, but wanders
off sometimes into strange tangential directions)
* Bjorken&Drell, "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics" and "Relativistic
Quantum Field Theory" (two classics which build on each other; some of
the concepts presented are today outdated, but nevertheless a good read)
* Peskin&Schroeder, "Introduction to Quantum Field Theory" (relatively
new book, may replace Bjorken&Drell as the "classic"; even Bjorken
himself says it's a "serious competitor" to their books ;-) )
I've also looked into Heitler, "The quantum theory of radiation". If
you are mainly interested in the application of QFT to
electrodynamics, i.e. in QED, that may be also a quite good start.
I want to understand why someone who spent over 30 years
(that is Tony Fleming) totally miscomprehends the basic
of Quantum field theory (see his recent exchanges with
the whizkid Bjoern).
I sincerely doubt that Mr. Fleming has spent over 30 years
studying QFT.
Anyway. Dirac is said to quantize the field.
Huh? Where did you get that from?
What is
the method he used and how. If you know it by head. Pls.
summarize in intuitively friendly words.
Quantization is essentially a mathematical prescription; I don't know
if one could call that "intuitive". Well, for someone well versed
in ordinary QM, it *is* intuitive, in a sense...
Essentially, what you do is using the same axioms as in ordinary
QM, but instead of using the positions and momenta of particles as the
degrees of freedom, you use the field strengths and "canonical
conjugate" momenta. That's the main idea, which is quite natural.
One way to do that (essentially a Hamiltonian approach) is
applying the well-known Heisenberg commutation relation
[x_i,p_j] = i hbar delta_ij
to the fields, i.e., for a scalar field phi, you use
[phi(x,t),pi(y,t)] = i hbar delta(x-y),
where pi is the "canonically conjugate" momentum for phi, which
is essentially identical to the time derivate of phi for the
usual example of a Klein-Gordon field. The second chapter of
Peskin&Schroeder explains this in a quite pedagogical way, IMO.
Another way to do that (essentially a Lagrangian approach) is
applying Feynman's path integral approach to the fields:
replace the Lagrangian for one particle with the Lagrangian
for the field, and integrate over all possible field configurations at
all times instead of over all possible paths. You could read this up
e.g. in the ninth chapter of Peskin&Schroeder.
When Einstein discovers the particle property of the
EM wave as in photons. Isn't it that the idea of
quantization already holds.
In a sense, yes. But the mathematical apparatus to carry this
through came only about 25 years later.
So what Dirac does is applying
quantum mechanics to fields with the addition of special
relativity
Actually, what Dirac did do was first setting up a *linear*,
relativistically correct wave equation for massive particles.
I actually don't know who first *quantized* the fields...
(to accomodate the fact of the time/energy
relationship where virtual particles can pop out of pure
energy hence you can no longer model it with one particle
but a number of them due to the electron electric field
popping out virtual electron-positron, etc.)
Well, I don't think that this was Dirac's main motivation.
After all, a relativistically correct wave equation for massive
particles was already available (the Klein-Gordon equation).
Even though the field is quantized in the form of photons.
But the 3D wave in the field is still continuous right?
You have to consider that a macroscopically observable electromagnetic
field (which includes an electromagnetic wave) always is a
*superposition* of energy eigenstates (which are essentially identical
to photon number eigenstates), a so-called "coherent state". In other
words, the number of photons (and the energy!) in a "classical"
electromagnetic fields is not fixed; in the same way as the position
and momentum of an electron in an atom are not fixed.
What the self proclaimed genius Fleming is saying is that
in each peak or other regular locations of the wave, there
are particles equally distributed.
He is free to provide evidence for that assertion. So far, I haven't
seen any.
BTW, "regular locations of the wave" makes little sense.
QFT said on the other
hand that the locations of the particles are probabilistics
and can't be pinpointed with accuracy.
Indeed.
Maybe Fleming
miscomprehends the self field concept of barut and messed
up so badly.
I don't know what Barut exactly wrote, but I'm quite sure that
it was not the nonsense which Mr. Fleming propagates.
Pls. recommend good QFT books for us and for him for
reeducation.
Problem: as all cranks, he is not interested in education, because
he is 100% sure that he already understands it.
Don't let him ruin Physics Essays and other
great journals with ridiculous papers that physicists can
easily detect.
As I already pointed out: "Physics Essays" doesn't seem to be such a
great journal.
Doesn't that journal have any physicists
in the review panels or do they just accept any junk to
fill up the monthly requirements?
Judging from what they have published in the past, one might think so.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
14 Sep 2005 11:33:39 PM |
|
|
mmmm, just found this interesting piece of scuttlebutt by bjoern, who
stuffed up in his chats with me about some very basic physics. he
doesn't understand if he leaves piles of nasties lying around they may
come back to bite him. but being a forgiving sort of chap, i say go
away and learn what fractals are, and then tell me how they tie in with
self field theory.
and try to learn what people are saying when they talk; i have no issue
with QFT except for HUP.
bjoern, what's a fractal field? and how does it help us understand
things like renormalization, and how particles can be understood better
than dirac delta functions, heaviside functions, and how singularities
can be avoided a la SFT? this i think you'll agree is an issue for QFT.
what we all need to understand is that name calling is NOT the answer
to learning, it's more like listening quietly to what other people are
saying BEFORE you jump in and end up with footinmouthitis.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
14 Sep 2005 11:48:42 PM |
|
|
just found this fleming "hatefest" thread; what a load of old cobblers
we have here!! what a bunch of mealymouthed so-called physicists we see
gathered in the one duckpond. all waddling around together not knowing
which way to turn, just squawking and cluttering in unison!!
one of the most basic errors that physicists have been caught on for
over two centuries now is the concept that something almost 'mystical'
is happening when we describe an entity as BOTH a wave and a particle.
now if we treat this entity as having a substructure, we can
immediately see how a "particle" can have wave-like properties and act
like a particle in that it can collide with other entities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
15 Sep 2005 12:36:09 AM |
|
|
if anyone wants to get a good historical feel for where QFT came from,
i'd suggest E. Whittaker, A history of the theories of aether and
electricity, 2, (Harper & Brother, New York, NY, 1960); this is a
history of what was happening BEFORE 1926; there's also a vol 3 giving
the story AFTER 1926.
we are fortunate that there are those who devoted some of their careers
to a history of physics so that we in the 21st century can understand
from a closer perspective how we got to where we are today.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tony fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations |
14 Sep 2005 11:38:48 PM |
|
|
kyle, this is skuttlebutt of the highest rank!! do you know anything
about fields? do you in fact know anything about QFT let alone SFT??
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
