Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell: Second Edition

Praise for the first edition

Quantum field theory is an extraordinarily beautiful subject, but it can be an intimidating one. The profound and deeply physical concepts it embodies can get lost, to the beginner, amidst its technicalities. In this book, Zee imparts the wisdom of an experienced and remarkably creative practitioner in a user-friendly style. I wish something like it had been available when I was a student.

—Frank Wilczek, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Finally! Zee has written a ground-breaking quantum field theory text based on the course I made him teach when I chaired the Princeton physics department. With utmost clarity he gives the eager student a light-hearted and easy-going introduction to the multifaceted wonders of quantum field theory. I wish I had this book when I taught the subject.

—Marvin L. Goldberger, President, Emeritus, California Institute of Technology

This book is filled with charming explanations that students will find beneficial.

—Ed Witten, Institute for Advanced Study

This book is perhaps the most user-friendly introductory text to the essentials of quantum field theory and its many modern applications. With his physically intuitive approach, Professor Zee makes a serious topic more reachable for beginners, reducing the conceptual barrier while preserving enough mathematical details necessary for a firm grasp of the subject.

—Bei Lok Hu, University of Maryland

Like the famous Feynman Lectures on Physics, this book has the flavor of a good blackboard lecture. Zee presents technical details, but only insofar as they serve the larger purpose of giving insight into quantum field theory and bringing out its beauty.

—Stephen M. Barr, University of Delaware

This is a fantastic book—exciting, amusing, unique, and very valuable.

—Clifford V. Johnson, University of Durham

Tony Zee explains quantum field theory with a clear and engaging style. For budding or seasoned condensed matter physicists alike, he shows us that field theory is a nourishing nut to be cracked and savored.

—Matthew P. A. Fisher, Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics

I was so engrossed that I spent all of Saturday and Sunday one weekend absorbing half the book, to my wife’s dismay. Zee has a talent for explaining the most abstruse and arcane concepts in an elegant way, using the minimum number of equations (the jokes and anecdotes help). . . . I wish this were available when I was a graduate student. Buy the book, keep it by your bed, and relish the insights delivered with such flair and grace.

—N. P. Ong, Princeton University

What readers are saying

Funny, chatty, physical: QFT education transformed!! This text stands apart from others in so many ways that it’s difficult to list them all. . . . The exposition is breezy and chatty. The text is never boring to read, and is at times very, very funny. Puns and jokes abound, as do anecdotes. . . . A book which is much easier, and more fun, to read than any of the others. Zee’s skills as a popular physics writer have been used to excellent effect in writing this textbook. . . . Wholeheartedly recommended.

—M. Haque

"A readable, and rereadable instant classic on QFT. . . . At an introductory level, this type of book—with its pedagogical (and often very funny) narrative—is priceless. [It] is full of fantastic insights akin to reading the Feynman lectures. I have since used QFT in a Nutshell as a review for [my] year-long course covering all of Peskin and Schroder, and have been pleasantly surprised at how Zee is able to preemptively answer many of the open questions that eluded me during my course. . . . I value QFT in a Nutshell the same way I do the Feynman lectures. . . . It’s a text to teach an understanding of physics."

—Flip Tanedo

One of those books a person interested in theoretical physics simply must own! A real scientific masterpiece. I bought it at the time I was a physics sophomore and that was the best choice I could have made. It was this book that triggered my interest in quantum field theory and crystallized my dreams of becoming a theoretical physicist. . . . The main goal of the book is to make the reader gain real intuition in the field. Amazing . . . amusing . . . real fun. What also distinguishes this book from others dealing with a similar subject is that it is written like a tale. . . . I feel enormously fortunate to have come across this book at the beginning of my adventure with theoretical physics. . . . Definitely the best quantum field theory book I have ever read.

—Anonymous

"I have used Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell as the primary text. . . . I am immensely pleased with the book, and recommend it highly. . . . Don’t let the ‘damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead’ approach scare you off. Once you get used to seeing the physics quickly, I think you will find the experience very satisfying intellectually."

—Jim Napolitano

This is undoubtedly the best book I have ever read about the subject. Zee does a fantastic job of explaining quantum field theory, in a way I have never seen before, and I have read most of the other books on this topic. If you are looking for quantum field theory explanations that are clear, precise, concise, intuitive, and fun to read—this is the book for you.

—Anonymous

One of the most artistic and deepest books ever written on quantum field theory. Amazing . . . extremely pleasant . . . a lot of very deep and illuminating remarks. . . . I recommend the book by Zee to everybody who wants to get a clear idea what good physics is about.

—Slava Mukhanov

Perfect for learning field theory on your own—by far the clearest and easiest to follow book I’ve found on the subject.

—Ian Z. Lovejoy

A beautifully written introduction to the modern view of fields . . . breezy and enchanting, leading to exceptional clarity without sacrificing depth, breadth, or rigor of content. . . . [It] passes my test of true greatness: I wish it had been the first book on this topic that I had found.

—Jeffrey D. Scargle

"A breeze of fresh air . . . a real literary gem which will be useful for students who make their first steps in this difficult subject and an enjoyable treat for experts, who will find new and deep insights. Indeed, the Nutshell is like a bright light source shining among tall and heavy trees—the many more formal books that exist—and helps seeing the forest as a whole! . . . I have been practicing QFT during the past two decades and with all my experience I was thrilled with enjoyment when I read some of the sections."

—Joshua Feinberg

"This text not only teaches up-to-date quantum field theory, but also tells readers how research is actually done and shows them how to think about physics. [It teaches things that] people usually say ‘cannot be learned from books.’ [It is] in the same style as Fearful Symmetry and Einstein’s Universe. All three books . . . are classics."

—Yu Shi

I belong to the [group of] enthusiastic laymen having enough curiosity and insistence . . . but lacking the mastery of advanced math and physics. . . . I really could not see the forest for the trees. But at long last I got this book!

—Makay Attila

More fun than any other QFT book I have read. The comparisons to Feynman’s writings made by several of the reviewers seem quite apt. . . . His enthusiasm is quite infectious. . . . I doubt that any other book will spark your interest like this one does.

—Stephen Wandzura

I’m having a blast reading this book. It’s both deep and entertaining; this is a rare breed, indeed. I usually prefer the more formal style (big Landau fan), but I have to say that when Zee has the talent to present things his way, it’s a definite plus.

—Pierre Jouvelot

Required reading for QFT: [it] heralds the introduction of a book on quantum field theory that you can sit down and read. My professor’s lectures made much more sense as I followed along in this book, because concepts were actually EXPLAINED, not just worked out.

—Alexander Scott

Not your father’s quantum field theory text: I particularly appreciate that things are motivated physically before their mathematical articulation. . . . Most especially though, the author’s ‘heuristic’ descriptions are the best I have read anywhere. From them alone the essential ideas become crystal clear.

—Dan Dill

Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell

Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell

SECOND EDITION

A. Zee

Copyright © 2010 by Princeton University Press

Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street,

Princeton, New Jersey 08540

In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press,

6 Oxford Street, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TW

All Rights Reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Zee, A.

Quantum field theory in a nutshell / A. Zee.—2nd ed.

p.   cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-691-14034-6 (hardcover : alk. paper)   1. Quantum field theory.   I. Title.

QC174.45.Z44 2010

530.14′3—dc22                                                                        2009015469

British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available

This book has been composed in Scala LF with ZzTEX

by Princeton Editorial Associates, Inc., Scottsdale, Arizona

Printed on acid-free paper.

press.princeton.edu

Printed in the United States of America

10  9  8  7  6  5  4  3  2  1

To my parents,

who valued education above all else

Contents

Preface to the First Edition

Preface to the Second Edition

Convention, Notation, and Units

Part I: Motivation and Foundation

Part II: Dirac and the Spinor

Part III: Renormalization and Gauge Invariance

Part IV: Symmetry and Symmetry Breaking

Part V: Field Theory and Collective Phenomena

Part VI: Field Theory and Condensed Matter

Part VII: Grand Unification

Part VIII: Gravity and Beyond

Closing Words

Part N

More Closing Words

Appendix A: Gaussian Integration and the Central Identity of Quantum Field Theory

Appendix B: A Brief Review of Group Theory

Appendix C: Feynman Rules

Appendix D: Various Identities and Feynman Integrals

Appendix E: Dotted and Undotted Indices and the Majorana Spinor

Solutions to Selected Exercises

Further Reading

Index

Preface to the First Edition

As a student, I was rearing at the bit, after a course on quantum mechanics, to learn quantum field theory, but the books on the subject all seemed so formidable. Fortunately, I came across a little book by Mandl on field theory, which gave me a taste of the subject enabling me to go on and tackle the more substantive texts. I have since learned that other physicists of my generation had similar good experiences with Mandl.

In the last three decades or so, quantum field theory has veritably exploded and Mandl would be hopelessly out of date to recommend to a student now. Thus I thought of writing a book on the essentials of modern quantum field theory addressed to the bright and eager student who has just completed a course on quantum mechanics and who is impatient to start tackling quantum field theory.

I envisaged a relatively thin book, thin at least in comparison with the many weighty tomes on the subject. I envisaged the style to be breezy and colloquial, and the choice of topics to be idiosyncratic, certainly not encyclopedic. I envisaged having many short chapters, keeping each chapter bite-sized.

The challenge in writing this book is to keep it thin and accessible while at the same time introducing as many modern topics as possible. A tough balancing act! In the end, I had to be unrepentantly idiosyncratic in what I chose to cover. Note to the prospective book reviewer: You can always criticize the book for leaving out your favorite topics. I do not apologize in any way, shape, or form. My motto in this regard (and in life as well), taken from the Ricky Nelson song Garden Party, is You can’t please everyone so you gotta please yourself.

This book differs from other quantum field theory books that have come out in recent years in several respects.

I want to get across the important point that the usefulness of quantum field theory is far from limited to high energy physics, a misleading impression my generation of theoretical physicists were inculcated with and which amazingly enough some recent textbooks on quantum field theory (all written by high energy physicists) continue to foster. For instance, the study of driven surface growth provides a particularly clear, transparent, and physical example of the importance of the renormalization group in quantum field theory. Instead of being entangled in all sorts of conceptual irrelevancies such as divergences, we have the obviously physical notion of changing the ruler used to measure the fluctuating surface. Other examples include random matrix theory and Chern-Simons gauge theory in quantum Hall fluids. I hope that condensed matter theory students will find this book helpful in getting a first taste of quantum field theory. The book is divided into eight parts,¹ with two devoted more or less exclusively to condensed matter physics.

