On this page, we report errors in our textbook that were reported
between August 1997 and March 2001. If you own a copy of the book
published before the summer of 2001 (Typically, the book would have `Perseus'
on the spine.), please refer to the list of errors at this
link. If you have a more recent copy of the textbook, with
`Westview' on the spine, please refer to the
shorter list of
still-uncorrected errors. Two lengthy notes on the list below, those
to p. 46 and p. 79, could not be included in the reprint and are
transferred to the new list.
If you own an earlier edition of the book (with `Addison-Wesley' on the
spine, and either no indication of the printing or an indication that is
is the fourth or earlier printing), there are many errors in the book
that should be corrected.
Only a few of these errors have important consequences. However, there
are many minor errors in individual derivations. We have therefore
reorganized the list into a catalogue of
Errors from the period August 1997 - March 2001, corrected in editions of
the text with `Westview' on the spine, are listed below:
We would be most grateful to hear of any further errors that are not listed
on these pages. Please send them by e-mail to
mpeskin@slac.stanford.edu.
Errors reported since August 1997, updated March 2001:
Notations and Conventions:
- p. xix: After the examples of 3-vectors and 4-vectors at the bottom
of the page, it should be noted that a light italic label with a
hat over it denotes a unit 3-vector. (Thanks to Y.-J. Kim.)
Chapter 2:
- p. 34: In Problem 2.2, part (d), it is claimed that the system of
two complex Klein-Gordon fields has four conserved charges,
corresponding to the generators of the Lie group U(2).
Actually, there are six conserved charges, corresponding to
the generators of the Lie group SO(4), which contains U(2) as a
subgroup. For n complex Klein-Gordon fields, the suggestions in
the problem lead one to the generators of U(n). But again there
are more charges, filling out the generators of SO(2n). The
construction of these extra charges is left as an exercise.
(Thanks to Y. Tachikawa.)
Chapter 3:
- p. 46: On this page, the spinors u(p) are represented using
square roots of matrices: sqrt(p.sigma) and sqrt(p.sigmabar).
It is useful to note that these objects can be rewritten
without square roots of matrices
as: sqrt(p.sigma) = (p.sigma + m)/sqrt(2(p^0 + m)) , and similarly
for sigmabar, for a 4-vector p such that p^2 = m^2.
(Thanks to Prof. A. Sirlin!)
- p. 50: On the line just below eq. (3.68), the second equation
should read "gamma^{mu nu rho} = +i epsilon^{mu nu rho sigma}
gamma_sigma gamma^5". The first equation on this line and
the displayed equation (3.68) are correct. (Thanks to J. Park.)
- p. 57: In the first sentence, "in terms of a and b^dagger" should read
"in terms of a and b". (Thanks to E. Watanabe.)
- p. 59: In eq. (3.109), "p" should be replaced by bold-face "p" (the
3-vector) in all three occurences on the right-hand side.
Similarly, the subscripts in eq. (3.110) and the equation just above
it are 3-vectors.
(Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 61: The logic of the proof that the Dirac particle has spin 1/2
is not quite correct. The full expression for J^z of the Dirac
field, including both orbital and spin angular momentum,
annihilates the vacuum |0>. However, the expression for J^z
written on p. 61, which includes only spin angular momentum, does
not. (It is a nice exercise to show both parts.) With the full J^z,
it is correct that J^z a^dagger_p |0> = [ J^z, a^dagger_p] |0>.
If you compute this and then set p=0, you will find the expression
given in the second unnumbered equation on p. 61. The logic proceeds
correctly from this point. (Thanks to H. Haber!)
- p. 61: In the line just above the first unnumbered equation,
"(3.87)" should read "(3.99)". (Thanks to N. Kersting.)
- p. 61: Six lines above eq. (3.112), "the spinors xi^s" should read
"the spinors eta^s", for consistency with eq. (3.62).
(Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 61: In the second unnumbered equation, in each parenthesis, the
indices "r" and "s" should be interchanged. Then, for example,
the second parenthesis should read "(xi^s dagger sigma^3/2 xi^r)".
(Thanks to F. Takahashi.)
- p. 65: In the line just above eq. (3.123), "a_p^s" should be
replaced by "a_p^{s dagger}", and similarly "a_{-p}^s" should
be replaced by "a_{-p}^{s dagger}". (Thanks to G. Lacagnina.)
- p. 69: To be consistent with the numerous corrections to p. 68
listed on the following pages, we must replace "-b^{-s}_{-p}^dagger"
in the second line of (3.139) with "+b^{-s}_{-p}^dagger".
[This correction is incorporated in the corrected printing.] But also
in the next two lines of this equation "(-gamma^1 gamma^3)"
should be replaced by "(+gamma^1 gamma^3)". Similarly, in eq. (3.140),
"-gamma^1 gamma^3" in the third term should be replaced by
"+gamma^1 gamma^3" and the opposite change should be made in the
fourth term. The two changes of minus signs appear, and cancel, in the
calculation of the transformation laws of bilinears in eqs. (3.141),
(3.142), and the unnumbered equation in between. Thus, finally,
the transformation laws
for bilinears are unchanged. (Thanks to L. Jiang.)
- p. 76: In the top line, the subscripts of a_p and b_p should be
boldface (3-vectors). (Thanks to R. Garavuso.)
Chapter 4:
- p. 79: We are informed that the gauge condition "del_mu A^mu = 0", which
in every modern textbook is called the `Lorentz condition', should
actually be the `Lorenz condition'. Ludwig Valentin Lorenz,
the inventor of the retarded potential, actually wrote down this
condition in 1867, when Hendrik Antoon Lorentz was 14 years old.
It is another example of the Matthew effect at work. See
E. T. Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and
Electricity, vol. 1, p. 269 and J. Van Bladel, IEEE Antennas
and Propagation Magazine, vol. 33, p. 69 (1991). (Thanks to
J. Bielawski.)
- p. 96: In the second line, "in (4.46)" should be replaced by "in the
previous equation". (Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 96: In the paragraph just below the figure (4.48), "delta(p_1+p_2)"
and "delta(0)" (which appears twice) should be replaced by
"delta^(4)(p_1+p_2)" and "delta^(4)(0)". (Thanks to J. Saez Beltran.)
- p. 104: In eq. (4.74), and in the text two lines above, the subscripts
A and B should be in caligraphic script. (Thanks to S.-S. Kim.)
- p. 106: In the first line on the page, the subscripts
A and B should be in caligraphic script. (Thanks to K. Mawatari.)
- p. 109: In eq. (4.91), the four delta functions on the right-hand side
should be "delta^(3)". The same correction should be made in the
second line of eq. (4.93). (Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 110: In eq. (4.94), the right-hand sides of two equations should
read, respectively, "e^{-ipx}|0>" and "<0|e^{ipx}".
(Thanks to O. L. G. Peres.)
- p. 117: In the unnumbered equation just below (4.115), the two
delta-functions should read "delta(p'-p + q)" and "delta(k'-k-q)".
Also, these two delta functions, and the one in the line just above
eq. (4.116), should be "delta^(4)"
(Thanks to D. Sadri.)
- p. 119: In the first unnumbered equation, the integrand should
also include factors for the two outgoing bosons: "e^{ik'x} e^{iky}".
Also (as previously noted) the labels "x" and "y" in the diagram should
be interchanged.
(Thanks to R. Dermisek.)
- p. 124: Four lines below eq. (4.132), "created by A_i, with with
i = 1, 2, 3, ..." should have only one "with". (Thanks
to K. Mawatari.)
Chapter 5:
- p. 133: In the third unnumbered equation the label "anticommuatation"
should read "anticommutation". (Thanks to G. Lach.)
- p. 146: In the unnumbered equation above (5.32), "sin theta"
should be "-sin theta". (Thanks to H. Davoudiasl.)
- p. 150: On the right-hand size of eq. (5.52), the parentheses ( )^2
should be absolute values | |^2. (Thanks to R. Lebed.)
- p. 151: In eq. (5.56), just after the integral, (1/2pi) should
be replaced by (1/8pi), the value of 2-body phase space. The sentence
just below this equation should read: "This formula is summed over the
possible final electron polarization states. It is easiest to evaluate
by averaging over the three possible values of n." The formula (5.57)
is correct as written. (Thanks to T. Ohl.)
- p. 165: There is a sign confusion in the unnumbered equation at the
bottom of the page. The sign is correct if the text is read
literally. However, to be consistent with the conventions in
the rest of the book, the line above this equation should read
"epsilon^mu = (1/sqrt{2})(0,1,-i,0)^mu". Then,
in the unnumbered equation at the very bottom of the page,
"sqrt{2}" should be "-sqrt{2}". (Thanks to H. Davoudiasl and K.
Mawatari.)
- p. 166: Just above eq. (5.101), "conservaton" should read "conservation".
(Thanks to L. Gerland.)
- p. 174: Just above the first unnumbered equation, "Weiszacker" should be
"Weizsacker" (actually, "von Weizs\"acker").
(Thanks to L. Gerland.)
Chapter 6:
- p. 178: In the second line of eq. (6.4), "kp'" and "kp" in the
exponents should be dot products. (Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 179: In the unnumbered equation at the top of the page,
"(1,0)" should be "(1,0)^mu". (Thanks to K. Mawatari.)
- p. 182: In eq. (6.17), in the denominators of the expressions
inside the logarithms,
"E-p" should read "E- |p|", where p is a 3-vector, and
similarly "E^2 - p^2" should read "E^2 - |p|^2". (Thanks to
H. S. Lee.)
- p. 186: In last line of text, "phi(q)" should be "tilde phi(q)".
(Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
Chapter 7:
- p. 217: In the second line of text, "e^{ip(x-y)}" should be
"e^{-ip(x-y)}". (Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 225: Five lines below eq. (7.41), "each of of the intergrals" should
have only one "of". (Thanks to K. Miura.)
- p. 226: Just below the first equation on the page, the text
should read: `The sums over lambda_1 and lambda_2 in this equation ...'
(Thanks to C. Burrell.)
- p. 232: In the last displayed equation, the "M" on the right hand
side should be in the same caligraphic font as the other occurences of
"M" on this page. (Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 236: In the sixth line from the bottom of the page, "M^2(p^2) is
real" should read "M^2(m^2) is real".
(Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
Chapter 8:
- p. 274: At the very top of the page, "F(y)" should be "f(y)".
(Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
Chapter 9:
- p. 279: Just above eq. (9.6), "C" should be replaced by "$C$".
(Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 281: The first line below eq. (9.11) should read: "There is one
momentum integral for each k from 0 to N-1, and ..." (Thanks to N. Prezas.)
- p. 281: In eq. (9.12), "H(q^i,p^i)" should read "H(q,p)".
(Thanks to M. Spranger.)
- p. 286: In eq. (9.23), the exponential in the first line includes the
confusing notation "n| k^0_n>0". This should be replaced with
"k^0_n > 0" here and also in its other occurence in eq. (9.26) and
in the unnumbered equation in the middle of p. 288. This
makes the notation consistent with the rest of pp. 285-8. In all cases,
"k^0_n > 0" represents a sum or product over a discrete set of entries,
subject to the constraint on the sign of k^0_n.
(Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 290: In the last line on the page, "(-iD_F)(x,y)" should read
"[-iD_F(x-y)]". (Thanks to E. Lima.)
- p. 308: In eq. (9.87), the measure "D phi" should be "D\varphi", using
the same script phi as in the integrand. (Thanks to J. Pratt.)
- p. 310: In the displayed equation just below (9.98), "L -> (RHS)" should
read "L -> L + (RHS)". (Thanks to H. Kochi.)
- p. 314: In the displayed equation, the integral in parentheses should
be "d^4x_E". (Thanks to L. Gerland.)
Chapter 10:
- p. 319: In the second line above eq. (10.6) "can be proportional" should
read "can be proportional to". (Thanks to D. Sadri.)
- p. 343: In eqs. (10.62) and (10.63), "1/epsilon - gamma" should be
replaced with "1/epsilon - gamma + log(4pi)". It actually does not
make any difference to the argument, but it is a good habit to follow.
(Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
Chapter 11:
- p. 354, 361: The two-point counterterm vertices in Figure 11.5 should
read: for the sigma-sigma vertex, "+i(delta_Z p^2 - delta_mu - 3
delta_lambda v^2)", and for the pi-pi vertex,
"+i delta^{ij}(delta_Z p^2 - delta_mu - delta_lambda v^2)".
This correction replaces the correction to eq. (11.35). For
readers of the fifth and later printings, the term "ip^2 delta_Z"
in eq. (11.35) should be preceded by a "+" sign. (Thanks to K. Okumura.)
