Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.
Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.
New printer friendly PO pages!
Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!
Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!
Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!
... see more
(propose a free ad)
I just compiled a personal collection of errata of the 2005 paperback edition(pdf file at the bottom of my webpage). I found almost no typos in Volume 1 but quite a bit in Volume 2, and I'm only halfway reading Volume 2. I hope to see answers that make the errata more complete. In addition to typos kind of mistakes, you are more than welcomed to show where Weinberg "cheats" the readers, for example, claims to have derived something but forgets to mention some subtle assumptions that slipped in.
@ArnoldNeumaier, I've now updated the errata, with a disclaimer that I have not verified B.D. Keister and W.N. Polyzou.
Not yet an answer, but maybe worth a comment: I started reading the Volume 1, and find it a good read form the very beginning -- also because I'm interested in the historic development. However, I found some references in Chapter 1 to be incorrect. Worth an answer?
Examples from Chapter 1, References:
10a. A. Sommerfeld, Munchner Berichte 1915, pp. 425, 429; Ann. Phys.
51, 1, 125 (1916). Also see W. Wilson, Phil. Mag. 29, 795 (1915).
-> The second reference should be page 459.
19. W Pauli, Z.f. Phys. 37, 263 (1926); 43, 601 (1927).
-> The first article is authored by W. Heisenberg and P. Jordan.
Worth an answer?
Worth an answer?
Sure, why not?
The first chapter of Volume 1 contains an excellent and exhaustive set of references of the relevant papers (and proceedings). Unfortunately, there are quite some "glitches", where some of the references are incorrect or at least difficult to understand or investigate for.
Here is my errata list for the Chapter 1 references. In particular, I try to add a reference to the cited papers as often as possible. Some of the historic papers are actually freely available over internet. Others can at least easily be referenced by DOI.
I am not sure if these are typos, but I think they are:
Eq. 1.1.2 in Vol I of Weinberg: plus signs in 1st and 2nd terms in (), on the RHS, should be minus instead. This propagates to 1.1.4, and 1.1.5 also.
user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required