Errata of Weinberg's QFT textbooks, 2005 edition.

Question

I just compiled a personal collection of errata of the 2005 paperback edition(https://yiyangjia.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/errata-to-weinbergs-qft-2005-edition.pdf). 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.

Comments

see http://www.physicsoverflow.org/27619/quantum-fields-from-cluster-decomposition-principle?show=27623#a27623

---

@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.

---

@vivienzo 

Worth an answer?

Sure, why not?

---

Volume 1, pp.475 - Weinberg mentions reference for Wick Rotations to be 

2. G. С Wick, Phys. Rev. 80, 268 A950).

But as I checked it, it is for Wick theorem.

Correct reference for Wick Rotation I guess is from wikipedia,

Wick, G. C. (1954). "Properties of Bethe-Salpeter Wave Functions". Physical Review. 96 (4): 1124–1134.

---

Hi. The link you provided is broken. Can you provide a new link to the pdf?

---

Indeed the link is broken. Want a new link plz

Answer 1

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.

• Ref 10a. A. Sommerfeld, Munchner Berichte 1915, pp. 425, 429; ...
  -> The second reference should be page 459, instead of 429
  cf. http://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Sitz-Ber-Akad-Muenchen-math-Kl_1915_0001.pdf
• Ref 19. W Pauli, Z.f. Phys. 37, 263 (1926); 43, 601 (1927).
  -> The first article [Z.f. Phys. 37, 263 (1926)] is authored by W. Heisenberg and P. Jordan.
  cf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01397100
• Ref 28 ... Also see P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. A133, 61 (1931).
  -> This last reference to Dirac's paper should read Proc. Roy. Soc. A133, 60 (1931), however Weinberg probably wanted to point to that particular page of the paper in this context, so maybe "Proc. Roy. Soc. A133, 60 (1931), p.61." is the intended reference.
  cf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1931.0130
• Ref 43a. V. Fock, C. R. Leningrad 1933, p. 267.
  -> Has somebody any idea what this is?
• Ref 48. C. Møller, Ann. d. Phys. 14, 531, 568 (1932).
  -> Page 568 is within the page range of article Ann. d. Phys. 14, 531, so Weinberg wants to refer to  Ann. d. Phys. 14, 531, p.568?
  cf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/andp.19324060506
• Ref 49. ... also see G. Racah, Nuovo Cimento 11, No. 7 (1934); ibid., 13, 69 (1936).
  -> The first article from Racah should be Nuovo Cimento 11,461 (page, not issue!). The second one should be Nuovo Cimento 13, 66 (1936) [maybe referring to p.69 within this article?]
  cf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02959918 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02961178
• Ref 56a. L. Nordheim and N. Webb, Phys. Rev. 56, 494 (1939).
  -> The second author is M.H.Hebb
  cf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.56.494
• Ref 58. ... R. E. Marshak and H. A. Bethe, Phys. Rev. 77, 506 (1947).
  The paper from Marshak and Bethe is from volume 72, not 77.
  cf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.72.506
• Ref 62. I. Waller, Z.f. Phys. 59, 168 (1930); ibid., 61, 721, 837 (1930); ibid., 62, 673 (1930).
  -> From these 4 papers, I can only find Z.f.Phys. 61, 837 (1930) and Z.f.Phys. 62, 673 (1930). The other 2 do not exist! Maybe Weinberg refers to the papers Z.f.Phys. 58, 75 (1929) and Z.f.Phys. 88, 436 (1934)?
  cf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01347932, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01351775, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01340210 and http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01843484.
• Ref 64. ... R. Serber, Phys. Rev. 43, 49 (1935) ...
  -> The paper from Serber is in volume 48, not 43 (but page is correct).
  cf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.48.49
• Ref 72. ... Also see C. Møller, Kon. Dansk. Vid. Sels. Mat.-Fys. Medd. 23, No. 1 (1945); ibid. 23, No. 19, (1946).
  -> The second reference should read: Kon. Dansk. Vid. Sels. Mat.-Fys. Medd. 22, No. 19 (1946) [confusingly, this later dated, second part of this two-paper series is in the earlier binding.]
  cf. http://gymarkiv.sdu.dk/MFM/kdvs/mfm 20-29/mfm-22-19.pdf
• Ref 75. ... For a review of classical theories of this type, and of yet other attempts to solve the problem of infinities, see R. E. Peierls in Rapports du 8me Conseil de Physique Solvay 1948 (R. Stoops, Brussels, 1950): p. 241.
  -> The article from Peierls starts at p.291 in the proceedings of Solvay 1948
  cf. http://digitheque.ulb.ac.be/fr/digitheque-instituts-internationaux-de-physique-et-de-chimie-solvay-iipcs/conseils-internationaux-de-physique-solvay-numerises-par-lulb/index.html
• Ref 82. ... D. E. Nagel, R. S. Julian, and J. R. Zacharias, Phys. Rev. 72, 973 (1947).
  -> The letter from Nagle (typo in name!) et. al. is on page 971.
  cf. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.72.971

Comments

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.