An Introduction to QED and QCD by Jeff Forshaw (1997) by 
Ciro Santilli 34 Updated 2024-12-15 +Created 1970-01-01
Ciro Santilli 34 Updated 2024-12-15 +Created 1970-01-01www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/forshaw/NorthWest/QED.pdf web.archive.org/web/20200824083133/http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/forshaw/NorthWest/QED.pdf
These seem very direct and not ultra advanced, good read.
Quantum Field Theory for The Gifted Amateur by Tom Lancaster (2015) by Ciro Santilli 34 Updated 2024-12-15 +Created 1970-01-01
Ciro Santilli 34 Updated 2024-12-15 +Created 1970-01-01People are mostly saying you have to be a more of a genius amateur to read it.
Quantum Field Theory Demystified by David McMahon (2008) by Ciro Santilli 34 Updated 2024-12-15 +Created 1970-01-01
Ciro Santilli 34 Updated 2024-12-15 +Created 1970-01-01This didn't really deliver. It does start from the basics, but it is often hard to link those basics to more interesting or deeper points. Also like many other Quantum field theory book, it does not seem to contain a single comparison between a theoretical result and an experiment.
Dirac equation vs quantum electrodynamics by Ciro Santilli 34 Updated 2024-12-15 +Created 1970-01-01
Ciro Santilli 34 Updated 2024-12-15 +Created 1970-01-01TODO: in high level terms, why is QED more general than just solving the Dirac equation, and therefore explaining quantum electrodynamics experiments?
Also, is it just a bunch of differential equation (like the Dirac equation itself), or does it have some other more complicated mathematical formulation, as seems to be the case? Why do we need something more complicated than
Advanced quantum mechanics by Freeman Dyson (1951) mentions:
A Relativistic Quantum Theory of a Finite Number of Particles is Impossible.
Bibliography:
- physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101307/dirac-equation-in-qft-vs-relativistic-qm
- physics.stackexchange.com/questions/44188/what-is-the-relativistic-particle-in-a-box/44309#44309 says:
By several reasons explained in textbooks, the Dirac equation is not a valid wavefunction equation. You can solve it and find solutions, but those solutions cannot be interpreted as wavefunctions for a particle
- physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64206/why-is-the-dirac-equation-not-used-for-calculations
- www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-diracs-equation-still-useful-after-qed-is-developed.663994/
QED and the men who made it: Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga by Silvan Schweber (1994) by Ciro Santilli 34 Updated 2024-12-15 +Created 1970-01-01
Ciro Santilli 34 Updated 2024-12-15 +Created 1970-01-01Available for free online rent on the Internet Archive: archive.org/details/qedmenwhomadeitd0000schw
This book has formulas on it, which is quite cool!! And the formulas are basically not understandable unless you know the subject pretty well already in advance. It is however possible to skip over them and get back to the little personal stories.
python3 -m pip install --user virtualenv
virtualenv .venv
. .venv/bin/activate
pip install -r requirements.txtThis operator case is surprisingly not necessarily mathematically trivial to describe formally because you often end up getting into the Dirac delta functions/continuous spectrum: as mentioned at: mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics
Was adopted by AskJeeves in 2001.
The Google Story Chapter 11. "The Google Economy" comments:
As they saw it, generation one was AltaVista, generation two was Google, and generation three was Teoma, or what Ask Jeeves came to refer to as Expert Rank. Teoma's technology involved mathematical formulas and calculations that went beyond Google's PageRank system, which was based on popularity. In fact, the concept had been cited in the original Stanford University paper written by Sergey Brin and Larry Page as one of the methods that could be used to rank indexed Web sites in response to search requests. "They called their method global popularity and they called this method local popularity, meaning you look more granularly at the Web and see who the authoritative sources are," Lanzone said. He said Brin an Page had concluded that local popularity would be exceedingly difficult to execute well, because either it would require too much processing power to do it in real time or it would take too long.
googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006/03/expertrank-authoritative-search.html mentionsand:
ExpertRank is an evolution of IBM's CLEVER project, a search engine that never made it to public.
The difference between PageRank and ExpertRank is that for ExpertRank the quality of the page is important and that quality is not absolute, but it's relative to a subject.
There are other more recent algorithms with similar names, and are prehaps related:
- www.researchgate.net/publication/257015904_ExpertRank_A_topic-aware_expert_finding_algorithm_for_online_knowledge_communities ExpertRank: A topic-aware expert finding algorithm for online knowledge communities (2013)
- ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5260966 ExpertRank: An Expert User Ranking Algorithm in Online Communities
Can be approximated with a diaphragm.
www.reddit.com/r/artificial/comments/b38hbk/what_do_my_fellow_ai_researchers_think_of_ben/ What do my fellow AI researchers think of Ben Goertzel and his research?
P for quantum computing!
Heck, we know nothing about this class yet related to non quantum classes!
- conjectured not to intersect with NP-complete, because if it were, all NP-complete problems could be solved efficiently on quantum computers, and none has been found so far as of 2020.
- conjectured to be larger than P, but we don't have a single algorithm provenly there:
- it is believed that the NP complete ones can't be solved
- if they were neither NP-complete nor P, it would imply P != NP
- we just don't know if it is even contained inside NP!
There are unlisted articles, also show them or only show them.