I try to give the reader at least a brief glimpse into contemporary developments, for example, just enough of a taste of string theory to whet the appetite. This book is perhaps also exceptional in incorporating gravity from the beginning. Some topics are treated quite differently than in traditional texts. I introduce the Faddeev-Popov method to quantize electromagnetism and the language of differential forms to develop Yang-Mills theory, for example.

The emphasis is resoundingly on the conceptual rather than the computational. The only calculation I carry out in all its gory details is that of the magnetic moment of the electron. Throughout, specific examples rather than heavy abstract formalism will be favored. Instead of dealing with the most general case, I always opt for the simplest.

I had to struggle constantly between clarity and wordiness. In trying to anticipate and to minimize what would confuse the reader, I often find that I have to belabor certain points more than what I would like.

I tried to avoid the dreaded phrase It can be shown that . . . as much as possible. Otherwise, I could have written a much thinner book than this! There are indeed thinner books on quantum field theory: I looked at a couple and discovered that they hardly explain anything. I must confess that I have an almost insatiable desire to explain.

As the manuscript grew, the list of topics that I reluctantly had to drop also kept growing. So many beautiful results, but so little space! It almost makes me ill to think about all the stuff (bosonization, instanton, conformal field theory, etc., etc.) I had to leave out. As one colleague remarked, the nutshell is turning into a coconut shell!

Shelley Glashow once described the genesis of physical theories: Tapestries are made by many artisans working together. The contributions of separate workers cannot be discerned in the completed work, and the loose and false threads have been covered over. I regret that other than giving a few tidbits here and there I could not go into the fascinating history of quantum field theory, with all its defeats and triumphs. On those occasions when I refer to original papers I suffer from that disconcerting quirk of human psychology of tending to favor my own more than decorum might have allowed. I certainly did not attempt a true bibliography.

The genesis of this book goes back to the quantum field theory course I taught as a beginning assistant professor at Princeton University. I had the enormous good fortune of having Ed Witten as my teaching assistant and grader. Ed produced lucidly written solutions to the homework problems I assigned, to the extent that the next year I went to the chairman to ask What is wrong with the TA I have this year? He is not half as good as the guy last year! Some colleagues asked me to write up my notes for a much needed text (those were the exciting times when gauge theories, asymptotic freedom, and scores of topics not to be found in any texts all had to be learned somehow) but a wiser senior colleague convinced me that it might spell disaster for my research career. Decades later, the time has come. I particularly thank Murph Goldberger for urging me to turn what expository talents I have from writing popular books to writing textbooks. It is also a pleasure to say a word in memory of the late Sam Treiman, teacher, colleague, and collaborator, who as a member of the editorial board of Princeton University Press persuaded me to commit to this project. I regret that my slow pace in finishing the book deprived him of seeing the finished product.

Over the years I have refined my knowledge of quantum field theory in discussions with numerous colleagues and collaborators. As a student, I attended courses on quantum field theory offered by Arthur Wightman, Julian Schwinger, and Sidney Coleman. I was fortunate that these three eminent physicists each has his own distinctive style and approach.

The book has been tested in the field in courses I taught. I used it in my field theory course at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and I am grateful to some of the students, in particular Ted Erler, Andrew Frey, Sean Roy, and Dean Townsley, for comments. I benefitted from the comments of various distinguished physicists who read all or parts of the manuscript, including Steve Barr, Doug Eardley, Matt Fisher, Murph Goldberger, Victor Gurarie, Steve Hsu, Bei-lok Hu, Clifford Johnson, Mehran Kardar, Ian Low, Joe Polchinski, Arkady Vainshtein, Frank Wilczek, Ed Witten, and especially Joshua Feinberg. Joshua also did many of the exercises.

Talking about exercises: You didn’t get this far in physics without realizing the absolute importance of doing exercises in learning a subject. It is especially important that you do most of the exercises in this book, because to compensate for its relative slimness I have to develop in the exercises a number of important points some of which I need for later chapters. Solutions to some selected problems are given.

I will maintain a web page http://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/members/PM/zee/nuts.html listing all the errors, typographical and otherwise, and points of confusion that will undoubtedly come to my attention.

I thank my editors, Trevor Lipscombe, Sarah Green, and the staff of Princeton Editorial Associates (particularly Cyd Westmoreland and Evelyn Grossberg) for their advice and for seeing this project through. Finally, I thank Peter Zee for suggesting the cover painting.

¹ Murray Gell-Mann used to talk about the eightfold way to wisdom and salvation in Buddhism (M. Gell-Mann and Y. Ne’eman, The Eightfold Way). Readers familiar with contemporary Chinese literature would know that the celestial dragon has eight parts.

Preface to the Second Edition

What one fool could understand, another can.

