27 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
deserves a Nobel, July 6, 2007
I had the pleasure of meeting Freeman Dyson twice. On both occasions, he was promoting his books, aimed at a general audience. (One was
Weapons and Hope, on the nuclear arms race.) In contrast is this recent, yet old book. It encapsulates lectures he gave in the 1940s and 50s, on relativistic quantum mechanics, as it was then understood.
The presentation is really meant only for physicist readers. Undergrad physics majors need to have studied quantum mechanics, at least to the level of being fluent with the Schrodinger equation. That assumes non-relativistic conditions. The relativistic equivalent is treated here.
So one of the key ideas is the propagator. But the resultant integral equations are often very difficult to solve or understand. One approach was taken by Schwinger and Tomonaga, which was essentially to plow ahead and try to solve these. Very hard, even for the best physicists. As the book should let you appreciate, the maths gets so tangled, that you can easily lose track of the physical meaning, if any.
Then along came Feynman, with his famous insight into the diagrams that now bear his name. The book gives a detailed treatment. Of what the diagrams actually mean. And how you can take a diagram, and write down and (hopefully) solve the corresponding equation. But, more than just doing maths, the diagrams give an intuitive physical meaning. This has been their primary attraction.
For decades, there have been other books on this subject. By Sakurai and others. Written in the years after Dyson gave the lectures on which this book is based. The book's biggest merit may thus be historical. Had Dyson published it during those early years, it might have been a classic. Still, better late than never. Almost all the main physicists involved in those years are dead. Dyson keeps chugging along. Good for him!
What this book does not ruminate on is perhaps as interesting as what it says. Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga shared the Nobel in physics for their work on quantum electrodynamics (=relativistic quantum mechanics). There is a maximum of 3 winners for each Nobel. Amongst some other physicists, it has been a longstanding contention that Dyson is entitled to a Nobel. He is profiled along with them in Schweber's account,
QED and the Men Who Made It. In that book, Schweber depicts Dyson's contribution as equal to any of their's. When I got Dyson's autograph, it was on a copy of the Schweber book. He laughed when he saw the book, and said their efforts outweighed his. Natural modesty, perhaps. Others would say the Nobel committee shortchanged him.
Now if you do want more details about how the idea of Feynman diagrams spread, check out
Drawing Theories Apart: The Dispersion of Feynman Diagrams in Postwar Physics. It has less on the physics than Dyson's book. But more on the sociology of how the idea caught on.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4.0 out of 5 stars
A valuable and historically-rich introduction to quantum field theory--especially when suplemented with a more modern textbook, January 21, 2012
I think that people might be thrown off by the title of this book. Other books that address the topics covered by this book, especially books that have come out more recently, have "quantum field theory" in the title. Dyson states the purpose of his book (or his 1951 lectures that are the basis of this book) is that of refashioning quantum mechanics in such a way that it is Lorentz invariant. This, he does, as would any writer of QTF books, by starting with the Dirac and Klein Gordon equations. It is certainly exciting to read this treatise by Dyson, as he was the first to show the approaches to QTF developed by Feynman and Schwinger to be equivalent--an issue that he addresses in this book as well. In making this connection Dyson played an important role in laying the foundation in QTF, and in making it more accessible to others.
I enjoy Dyson's language and his use of colorful terms that reflect his role and presence in the early days of QTF. He refers to the familiar slash through Dirac-related quantities and operators as the "Feynman Dagger." As for Feynman Diagrams, he refers to them as "Feynman Graphs." One problem, however, is that the notation used by Dyson differs from that in modern QFT. For example, the matrix that is usually called gamma zero is called gamma four by Dyson. I find that Dyson is easier for me to follow if I read it along with Ryder's
Quantum Field Theory.
I should also note that an important point that is not addressed in sufficient detail by Dyson is the concept of adjoint spinor--which is usually represented by a psi or other symbol with a bar over top. Although the adjoint spinor is defined by Dyson on p.12 Eq.35 (though without naming it as such), no mention is made of its importance in maintaining Lorentz invariance. For such a discussion the reader should see Ryder p.44 Eq. 2.104 and p.46 Eqs. 2.112-2.115.
I was particularly interested in Dyson's discussion of the Lamb Shift. In 1947 Willis Lamb and Robert Retherford used microwave spectroscopy to measure the approximately 1GHz splitting between the hydrogen 2S1/2 and 2P1/2 energy levels. Dyson came to Cornell to work under Hans Bethe to advance the theoretical understanding of the Lamb shift. You can hear Dyson's engaging account of his involvement in this problem in Web of Stories on the web. The understanding of the Lamb Shift ultimately required the development of the quantum electrodynamics aspect of quantum field theory. Feynman and Schwinger were the first to use QED/QTF to successfully calculate the Lamb shift, a success that laid the cornerstone for these theories.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 32 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
readers digest version of quantum mechanics, September 30, 2007
This review is from: Advanced Quantum Mechanics (Paperback)
This book is not worth buying. Dyson gives us conclusions without showing metodology. It is virtually impossible to use.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No