this seems to differ substantialy from the kg equation in wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein%E2%80%93Gordon_equation where the equation reads m^2 Psi + Del^2 Psi = dPsi/dt^2. but at 27:26 of the video our lecturer writes m^2 Psi + Delt^2 Psi = 0. Why do we assume that dPsi/dt^2 = 0? I understand that this happened because the lagrangian that was chosen was not second order in time or space.
That del_mu del^mu, which is written in the board using tensor notation, already contains both the spatial and temporal derivative. Is is known as the D'Alembertian.
Well, I would say the following: 1. Quantum Mechanics 2. Classical mechanics 3. Statistical physics 4. Advanced quantum mechanics 5. Special relativity 6. Linear algebra (Tensor calculus) 7. Group theory This all will do. Well, you made that comment 2 years ago, I guess you have mastered the subject anyway.
Ryder was good for many years, until being eclipsed by more vast, comprehensive treatments. Ryder is very mature, relaxed and competent in style(his PhD. was under Peter Higgs, 1967). Schwartz is good( and getting better with each new printing which incorporate corrections.) Klauber, Schwitchenberg, Lancaster/Bundell, Zee and Aitchison/Hey are all excellent. Lahiri/Pal, Ashok Das,...,
There are many good treatments you could find. For introduction, I would recommend sydney coleman For a more in-depth discussion and a different flavor, Steve Weinberg's is also extraordinary, but it is not meant for introduction, so I think you should have some taste in QFT before reading this.
@@adamfattal9602 There are plenty of evidence suggesting its existence. This is a fact. Besides, scalar field is only here for simplicity, if from the beginning, we consider the spin field, then it would be too difficulty and the pedagogical value is little in doing so.
شكراً لك سيدي.........
this seems to differ substantialy from the kg equation in wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein%E2%80%93Gordon_equation where the equation reads m^2 Psi + Del^2 Psi = dPsi/dt^2. but at 27:26 of the video our lecturer writes m^2 Psi + Delt^2 Psi = 0. Why do we assume that dPsi/dt^2 = 0? I understand that this happened because the lagrangian that was chosen was not second order in time or space.
That del_mu del^mu, which is written in the board using tensor notation, already contains both the spatial and temporal derivative. Is is known as the D'Alembertian.
That del in this lecture is a four-derivative, not a spatial laplacian
what are the prerequisite courses to this? Anybody?
master in QM and spacial theory of relativity( i mean covariant formulation of electrodynamics) this theory is based on these two theories
@@kronikevaporation6007 then good luck
@@kronikevaporation6007 i'm happy to help you brother
Well, I would say the following:
1. Quantum Mechanics
2. Classical mechanics
3. Statistical physics
4. Advanced quantum mechanics
5. Special relativity
6. Linear algebra (Tensor calculus)
7. Group theory
This all will do. Well, you made that comment 2 years ago, I guess you have mastered the subject anyway.
@@Timalsinaprithvi sir please advise me which I should study first classical field theory or quantum field theory .
Just ok
straight follows from lecture note of David Tong at Cambridge
Boyao Zhu are these perimeter institute lectures?
Yess!
Which book is good for quantum field theory?
Srednicki is free
Peskin
Ryder was good for many years, until being eclipsed by more vast, comprehensive treatments. Ryder is very mature, relaxed and competent in style(his PhD. was under Peter Higgs, 1967). Schwartz is good( and getting better with each new printing which incorporate corrections.) Klauber, Schwitchenberg, Lancaster/Bundell, Zee and Aitchison/Hey are all excellent. Lahiri/Pal, Ashok Das,...,
@@michealjf9942 are you physics student?
There are many good treatments you could find. For introduction, I would recommend sydney coleman
For a more in-depth discussion and a different flavor, Steve Weinberg's is also extraordinary, but it is not meant for introduction, so I think you should have some taste in QFT before reading this.
They guy reads his notes every 5 seconds, and has really poor communication skills :/
He's young, a tad nervous and unsure of himself, and trying his best to stay on script. He follows Ryder mostly, I think.
spin 0 does not exist, never seen
they invented it
@Gerardo Piedras You actually believe in that stuff?
@@adamfattal9602 There are plenty of evidence suggesting its existence. This is a fact.
Besides, scalar field is only here for simplicity, if from the beginning, we consider the spin field, then it would be too difficulty and the pedagogical value is little in doing so.
@@yansonghuang5911 It was a joke extending to the OP's (I hope) joke