—R. P. Feynman¹

Appreciating the appreciators

It has been nearly six years since this book was published on March 10, 2003. Since authors often think of books as their children, I may liken the flood of appreciation from readers, students, and physicists to the glorious report cards a bright child brings home from school. Knowing that there are people who appreciate the care and clarity crafted into the pedagogy is a most gratifying feeling. In working on this new edition, merely looking at the titles of the customer reviews on Amazon.com would lighten my task and quicken my pace: Funny, chatty, physical. QFT education transformed!, A readable, and re-readable instant classic on QFT, A must read book if you want to understand essentials in QFT, One of the most artistic and deepest books ever written on quantum field theory, Perfect for learning field theory on your own, Both deep and entertaining, One of those books a person interested in theoretical physics simply must own, and so on.

In a Physics Today review, Zvi Bern, a preeminent younger field theorist, wrote:

Perhaps foremost in his mind was how to make Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell as much fun as possible. . . . I have not had this much fun with a physics book since reading The Feynman Lectures on Physics. . . . [This is a book] that no student of quantum field theory should be without. Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell is the ideal book for a graduate student to curl up with after having completed a course on quantum mechanics. But, mainly, it is for anyone who wishes to experience the sheer beauty and elegance of quantum field theory.

A classical Chinese scholar famously lamented He who knows me are so few! but here Zvi read my mind.

Einstein proclaimed, Physics should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler. My response would be Physics should be made as fun as possible, but not any funnier. I overcame the editor’s reluctance and included jokes and stories. And yes, I have also written a popular book Fearful Symmetry about the sheer beauty and elegance of modern physics, which at least in that book largely meant quantum field theory. I want to share that sense of fun and beauty as much as possible. I’ve heard some people say that Beauty is truth but Beauty is fun is more like it.

I had written books before, but this was my first textbook. The challenges and rewards in writing different types of book are certainly different, but to me, a university professor devoted to the ideals of teaching, the feeling of passing on what I have learned and understood is simply incomparable. (And the nice part is that I don’t have to hand out final grades.) It may sound corny, but I owe it, to those who taught me and to those authors whose field theory texts I studied, to give something back to the theoretical physics community. It is a wonderful feeling for me to meet young hotshot researchers who had studied this text and now know more about field theory than I do.

How I made the book better: The first text that covers the twenty-first century

When my editor Ingrid Gnerlich asked me for a second edition I thought long and hard about how to make this edition better than the first. I have clarified and elaborated here and there, added explanations and exercises, and done more practical Feynman diagram calculations to appease those readers of the first edition who felt that I didn’t calculate enough. There are now three more chapters in the main text. I have also made the most accessible text on quantum field theory even more accessible by explaining stuff that I thought readers who already studied quantum mechanics should know. For example, I added a concise review of the Dirac delta function to chapter I.2. But to the guy on Amazon.com who wanted complex analysis explained, sorry, I won’t do it. There is a limit. Already, I gave a basically self-contained coverage of group theory.

More excitingly, and to make my life more difficult, I added, to the existing eight parts (of the celestial dragon), a new part consisting of four chapters, covering field theoretic happenings of the last decade or so. Thus I can say that this is the first text since the birth of quantum field theory in the late 1920s that covers the twenty-first century.

Quantum field theory is a mature but certainly not a finished subject, as some students mistakenly believe. As one of the deepest constructs in theoretical physics and all encompassing in its reach, it is bound to have yet unplumbed depths, secret subterranean connections, and delightful surprises. While many theoretical physicists have moved past quantum field theory to string theory and even string field theory, they often take the limit in which the string description reduces to a field description, thus on occasion revealing previously unsuspected properties of quantum field theories. We will see an example in chapter N.4.

My friends admonished me to maintain, above all else, the delightful tone of the first edition. I hope that I have succeeded, even though the material contained in part N is hot off the stove stuff, unlike the long-understood material covered in the main text. I also added a few jokes and stories, such as the one about Fermi declining to trace.

As with the first edition, I will maintain a web site http://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/members/PM/zee/nuts.html listing the errors, typographical or otherwise, that will undoubtedly come to my attention.

Encouraging words

In the quote that started this preface, Feynman was referring to himself, and to you! Of course, Feynman didn’t simply understand the quantum field theory of electromagnetism, he also invented a large chunk of it. To paraphrase Feynman, I wrote this book for fools like you and me. If a fool like me could write a book on quantum field theory, then surely you can understand it.

As I said in the preface to the first edition, I wrote this book for those who, having learned quantum mechanics, are eager to tackle quantum field theory. During a sabbatical year (2006–07) I spent at Harvard, I was able to experimentally verify my hypothesis that a person who has mastered quantum mechanics could understand my book on his or her own without much difficulty. I was sent a freshman who had taught himself quantum mechanics in high school. I gave him my book to read and every couple of weeks or so he came by to ask a question or two. Even without these brief sessions, he would have understood much of the book. In fact, at least half of his questions stem from the holes in his knowledge of quantum mechanics. I have incorporated my answers to his field theoretic questions into this edition.

As I also said in the original preface, I had tested some of the material in the book in the field in courses I taught at Princeton University and later at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Since 2003, I have been gratified to know that it has been used successfully in courses at many institutions.

