• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

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.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

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

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,054 questions , 2,207 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,721 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
818 active unimported users
More ...

  Errata of Weinberg's QFT textbooks, 2005 edition.

+ 3 like - 0 dislike

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.

asked Dec 29, 2014 in Resources and References by Jia Yiyang (2,640 points) [ revision history ]
edited Mar 18, 2015 by Jia Yiyang

@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?

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.

1 Answer

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

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.

answered Oct 20, 2018 by vivenzio (0 points) [ revision history ]
edited Oct 22, 2018 by vivenzio

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.

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights