you can use it as tinder to start a fire

oh you can also read it

I never said otherwise

a pretty big omission

weinberg doesn't cover LSZ either.

nor does Zee

Peskin does

@0celo7 That's not true.

YES! My copy of Hartshorne just arrived!!!

I can stop being lost in class!

Yay, now you can be lost in Hartshorne!

@ACuriousMind Proof?

@0celo7 page 438

That's literally the reason I think it's a terrible book

@ACuriousMind For about the next six or seven weeks all I have to worry about is 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, and 2.2! Should be fun!

where

@ACuriousMind where is the LSZ formula

he just told you

it's not on this page

@0celo7 It's "encoded" in the text as "the usual Feynman rules".

@ACuriousMind huh?

@ACuriousMind This really frustrated me when reading the book

I do not see it on this page

You see the "The above result" in the second paragraph, yes? The result talked about is essentially the LSZ formula, but he didn't write it down again because he already knows how to compute the n-point function by Feynman rules, so saying that the procedure gives "the usual Feynman rules" is enough

I don't see what is surprising about this, Weinberg does everything differently :P

@NeuroFuzzy What, one and a half months to learn the definitions of varieties/schemes?

Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by 1.1, 2.1, etc.

Thermodynamics question

I am cold

What to do

Burn stuff

What if it's an endothermic burn

I could end up even colder

@ACuriousMind No I don't see that...

a joke

@0celo7 Argh, you have a hardcover, don't you? :P

Just go and look in the index for LSZ

@ACuriousMind nope

@ACuriousMind Chapter 1 section 1, chapter 1 section 2, chapter 2 section 1, chapter 2 section 2, over the next 5 weeks. Very doable pace!

@ACuriousMind does your page look like this?

Yes, and I can see "the above result" in the second paragraph clearly in your picture :P

Huh?

It literally say "the above famous theorem"

Oh, it's theorem, not result, sorry

...was that really the issue?

WHICH famous result, dude

that's my problem

The above one :>

there's a mess of shit on the previous page

and what's with that factor $N$ he mentions

god my QFT is rusty

Get the Jabba the Hutt and Gromm book

since u like math so much

@Slereah do you even own any math books

@0celo7 Aha, so the problem is not that Weinberg doesn't cover LSZ, it's that you find his presentation confusing!

@0celo7 I own Robinson

Also Abramowitz Stegun

I'll not argue for Weinberg being a paragon of clarity, but this isn't the same as "Weinberg doesn't cover LSZ".

And the integral one

@ACuriousMind Ok

"Weinberg does not cover LSZ in any form understandable by nonexperts"

$\cong$ Weinberg does not cover LSZ

I dont think Weinberg is intended to be read by non-experts

What non-expert is gonna read Weinberg

me in high school

Neither is any other QFt book, which is why learning it from books is so hard :P

That's like telling some pleb who wants to learn about GR to read HE

@ACuriousMind can you please just explain

this is your chance to save me

BASIC ALGEBRA AND CALCULUS

It was probably a joke

@0celo7 explain what?

@ACuriousMind page 437

@bloo you got trolled, son

@Slereah Steenrod

Schouten

I can't just pick a random page in Weinberg and start explaining it, I would need to backtrack and decipher the horrible notation first

@ACuriousMind Fine.

Next summer, you, me, Weinberg.

We'll read it together

Why would I read a QFT book?

;P

I also own a bunch of logic books

But they're not really books

@ACuriousMind to help me

They're like

Compilation of articles

I don't want to hate physics

But Weinberg is why I do

Best GR book for plebs, btw

I read that as a kid

It was pretty cool

no

imo Schwartz to learn QFT

@Slereah And there your obsession with weird spacetimes began? :D

@ACuriousMind It does speak of wormholes

@bloo you'll be reading Lee

Tho my weird spacetime obsession actually stems from Stephen Baxter's books

Since that's where I learned for the first time about closed timelike curves

It's a very poorly documented topic in most basic GR books

Carroll barely mentions it

@bloo from top to bottom

Here is my tip to learn physics

@bloo at least read the bottom one

Wald as an intro might be a bit much

well then

I have the perfect book

That pleb book contains an explanation of hawking radiation for children, btw

It involves virtual particle pairs

What a bunch of scrubs

@ACuriousMind It's weird, Weinberg's GR book is very lucid

But somehow he's a confused old man in QTF

Which is weird because that's what he got the nobel for

right

amazon.com/…

Best intro book for GR math imo

is it?

why not Lee GSM

got some actual math

Actual math does not make for a very good intro

@ACuriousMind has this chat always been so hostile

I'm putting Weinberg cosmology on my desk cuz it's so good

@0celo7 I don't see any hostility.

Except from you directed at Weinberg, that is :P

my desk is being overrun by books :o

Callahan is pretty good because it starts with accelerated frames in SR and then embedded curved surfaces

Not a lot of actual GR but it prepares the way nicely

@ACuriousMind help are you still there?

I have a delta potential

$V(x)=-\alpha\delta(x)$

I'll give you Steenrod for that delta potential

Mail it to me

They want me to compute the discontinuity of the derivative of an eigenfunction

in terms of $\alpha,m$ and $u(0)$, but won't it depend on $E$ too?

^disregard

@bloo learning anything good in Carroll?

Carroll has exactly one closed timelike curve

pretty weak imo

yikes

It's not even a standard example

It's some weird fake spacetime thing

oh well that's good?

what's a fake spacetime

implying Godel isn't fake

Godel is at least based on a physical model

Rotating dust