I understand that, of the different groups of readers, those who are trying to learn quantum field theory on their own could easily get discouraged. Let me offer you some cheering words. First of all, that is very admirable of you! Of all the established subjects in theoretical physics, quantum field theory is by far the most subtle and profound. By consensus it is much much harder to learn than Einstein’s theory of gravity, which in fact should properly be regarded as part of field theory, as will be made clear in this book. So don’t expect easy cruising, particularly if you don’t have someone to clarify things for you once in a while. Try an online physics forum. Do at least some of the exercises. Remember: No one expects a guitarist to learn to play by going to concerts in Central Park or by spending hours reading transcriptions of Jimi Hendrix solos. Guitarists practice. Guitarists play the guitar until their fingertips are calloused. Similarly, physicists solve problems.² Of course, if you don’t have the prerequisites, you won’t be able to understand this or any other field theory text. But if you have mastered quantum mechanics, keep on trucking and you will get there.

The view will be worth it, I promise. My thesis advisor Sidney Coleman used to start his field theory course saying, Not only God knows, I know, and by the end of the semester, you will know. By the end of this book, you too will know how God weaves the universe out of a web of interlocking fields. I would like to change Dirac’s statement God is a mathematician to God is a quantum field theorist.

Some of you steady truckers might want to ask what to do when you get to the end. During my junior year in college, after my encounter with Mandl, I asked Arthur Wightman what to read next. He told me to read the textbook by S. S. Schweber, which at close to a thousand pages was referred to by students as the monster and which could be extremely opaque at places. After I slugged my way to the end, Wightman told me, Read it again. Fortunately for me, volume I of Bjorken and Drell had already come out. But there is wisdom in reading a book again; things that you miss the first time may later leap out at you. So my advice is Read it again. Of course, every physics student also knows that different explanations offered by different books may click with different folks. So read other field theory books. Quantum field theory is so profound that most people won’t get it in one pass.

On the subject of other field theory texts: James Bjorken kindly wrote in my much-used copy of Bjorken and Drell that the book was obsolete. Hey BJ, it isn’t. Certainly, volume I will never be passé. On another occasion, Steve Weinberg told me, referring to his field theory book, that I wrote the book that I would have liked to learn from. I could equally well say that "I wrote the book that I would have liked to learn from." Without the least bit of hubris, I can say that I prefer my book to Schweber’s. The moral here is that if you don’t like this book you should write your own.

I try not to do clunky

I explained my philosophy in the preface to the first edition, but allow me a few more words here. I will teach you how to calculate, but I also have what I regard as a higher aim, to convey to you an enjoyment of quantum field theory in all its splendors (and by all I mean not merely quantum field theory as defined by some myopic physicists as applicable only to particle physics). I try to erect an elegant and logically tight framework and put a light touch on a heavy subject.

In spite of the image conjured up by Zvi Bern of some future field theorist curled up in bed reading this book, I expect you to grab pen and paper and work. You could do it in bed if you want, but work you must. I intentionally did not fill in all the steps; it would hardly be a light touch if I do every bit of algebra for you. Nevertheless, I have done algebra when I think that it would help you. Actually, I love doing algebra, particularly when things work out so elegantly as in quantum field theory. But I don’t do clunky. I do not like clunky-looking equations. I avoid spelling everything out and so expect you to have a certain amount of sense. As a small example, near the end of a and δ a. If you didn’t realize, after some 70 pages, that fields are functions of where you are in spacetime, you are quite lost, my friend. My plan is to keep you on your toes and I purposely want you to feel puzzled occasionally. I have faith that the sort of person who would be reading this book can always figure it out after a bit of thought. I realize that there are at least three distinct groups of readers, but let me say to the students, How do you expect to do research if you have to be spoon-fed from line to line in a textbook?

Nuts who do not appreciate the Nutshell

In the original preface, I quoted Ricky Nelson on the impossibility of pleasing everyone and so I was not at all surprised to find on Amazon.com a few people whom one of my friends calls "nuts who do not appreciate the Nutshell." My friends advise me to leave these people alone but I am sufficiently peeved to want to say a few words in my defense, no matter how nutty the charge. First, I suppose that those who say the book is too mathematical cancel out those who say the book is not mathematical enough. The people in the first group are not informed, while those in the second group are misinformed.

Quantum field theory does not have to be mathematical. I know of at least three Field Medalists who enjoyed the book. A review for the American Mathematical Society offered this deep statement in praise of the book: It is often deeper to know why something is true rather than to have a proof that it is true. (Indeed, a Fields Medalist once told me that top mathematicians secretly think like physicists and after they work out the broad outline of a proof they then dress it up with epsilons and deltas. I have no idea if this is true only for one, for many, or for all Fields Medalists. I suspect that it is true for many.)

Then there is the person who denounces the book for its lack of rigor. Well, I happen to know, or at least used to know, a thing or two about mathematical rigor, since I wrote my senior thesis with Wightman on what I would call fairly rigorous quantum field theory. As we like to say in the theoretical physics community, too much rigor soon leads to rigor mortis. Be warned. Indeed, as Feynman would tell students, if this ain’t rigorous enough for you the math department is just one building over. So read a more rigorous book. It is a free country.

More serious is the impression that several posters on Amazon.com have that the book is too elementary. I humbly beg to differ. The book gives the impression of being elementary but in fact covers more material than many other texts. If you master everything in the Nutshell, you would know more than most professors of field theory and could start doing research. I am not merely making an idle claim but could give an actual proof. All the ingredients that went into the spinor helicity formalism that led to a deep field theoretic discovery described in part N could be found in the first edition of this book. Of course, reading a textbook is not enough; you have to come up with the good ideas.

