/sci/ - Science & Math

>is it possible to do QFT research as an undergrad?
Why don't you try it and find out?

>>9973718
>quantum field theory
Whys it so hideously wrong when it comes to the cosmological constant.

>>9973718
for sure! there are plenty of professors in experimental high energy physics who assign nice research projects to undergrads

i could even give you one, and i'm a grad student

want to see if the LHC is making a very specific type of new particle? if you joined my research group i could teach you how to look for it

>>9973727
:o where are you doing that? just curious

>>9973737
somewhere in the new england region of the US

i am afraid of doxxing myself so please don't probe further

>>9973745
don't worry i do not have knowledge to access a botnet or motivation

anyway cool, i'm in the US too, and hoping to apply in the US, so thanks

Give a rigorous definition of the path integral

>>9973985
K(x_0, 0; x_n, t) =
(limit as n -> infinity of)
int dx_1 [ norm_factor(delta_t) S(x_0, 0, x_1, delta_t) ] ... dx_n [ norm_factor(delta_t) S(x_n-1, t - delta_t; x_n, t]

(K: propagator, S: classical action)

am brainlet but good enough?

>>9973724
Idk maybe the error will cancel out with the dark matter problem xD

>>9973718
I'm building a higgs field simulation in C++ in my basement right now.

>>9973718
>is it possible to do QFT research as an undergrad?
David Griffiths thinks so. Get his highly readable course text, specifically designed for undergrads, called Introduction to Elementary Particles. You won't be sorry.

>>9973724
Because it doesn't work well with gravity. We already know this. We need another genius to take us to the next step.

>>9975305

>>9973718
If by undergraduate you mean I don't have the prerequisites enough to study it, of course not, but if you're referring to the actual year, that's irrelevant if you know your shit
>>9975312
That's a book on particle physics, that you should learn, but it's not exactly all that comes in QFT books

>>9975312
>>9975329
>books

does anyone have any opinions on this? it's relatively super new (2014)

>>9975329
>but it's not exactly all that comes in QFT books
Fair enough, but it's a great start, super readable, and covers the Lagrangian approach to QED, QCD, and Electroweak, which isn't a bad menu.

>>9975335
Does it cover second quantization? If not, you might want to check that out first.

>>9975335
>>9975338
It starts off at second quantization, works its way through perturbation theory all the way up to Feynman path integrals and QED, all in the first third of the book.
>T. Used it last semester

>>9973718
>is it possible to do QFT research as an undergrad? what about theory?
Yes, but you'll likely not do to much high end stuff. There's a lot of research right now in QCD and condensed matter system where field theory is useful. It should go without saying that there will be a lot of material you'll have to learn on your own. Thankfully my friend, the internet is full of such sources. For a refresher on some quantum theory and learning some of the mathematical framework going forward this will do you well
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6SaWe7xeOp31Vo8cQG1oXw/playlists
For getting a foothold on more advanced material you can consult these
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpHjg_Qmzxm3xaAWRrwQPCA/playlists
A one stop shop for both of the above however comes from Perimeter
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/training/perimeter-scholars-international/psi-lectures
And when you're ready for the heavy material Ooguri will help you get there
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7aXC0jU4Qk7K778c5nmgQImd6VKKFMYu
Of course, these are no substitute for actual text books. I personally like the book by Zee, Peskin is good if you just want to get started with calculations quickly. I've been recommended Mandl, Padmanabhan, and Klauber's books (they didn't author one book, they each have separate books), but I haven't read them myself. Feynman also have a book on field theory so maybe that'll be up your alley. If I were you, I'd make sure to have a strong grasp of E&M, special relativity, and QM before going into QFT. Good luck anon!

Griffiths is a bit dated nowadays, and it's a particle physics book, not a QFT book. (everything is pretty much tree-level). It's a good book if you want to study the standard model, but not a great book if you want to be a high energy theorist.

For studying QFT, the books I would recommend are:
Srednicki
Peskin & Schroeder

>>9975341
nice to hear that it's being used other places

>>9975345
>There's a lot of research right now in QCD and condensed matter system where field theory is useful
this is encouraging! i didn't think about QFT in areas like that

saved the youtube links. also, i didn't know Feynman had a book. i learned all of E&M from FLP, i think his QFT would be great

and thank you :)

>>9975348
peskin is classic but srednicki is interesting, i remember hearing about him, i'll look at that more

>>9973721
/thread