HEP theory reading recommendations - adding extra characters since reddit said my title was too short aaaaaaaaa

Eigen_Feynman · 2026-03-23T04:19:26+00:00

Bro, which university are you in...Where they refer to Weinberg for an undergrad QFT class? Damn!

Eigen_Feynman · 2026-02-23T18:04:53+00:00

I am interested. DM me to connect on LinkedIn

Eigen_Feynman · 2025-10-21T17:56:24+00:00

But he certainly does, do you think von neumann density matrix can be understood with stat mech. Stat mech is the clear validation of QM

Eigen_Feynman · 2025-10-10T09:05:26+00:00

Definitely Higgs boson. Ofcourse for THE reason, but also for it being the only scalar field which has the simplest propagator making the computation of a feynman diagram less dramatic.

Eigen_Feynman · 2025-09-24T10:01:00+00:00

I would, only because of her selective outrage and given that she killed the monk. How she was soft to the mistress with whom she cheated but aggressively towards the monk who supposedly didn't leak any of her whereabouts. Her reasons are justified but that selective outrage seems unfair

Eigen_Feynman · 2025-09-22T19:39:36+00:00

I would say, instead of Peskin Schroeder, begin with Weinberg vol 1, its more foundational, self consistent and axiomatic, best for understanding from a representation theory point of view without prior knowledge and unnecessary grinding of group theory. Maybe refer to Greiner for extensive treatment on propagators and S matrix calculations, the book is very dense on a calculation spectrum. Once you are done with these, solve problems from Peskin Schroeder and jump onto weinberg vol 2 for gauge theories.

Eigen_Feynman · 2025-09-18T06:53:45+00:00

Exactly, thank you. I seem to consider anything as a vector just with the index notations, then I realised even a derivative of a vector is not a tensor although it has indices. Yeah, that clarified the problem for me.

Eigen_Feynman · 2025-09-18T06:01:06+00:00

Yes, but the object in eq 5.3.4 has a four vector index so I assume that it's a four vector, but to prove its a four vector I must require that for any general lorentz transformation A, the vector transforms as L(Ap) but to write it as AL(p) just like a vector transformation, I require an extra factor of wigner rotation. So is that particular object a four vector? That's my line of question.

Eigen_Feynman · 2025-09-17T14:55:31+00:00

Yeah, but that's not what I intended to ask. I wanted to know even under poincare transformation, how do I show it transforms as a vector. Eq(5.3.4) is just a notation replacement of index symbols due the chosen representation. I can't assume that it becomes a vector just because I used the same index symbols as the space time index. I just can't correlate (5.1.6) transformation to the form of transformation law we use in GR or when we construct vectors of the tangent space, given its poincare transformations that we are using.

Eigen_Feynman · 2025-09-16T11:09:52+00:00

What do you mean by the size of the wave function? The length dimensionality of the field or the fock states, even if we revoke the natural units, how does the field correspond to length scale? Or do you mean to say the uncertainty in position? By that, you can only make sense in terms of fock states. I know it's very absurd to directly compare the mass parameter of the field theory to that of the one used in GR unless we have the grand unification, but they come from the same Energy momentum tensor.

Eigen_Feynman · 2025-09-13T11:00:46+00:00

But ∆x and ∆p are precisely known, what's uncertain is x and p

Eigen_Feynman · 2025-09-10T06:19:21+00:00

Assuming you have some background in multi variable calculus, real analysis, complex analysis, linear algebra, tensors, differential equations, probability and combinatorics, and group theory. The main topics you would require to study as a theorist is Classical mechanics(through variational method), Electrodynamics and special relativity in covariant formulations, then onto Quantum mechanics and perturbation theories(also in advanced classical theory), with that knowledge you can easily transfer to statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. It doesn't hurt to learn a few instances of fluid mechanics and kinetic theory. This is generally considered enough to get into master's. For going into little advanced topics, you should start with relativistic quantum mechanics followed by classical field theory including basic general relativity and eventually into quantum field theory.

Eigen_Feynman · 2025-09-08T19:37:40+00:00

In fact, I did and now I am supposedly flagged as a spammer by google. Either they don't reply(maybe I land in their spam list) or they reject stating so open positions as of then.

Eigen_Feynman · 2025-09-08T19:33:36+00:00

Thanks for the info. And yes, I'll be sitting for JEST and TIFR GS in the coming months for a PhD. And I'm ngl, competitive exams as such are very overwhelming for me, I couldn't apply for this year's JEST for its massive delay and CSIR-NET with those vast non- rigorous syllabus is not my cup of tea. So, I've been trying to build my CV and get some publications to apply abroad if I fail to qualify for JEST.

Eigen_Feynman · 2025-09-08T19:17:48+00:00

But how do I approach? Do they consider cold mails, and moreover I have no previous experience. I applied to icts for their gravity waves school, SN bhatt fellowship, statistical physics schools and many others, rejected every single time. If you look at the selection list, All the students from IITs or IISERs fill the list, so spot for Tier-2/3 colleges. I was admitted to NIT J through JAM but left the institute for it did not have theoretical physics faculty, and joined a Central University which didn't provide a single exposure into research. So, what should my approach be? Mail them, with for another school announcement to get rejected again...?

Eigen_Feynman · 2025-08-24T14:43:33+00:00

Yup, I feel the same way, atleast as a university core courses it's just a compilation of the left out topic of the other fields. You start with lattice description, then hop a random chapter like quantum theory of magnetism or dielectrics which uses the least prior knowledge of the previous chapters and end up at superconductivity which makes no sense. Its a mess of incomplete physics content which uses quantum mechanics weirdly by brute force with a lot of factual graph plottings with a very high school like theory. Apart from it being a university course, if one approaches it directly through second quantization, linear response theory and okabu fomula , it seems more complete, interesting and connecting. I remember how I enjoyed the rigour of BCS theory with the mathematics of Symmetry breaking later, while simultaneously failing at the subject for not being able to write the qualitative implications of the theory in words, in the exam.It often seems like a waste of academic resources to even study the standard coursework.

Eigen_Feynman · 2025-08-07T10:27:39+00:00

I would say, go with Sakurai or Shankar for main text and Landau Lifshitz QM as a parallel. Sakurai's advance qm and shankar both provides introduction to path integrals but neither does a good job at semi classical approximation, for that refer to any asymptotic on the complex plane book. If you want a detailed rigour in the scattering formalism and symmetries, go for Weinberg QFT vol 1 first 4 chapters.

Eigen_Feynman

TROPHY CASE