Errata: Advanced Concepts in Particle and Field Theory

Errata & Notes for:

Advanced Concepts in Particle and Field Theory

(Cambridge University Press, July 31, 2015, harcover) [ CUP ] [ A ] [ B ]
(Cambridge University Press, 2022, open access: PDF & @inSPIREhep ↯

“ There is a crack in everything; that’s how the light gets in. ” — Leonard Cohen

Notation: “p.n” = page n, “P.n” = paragraph n, “l.n” = line n, “S.m.n” = section n of chapter m;
n > 0 is counted downward/forward, n < 0 upward/backward.

If you notice any kind of error in the book, please, do let me know!

Errata & Corrigenda:

p.73, Digression 2.7, l. –4: “ relation ” → “ relations ” (plural)
p.74, (2.65): insert a missing ℏ on the right-hand side of the inequality
p.86, (3.5b): “ := r⃗ ” → “ := △r⃗ ” *
p.91, (3.26b): “ L^–1_ρ^ν” → “ L^–1_μ^ν ” *
p.99, l. 1 after (3.58): “ p₂=... ” → “ p′₂=...”
p.99, (3.60): “ ..., p_i ), where... ” → “ ..., p′_i ), where...”
p.144, l.–1; p.560, l.2: “ Saharov ” → “ Sakharov ” (Western-standard spelling)
p.183, (5.80a): “ ¹/₄ ε^μνρσ... ” → “ ¹/₈ ε^μνρσ... ”
p.199, l.1: “ = M_(c)(1,3,2,4) ” → “ = M_(e)(1,3,2,4) ” *
p.201, (5.151): Swap the indices μ ↔ ν in the rightmost Feynman diagram *
p.216, (5.215): Leading factor: “ 2 ” → “ 4 ” *
p.225, (6.6e): “...= – (... ” → “ ...= – c (... ” (both locations) & “...ℏc... ” → “ ...ℏ...” (both denominators);
p.227, (6.17): “ [D_μ , 𝔽_μν] ” → “ [D_μ , 𝔽_νρ] ” *
p.228, (6.28b): Left-hand side: insert a “ 1/c ” prefactor *
p.229, (6.31): First term after defining equality: “ ...^{a μ} ” → “ ...^{a ν} ” *
p.229, (6.32): Both instances: “ ^μ ” → “ ⁰ ” *
p.235, (6.51): Second square-bracket factor: “ u₁ ” → “ u₂ ” *
p.236, (6.56): The normalization factor should be “ [2(1+δ_αβ)]^–½ ” *
p.239, (6.63) 2nd row: “ the relative ‘–’ ” (in all three parentheses) → “ relative ‘–1/√3’ ” *
p.247, l.3 after (6.85): “ momentum ” → “ moment ” (left-most word-fragment, and middle of the row)
p.253, (7.2), r.h.s.: “ – ” → “ + ” *
p.257, (7.11), r.h.s.: “ (ℏ²... ” → “ –(ℏ²... ” *
p.325, Digression 9.2: the results are given in the un-normalized basis, (no summation) e^μ = e^μ/h_μ and e_μ = e_μ·h_μ, with (h_μ)² = g_μμ , so that e^μ = e_μ are the usual length-normalized unit-vectors; see again in Appendix B.2.
p.329, l.1 under Eq. (9.45) and subsequently: “ energy-momentum tensor density ” → “ energy-momentum density tensor. ” The quantity defined in Eq. (9.45) is a tensor — not a tensor density as stated in Definition B.2 on p.522; its components however are indeed densities in the other sense of the word: they are “measurable quantities per unit spatial 3D-volume.”
p.340, Digression 9.5., l.3 after (9.73b): “ 10⁻¹²⁷ ” → “ 10⁻¹²³ ” and “ 83 ” → “ 79 ”
p.342, (9.81), anti de Sitter branch: Whereas a “flat slicing” analogue of the de Sitter branch can be obtained, this most certainly is not it. Instead, suffice it here to cite the standard global expression “ − c² f(r) dt² + dr²/ f(r) + dr²dΩ² with f(r) = 1 + |Λ_AdS|r²/3 ”, and recall that Λ_AdS < 0.
p.365, l.6–7: “ Dmytro ” → “ Dmitry ”
p.463, Eq. (A.32): “ x ^μ ∧ x ^μ+n ” → “ x ^μ ∧ y ^μ+n ” and “x ^μ Ω_μν x^ν ” → “ x ^μ Ω_μν y ^ν ” *
p.467, Eq. (A.40e) & (A.40i): “ J₊J_– ” → “ ½ J₊J_– ” and “ J_–J₊” → “ ½J_–J₊ ” *
p.467, Eq. (A.40o): “ J_±J_∓” → “ J_∓J_± ”
p.476, Eq. (A.79), l.2: “ ∝(t^α[βγ]+t^β[αγ]),” → “ , ”, i.e., drop that last expression
p.473, Eq. (A.60), bottom row: “ ...⊕V₂⊕V₂ ” → “ ...⊕V₂⊕V₁ ” *
p.474, Eq. (A.67b), under the square-root: “ ... – ρ(ρ + 1) ” → “ ... – ρ(ρ ± 1) ” *
p.477, Eq. (A.76b), first row: “ t ^(α[b) ” → “ t ^(α[β) ” *
p.503, Eq. (B.13): multiply the right-hand side in both rows by n!
p.514, Def. B.6, l.2: “ (p′q′) ” → “ (p′, q′) ” (pair-separating comma)
p.518, Eq. (B.80c), the 2nd relative sign (multiplying the 3rd term): “ – ” → “ + ”
p.526, Table C.2, units of ϵ₀ : “ ... m^–2 ” → “ ... m^–3 ”