As for he who says that the book does not look complicated enough and hence can’t be a serious treatment, I would ask him to compare a modern text on electromagnetism with Maxwell’s treatises.

Thanks

In the original preface and closing words, I mentioned that I learned a great deal of quantum field theory from Sidney Coleman. His clarity of thought and lucid exposition have always inspired me. Unhappily, he passed away in 2007. After this book was published, I visited Sidney on different occasions, but sadly, he was already in a mental fog.

In preparing this second edition, I am grateful to Nima Arkani-Hamed, Yoni Ben-Tov, Nathan Berkovits, Marty Einhorn, Joshua Feinberg, Howard Georgi, Tim Hsieh, Brendan Keller, Joe Polchinski, Yong-shi Wu, and Jean-Bernard Zuber for their helpful comments. Some of them read parts or all of the added chapters. I thank especially Zvi Bern and Rafael Porto for going over the chapters in part N with great care and for many useful suggestions. I also thank Craig Kunimoto, Richard Neher, Matt Pillsbury, and Rafael Porto for teaching me the black art of composing equations on the computer. My editor at Princeton University Press, Ingrid Gnerlich, has always been a pleasure to talk to and work with. I also thank Kathleen Cioffi and Cyd Westmoreland for their meticulous work in producing this book. Last but not least, I am grateful to my wife Janice for her encouragement and loving support.

¹ R. P. Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, p. xx.

² N. Newbury et al., Princeton Problems in Physics with Solutions, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1991.

Convention, Notation, and Units

For the same reason that we no longer use a certain king’s feet to measure distance, we use natural units in which the speed of light c . The quantities c are not so much fundamental constants as conversion factors. In this light, I am genuinely puzzled by condensed matter physicists carrying around Boltzmann’s constant k, which is no different from the conversion factor between feet and meters.

Spacetime coordinates xμ are labeled by Greek indices (μ = 0, 1, 2, 3) with the time coordinate x⁰ sometimes denoted by t. Space coordinates xi are labeled by Latin indices (i = 1, 2, 3) and ∂μ ≡ ∂/∂xμ. We use a Minkowski metric ημν with signature (+, −, −, −) so that η⁰⁰ = +1. We write ημν∂μ ∂ν = ∂μ ∂μ = (∂ )² = (∂ /∂ti(∂ /∂xi)². The metric in curved spacetime is always denoted by gμν, but often I will also use gμν for the Minkowski metric when the context indicates clearly that we are in flat spacetime.

= 1, I will not distinguish between wave vector k and momentum, and between frequency ω and energy.

and not the Lagrangian L d³x as the Lagrangian. I will commit other minor abuses such as writing 1 instead of I (k(x) whenever there is no risk of confusion, as is almost always the case. I prefer an abused terminology to cluttered notation and unbearable pedantry.

*. For a matrix M, then of course M† and M* should be carefully distinguished from each other.

I made an effort to get factors of 2 and π right, but some errors will be inevitable.

Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell

Part I Motivation and Foundation

I.1 Who Needs It?

Who needs quantum field theory?

Quantum field theory arose out of our need to describe the ephemeral nature of life.

No, seriously, quantum field theory is needed when we confront simultaneously the two great physics innovations of the last century of the previous millennium: special relativity and quantum mechanics. Consider a fast moving rocket ship close to light speed. You need special relativity but not quantum mechanics to study its motion. On the other hand, to study a slow moving electron scattering on a proton, you must invoke quantum mechanics, but you don’t have to know a thing about special relativity.

It is in the peculiar confluence of special relativity and quantum mechanics that a new set of phenomena arises: Particles can be born and particles can die. It is this matter of birth, life, and death that requires the development of a new subject in physics, that of quantum field theory.

Let me give a heuristic discussion. In quantum mechanics the uncertainty principle tells us that the energy can fluctuate wildly over a small interval of time. According to special relativity, energy can be converted into mass and vice versa. With quantum mechanics and special relativity, the wildly fluctuating energy can metamorphose into mass, that is, into new particles not previously present.

Write down the Schrödinger equation for an electron scattering off a proton. The equation describes the wave function of one electron, and no matter how you shake and bake the mathematics of the partial differential equation, the electron you follow will remain one electron. But special relativity tells us that energy can be converted to matter: If the electron is energetic enough, an electron and a positron (the antielectron) can be produced. The Schrödinger equation is simply incapable of describing such a phenomenon. Nonrelativistic quantum mechanics must break down.

(x) governed by the good old Schrödinger equation. Photons can be created or annihilated, but not electrons. Quite aside from the experimental fact that electrons and positrons could be created in pairs, it would be intellectually more satisfying to treat electrons and photons, as they are both elementary particles, on the same footing.

Figure I.1.1

So, I was more or less right: Quantum field theory is a response to the ephemeral nature of life.

All of this is rather vague, and one of the purposes of this book is to make these remarks more precise. For the moment, to make these thoughts somewhat more concrete, let us ask where in classical physics we might have encountered something vaguely resembling the birth and death of particles. Think of a mattress, which we idealize as a 2-dimensional lattice of point masses connected to each other by springs (fig. I.1.1). For simplicity, let us focus on the vertical displacement [which we denote by qa(t)] of the point masses and neglect the small horizontal movement. The index a simply tells us which mass we are talking about. The Lagrangian is then

Keeping only the terms quadratic in q (the harmonic approximation) we have the equations of motion m a b kabqb. Taking the q’s as oscillating with frequency ωb kabqb = mω²qa. The eigenfrequencies and eigenmodes are determined, respectively, by the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the matrix k. As usual, we can form wave packets by superposing eigenmodes. When we quantize the theory, these wave packets behave like particles, in the same way that electromagnetic wave packets when quantized behave like particles called photons.

