TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory

126 pointsby simulatealmost 10 years ago

5 comments

danbrucalmost 10 years ago
Obligatory link for those that want to go a bit deeper into the rabbit hole - The Theoretical Minimum, a collection of physics lecture by Leonard Susskind.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;theoreticalminimum.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;theoreticalminimum.com&#x2F;</a>
评论 #10099530 未加载
timelinedalmost 10 years ago
This is a pretty good introduction. I highly recommend Feynman&#x27;s book &quot;QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter&quot; as an excellent in-depth work that does not sacrifice accuracy for the sake of making difficult ideas understandable. It is both very clear to the layperson and accurate to the physics.
评论 #10099856 未加载
评论 #10100905 未加载
评论 #10099305 未加载
评论 #10102771 未加载
613stylealmost 10 years ago
This is a great article. One thing I don&#x27;t understand: the author says:<p>&gt; If you want to create something heavy like the Higgs boson, you have to hit the &gt; Higgs field with a sufficiently large (and sufficiently concentrated) burst of &gt; energy to give the field the necessary one quantum of energy.)<p>So when the LHC creates a spike of energy at a point large enough to create a Higgs boson, why does that energy interact with the Higgs field and get &quot;used up&quot; by other fields? In other words, if Higgs requires 100 units of energy and electrons require 1, why do we get 1 Higgs boson and not 100 electrons?
评论 #10099256 未加载
评论 #10099330 未加载
评论 #10102442 未加载
danbrucalmost 10 years ago
Are quantum fields actual elements of reality or just a convenient mathematical tool to deal with many particle systems?<p>One of the questions I am struggling to find a satisfying answer for for quite some time. Depends on whom you ask? We can&#x27;t tell because both ways of thinking are completely equivalent? Fields are real! No, they are just a tool! Are there issues with real fields forming a preferred reference frame? Does somebody know? (My current understanding seems to suggest that fields are just a tool.)
评论 #10099579 未加载
评论 #10099925 未加载
评论 #10099317 未加载
评论 #10099745 未加载
评论 #10099252 未加载
评论 #10102530 未加载
评论 #10102730 未加载
mudilalmost 10 years ago
Ether is back!<p>Well, somewhat. Now it&#x27;s in the form of Higgs field. Unlike ether, Higgs field does not interact with uniformly moving particles, only those that are accelerating.<p>Here&#x27;s a great book I just recently listened: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;The-Black-Hole-War-Mechanics&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0316016411" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;The-Black-Hole-War-Mechanics&#x2F;dp&#x2F;031601...</a><p>It&#x27;s by Leonard Susskind from Stanford. The thoughts experiments in the book are just terrific. Loved it.
评论 #10099436 未加载
评论 #10099820 未加载
评论 #10099599 未加载