Special thanks to *Yogesh Mahat for finding typos!

Additions & Updates:

p.525, Table C.1 needs the updating additions:

» 2013: François Englert and Peter W. Higgs, “for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles...”
» 2015: Takaaki Kajita and Arthur B. McDonald, “for the discovery of neutrino oscillations, which shows that neutrinos have mass”
» 2016: David J. Thouless (1/2), F. Duncan M. Haldane (1/4) and J. Michael Kosterlitz (1/4), “for theoretical discoveries of topological phase transitions and topological phases of matter”
» 2017: Rainer Weiss (1/2), Barry C. Barish (1/4) and Kip S. Thorne (1/4), “for decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves”
» 2020: Roger Penrose (1/2), “for the discovery that black hole formation is a robust prediction of the general theory of relativity”
» 2021: Giorgio Parisi (1/2), “for the discovery of the interplay of disorder and fluctuations in physical systems from atomic to planetary scales”
» 2022: Alain Aspect, John F. Clauser and Anton Zeilinger, “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”

Frequently Asked Questions:

𝒬: What is the one key distinction of this book, as compared with other texts on elementary particle physics?

✶ Conceptually consistent comprehensive coherence. Most other elementary particle physics texts aim to reach the contents of the Standard Model, which describes “subatomic physics.” This text also introduces grand unified models, general relativity and cosmology, supersymmetry and superstrings while following the same conceptually unified methodology. Borrowing from the introduction (p. xiii) and the concluding chapter (p. 409):
ACPFT-table

𝒬: Could elementary particles be minuscule black holes?

✶ Yes... unverifyably so and for an imperceptibly short time: As discussed in Digression 9.5, the Schwarzschild radius (of the event horizon) of an electron evaluates to 1.353×10^–57m and its charge horizon comes out to be 9.152×10^–37m — both of which are smaller than the Planck length. Furthermore, the Hawking evaporation time of an electron-mass black hole evaluates to 6.355×10^–107s. Indeed, quite unobservable and for an even more imperceptibly short time.
So, if elementary particles were (spinning & charged) black holes, the only stable spin-½ particles in the Standard Model would be: the u-quarks (lightest fractionally charged), electrons (lighter still, but integrally charged) and electron-neutrinos (lightest and chargeless). All other quarks would have to evaporate; not even the d-quark within a proton could be stable (akin to neutrons in stable nuclei), since its Hawking evaporation is 60 orders of magnitude faster than Planck time, leaving no chance for the (comparatively) molasses-slow strong interactions to stabilize it: The characteristic QCD interaction time of 10^–23s is 12 orders of magnitude slower than Planck time, and 72 orders of magnitude slower than the d-quark Hawking evaporation time.
This (after an imperceptibly short time) left-over Standard Model remnant would be rife with anomalies, and we could not exist in it to ask this question (→ unverifiability).