/sci/ - Science & Math

[yep No.4780965]

Will learning analysis help me become a better engineer? I'm in my second year of undergrad and need something to differentiate myself from the pact. I want something that puts me ahead, and it's been said (here) that analysis is a great thing to learn.

What kind of skills will learning analysis provide for me?

Also, I take it that analysis will be beneficial to my conquest of learning Quantum Field Theory?

On that note, what's a good path to learn QFT?

I was thinking Lin Alg, Analysis, Calculus, non-relativistic qm, then QFT.

I have Michael Spivak's Calculus so I can use that as an intro to Analysis and refine my Calculus skills at the same time. Thanks.

[Insinuates gODs No.4780990]

Nothing well help you more than the absence of idiots and a comfortable chair.

[Anonymous No.4781000]

To understand Quantum Field Theory and why we need it you first need to have a grasp on classical field theory and quantum mechanics. I'm really no full-fledged expert, although I spend some time doing QFT during my masters thesis.

You need to know classical mechanics and its Langrangian / Hamiltonian formulation - and understand the physics behind it. Electrodynamics is also necessary in a way because it is the most-used example of a classical field theory.

I know, quite a lot to learn. Took me ages to halfway understand what the fuck am I doing. If you went to have a look in a good starters QFT textbook, get "Peskin and Schroeder".

[yep No.4781007]

>>4780990
Hehe

>>4781000

Thanks, I will definite check this out. What do you think about Sakurai? Also, how much harder is QFT than non-relative QM?

[Anonymous No.4781022]

>>4781007
Eh, hard is really a tough word. Yes, in later stages, QFT becomes quite a bitch. But getting to grasp the ideas for a simple scalar theory is really not too much for an undergrad - assuming you know the rest of physics up to and inlcuding QM. And a good teacher is always a plus.

Like I said, QFT is basically field theory on which you impose quantization - so know your QM well. Sakurai is a good QM book, good (or probably) better than any other to learn from.

[yep No.4781066]

>>4781022

Okay, fair enough.

What would be your ideal path - the steps you'd take - in order to master QFT.

Yes, I mean master. It's my favourite thing and some people pissed me off enough to force me to learn everything I need to become the best experimental/theoretical physicist I can possibly become.

For example, would you do

Lin Alg > Geometry > Analysis + Calc > (something to do with classical physics) > Sakurai > The QFT book you mentioned

[Anonymous No.4781105]

>>4781066
Very hard to say, as I don't really know how the math courses in your country (I presume US) are built - and I really didn't quite get whether you're doing physics or not.

You definitely need

analysis / calculus to handle integrals and differential equations
linear algebra for everything else
classical physics up to electrodynamics
mechanics (skip the shitty part, go straight for Lagranian / Hamiltonian formulation, Poisson-brackets)
quantum mechanics
... which is basically what a physics student does until semester 5 or 6.
Then you could start off having a QFT course or reading a book.

[yep No.4781138]

>>4781105

Okay, thanks a lot!

Btw I'm from Canada :P

Before I go, can you recommend a book for mechanics (Lagrangian formulation) and linear algebra?

[Anonymous No.4781147]

>>4781138
Now that I think about it, you probably don't need a complete book on mechanics. You really just need to understand Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics - there's really no need for you to learn about how a beam bends under its own load.

Try getting some lecture notes on this.

[Anonymous No.4781262]

>>4780965
Why ask us? Learn the damned basic thing that you call analysis, and without which there is no studies of functions, and therefore no physics, no biology, no engineering. And yes, analysis is absolutely and definitively mandatory if you want to appproach quantum physics. Your question is of the troll kink, like if someone asked "should I learn numbers in order to study statistics?"

[yep No.4781283]

>>4781262

Well I'm sorry for upsetting you. We don't learn this through the standard cirriculum. No one tells us this is the case...

[The Lamb No.4781290]

If you don't know if you need what you are asking, then you are not ready to learn those subjects.

Generally, when one is very adept or wise in a subject, one will see the utility and implications of theories beyond what you have already accepted.

[yep No.4781293]

>>4781290
>If you don't know if you need what you are asking, then you are not ready to learn those subjects.

I guess so.
I was gearing more towards "what path should I take"..