Since the theory is linear, two wave packets pass right through each other. But once we include the nonlinear terms, namely the terms cubic, quartic, and so forth in the q’s in (1), the theory becomes anharmonic. Eigenmodes now couple to each other. A wave packet might decay into two wave packets. When two wave packets come near each other, they scatter and perhaps produce more wave packets. This naturally suggests that the physics of particles can be described in these terms.

Quantum field theory grew out of essentially these sorts of physical ideas.

It struck me as limiting that even after some 75 years, the whole subject of quantum field theory remains rooted in this harmonic paradigm, to use a dreadfully pretentious word. We have not been able to get away from the basic notions of oscillations and wave packets. Indeed, string theory, the heir to quantum field theory, is still firmly founded on this harmonic paradigm. Surely, a brilliant young physicist, perhaps a reader of this book, will take us beyond.

Condensed matter physics

(x1, x2, · · · , xN), where xj denotes the position of the jth electron and N is a function of many variables but it is still governed by a nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation.

The answer is yes, we can, and indeed that was how solid state physics was first studied in its heroic early days (and still is in many of its subbranches).

Why then does a condensed matter theorist need quantum field theory? Again, let us first go for a heuristic discussion, giving an overall impression rather than all the details. In a typical solid, the ions vibrate around their equilibrium lattice positions. This vibrational dynamics is best described by so-called phonons, which correspond more or less to the wave packets in the mattress model described above.

This much you can read about in any standard text on solid state physics. Furthermore, if you have had a course on solid state physics, you would recall that the energy levels available to electrons form bands. When an electron is kicked (by a phonon field say) from a filled band to an empty band, a hole is left behind in the previously filled band. This hole can move about with its own identity as a particle, enjoying a perfectly comfortable existence until another electron comes into the band and annihilates it. Indeed, it was with a picture of this kind that Dirac first conceived of a hole in the electron sea as the antiparticle of the electron, the positron.

We will flesh out this heuristic discussion in subsequent chapters in parts V and VI.

Marriages

To summarize, quantum field theory was born of the necessity of dealing with the marriage of special relativity and quantum mechanics, just as the new science of string theory is being born of the necessity of dealing with the marriage of general relativity and quantum mechanics.

I.2 Path Integral Formulation of Quantum Physics

The professor’s nightmare: a wise guy in the class

As I noted in the preface, I know perfectly well that you are eager to dive into quantum field theory, but first we have to review the path integral formalism of quantum mechanics. This formalism is not universally taught in introductory courses on quantum mechanics, but even if you have been exposed to it, this chapter will serve as a useful review. The reason I start with the path integral formalism is that it offers a particularly convenient way of going from quantum mechanics to quantum field theory. I will first give a heuristic discussion, to be followed by a more formal mathematical treatment.

Perhaps the best way to introduce the path integral formalism is by telling a story, certainly apocryphal as many physics stories are. Long ago, in a quantum mechanics class, the professor droned on and on about the double-slit experiment, giving the standard treatment. A particle emitted from a source S (fig. I.2.1) at time t = 0 passes through one or the other of two holes, A1 and A2, drilled in a screen and is detected at time t = T by a detector located at O. The amplitude for detection is given by a fundamental postulate of quantum mechanics, the superposition principle, as the sum of the amplitude for the particle to propagate from the source S through the hole A1 and then onward to the point O and the amplitude for the particle to propagate from the source S through the hole A2 and then onward to the point O.

Suddenly, a very bright student, let us call him Feynman, asked, Professor, what if we drill a third hole in the screen? The professor replied, "Clearly, the amplitude for the particle to be detected at the point O is now given by the sum of three amplitudes, the amplitude for the particle to propagate from the source S through the hole A1 and then onward to the point O, the amplitude for the particle to propagate from the source S through the hole A2 and then onward to the point O, and the amplitude for the particle to propagate from the source S through the hole A3 and then onward to the point O."

The professor was just about ready to continue when Feynman interjected again, What if I drill a fourth and a fifth hole in the screen? Now the professor is visibly losing his patience: All right, wise guy, I think it is obvious to the whole class that we just sum over all the holes.

Figure I.2.1

To make what the professor said precise, denote the amplitude for the particle to propagate from the source S through the hole Ai and then onward to the point O (S → Ai → O). Then the amplitude for the particle to be detected at the point O is

But Feynman persisted, "What if we now add another screen (fig. I.2.2) with some holes drilled in it? The professor was really losing his patience: Look, can’t you see that you just take the amplitude to go from the source S to the hole Ai in the first screen, then to the hole Bj in the second screen, then to the detector at O, and then sum over all i and j?"

Feynman continued to pester, What if I put in a third screen, a fourth screen, eh? What if I put in a screen and drill an infinite number of holes in it so that the screen is no longer there? The professor sighed, Let’s move on; there is a lot of material to cover in this course.

Figure I.2.2

Figure I.2.3

But dear reader, surely you see what that wise guy Feynman was driving at. I especially enjoy his observation that if you put in a screen and drill an infinite number of holes in it, then that screen is not really there. Very Zen! What Feynman showed is that even if there were just empty space between the source and the detector, the amplitude for the particle to propagate from the source to the detector is the sum of the amplitudes for the particle to go through each one of the holes in each one of the (nonexistent) screens. In other words, we have to sum over the amplitude for the particle to propagate from the source to the detector following all possible paths between the source and the detector (fig. I.2.3).

(particle to go from S to O in time T) =

(paths) is to be defined. Feynman followed Newton and Leibniz: Take a path (fig. I.2.4), approximate it by straight line segments, and let the segments go to zero. You can see that this is just like filling up a space with screens spaced infinitesimally close to each other, with an infinite number of holes drilled in each screen.

(particle to go from S to O in time T following a particular path)? Well, we can use the unitarity of quantum mechanics: If we know the amplitude for each infinitesimal segment, then we just multiply them together to get the amplitude of the whole path.

Figure I.2.4

In quantum mechanics, the amplitude to propagate from a point qI to a point qF in time T is governed by the unitary operator e−iHT, where H is the Hamiltonian. More precisely, denoting by |q〉 the state in which the particle is at q, the amplitude in question is just 〈qF|e−iHT|qI〉. Here we are using the Dirac bra and ket notation. Of course, philosophically, you can argue that to say the amplitude is 〈qF|e−iHT|qI〉 amounts to a postulate and a definition of H. It is then up to experimentalists to discover that H is hermitean, has the form of the classical Hamiltonian, et cetera.

Indeed, the whole path integral formalism could be written down mathematically starting with the quantity 〈qF|e−iHT|qI〉, without any of Feynman’s jive about screens with an infinite number of holes. Many physicists would prefer a mathematical treatment without the talk. As a matter of fact, the path integral formalism was invented by Dirac precisely in this way, long before Feynman.¹

A necessary word about notation even though it interrupts the narrative flow: We denote the coordinates transverse to the axis connecting the source to the detector by q, rather than x, for a reason which will emerge in a later chapter. For notational simplicity, we will think of q as 1-dimensional and suppress the coordinate along the axis connecting the source to the detector.

Dirac’s formulation

Let us divide the time T into N segments each lasting δt = T/N. Then we write

Our states are normalized by 〈q′|q〉 = δ(q′ − q) with δ the Dirac delta function. (Recall that δ dqδ(q) = 1. See appendix 1.) Now use the fact that |qdq |q〉 〈q| = 1. To see that the normalization is correct, multiply on the left by 〈q″| and on the right by |qdqδ(q″ − q)δ(q − q′) = δ(q″ − q′). Insert 1 between all these factors of e−iHδt and write

Focus on an individual factor 〈qj+1|e−iHδt |qj〉. Let us take the baby step of first evaluating it just for the free-particle case in which H ²/2mreminds us that it is an operator. Denote by |p|p〉 = p|p〉. Do you remember from your course in quantum mechanics that 〈q|p〉 = eipqAgain, to see that the normalization is correct, multiply on the left by 〈q′| and on the right by |qSo again inserting a complete set of states, we write

Note that we removed the hat from the momentum operator in the exponential: Since the momentum operator is acting on an eigenstate, it can be replaced by its eigenvalue. Also, we are evidently working in the Heisenberg picture.

The integral over p is known as a Gaussian integral, with which you may already be familiar. If not, turn to appendix 2 to this chapter.

Doing the integral over p, we get (using (21))

Putting this into (3) yields

with q0 ≡ qI and qN ≡ qF.

We can now go to the continuum limit δt . Finally, we define the integral over paths as

We thus obtain the path integral representation

we simply integrate over all possible paths q(t) such that q(0) = qI and q(T) = qF.

indicates an operator) the final result would have been

as just the Lagrangian L, q). The Lagrangian has emerged naturally from the Hamiltonian! In general, we have

To avoid potential confusion, let me be clear that t appears as an integration variable in the exponential on the right-hand side. The appearance of t in the path integral measure Dq(t) is simply to remind us that q is a function of t (as if we need reminding). Indeed, this measure will often be abbreviated to Dqis called the action S(q) in classical mechanics. The action S is a functional of the function q(t).

Often, instead of specifying that the particle starts at an initial position qI and ends at a final position qF, we prefer to specify that the particle starts in some initial state I and ends in some final state F, which upon inserting complete sets of states can be written as

which mixing Schrödinger and Dirac notation we can write as

In most cases we are interested in taking |I〉 and |F〉 as the ground state, which we will denote by |0〉. It is conventional to give the amplitude 〈0| e−iHT |0〉 the name Z.

to converge because the oscillatory phase factors from different paths tend to cancel out. It is somewhat more rigorous to perform a so-called Wick rotation to Euclidean time. This amounts to substituting t → −it and rotating the integration contour in the complex t plane so that the integral becomes

known as the Euclidean path integral. As is done in appendix 2 to this chapter with ordinary integrals we will always assume that we can make this type of substitution with impunity.

The classical world emerges

in (6):

→ 0 limit. Applying the stationary phase or