- p. 355: In eq. (11.17), the third renormalization condition should
have on the left-hand side only the imaginary part of the
4-point vertex (i.e., the real part of the scattering amplitude).
The imaginary part of the scattering amplitude is fixed by unitarity;
see Section 7.3. (Thanks to H. van Hees.)
- p. 362: In the fourth line on the page, "delta_Z is finite" should be
replaced by "delta_Z is zero".
(Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 363: The expressions in eq. (11.39) and in the unnumbered equation
just above it should be multiplied by "i".
(Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 369: The horizontal axis in Figures 11.6 and 11.7 should be labeled
"phi_cl". (Thanks to O. Lechtenfeld.)
- p. 371: In eq. (11.60), "L" should read "L_1". (Thanks to O. Lechtenfeld.)
- p. 374: In eq. (11.72), all three occurences of "d^4 k/(2pi)^4"
should read "d^d k/(2pi)^d". (Thanks to M. Braendle and K. G.
Zloshchastiev.)
- p. 375: In eq. (11.74), "V(phi)" should read "V(phi_cl)".
(Thanks to O. Lechtenfeld.)
- p. 378: In the second line of eq. (11.80), the "-" should be a "+".
(Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 380: In the second line of text from the bottom, "Eq. (11.44)" should
read "Eq. (11.45)". (Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 381: Just below eq. (11.92), "M^2(p)" should be "M^2(p^2)".
(Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 383: The left-hand side of eq. (11.97) should be multiplied by "i".
(Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 385: In the first line of the last paragraph, "corrrections" should
read "corrections". Grrrr! (Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 385: In the first line on the right-hand side
of eq. (11.102), "Tr" should be omitted.
(Thanks to O. Lechtenfeld.)
- p. 386: In the last line of eq. (11.103), "phi_cl(z)" should be
"phi_cl(w)" in all three places. The line above is correct
as written. (Thanks to O. Lechtenfeld.)
- p. 387: In equation (11.104), "sqrt{2} lambda" should read
"sqrt{2 lambda}". (Thanks to K. Nakagawa.)
- p. 388: In equation (11.105), the exponent "-ip(x-y)" should be
"ip(x-y)". (Thanks to S. Willenbrock.)
- p. 390: To be consistent with Section 9.5, the integral in the
unnumbered equation in problem 11.3(c) should be written as
"D \bar\psi D \psi". (Thanks to D. Latas.)
Chapter 12:
- p. 395: The asymptotic formula given in eq. (12.2) is not correct.
The arrow in the equation could just be replaced by a tilde ("\sim")
followed by "e^{-m|x|}". For the record, the correct asymptotic
formula is: "sqrt(m/32 pi^3 |x|^3) e^{-m|x|}". (Thanks to H. Schulz.)
- p. 397: In eq. (12.7), the right-hand side should be multiplied by
(1/2). (Thanks to V. Del Duca.)
- p. 400: In eqs. (12.20), (12.21), and (12.23), the coefficient "1/4"
of the phi^4 term should be replaced by "1/4!".
(Thanks to M. Nobes.)
- p. 430: In eqs. (12.105) and (12.106), "G^(n)" should be replaced
by "G^(n;1)", the object defined in eq. (12.104). (Thanks to
C. Burrell.)
- p. 430: In eq. (12.110), "+1/4 F^mu lambda F^nu_lambda" should read
"- F^mu lambda F^nu_lambda". See eq. (19.150) for an clearer explanation
of the normalization. (Thanks to S. Bashinsky.)
- p. 432: In the first line of eq. (12.114), "d^4 r/(2pi)^4" should be
replaced by "d^d r/(2pi)^d". (Thanks to J. Kersten.)
- p. 432: In eq. (12.118), "+" should be replaced by "-".
(Thanks to L. Albuquerque.)
- p. 434: In eq. (12.126), "beta(rho bar, lambda bar)" should read
"beta(rho_i bar, lambda bar)". (Thanks to M.-H. Ansari.)
- p. 436: In the first line below eq. (12.136), "rho ~ m^-1" should
read "xi ~ m^{-1}". (Thanks to V. Del Duca.)
Chapter 13:
- p. 456: In eq. (13.76), the expression "1 + (diagram)" should be
"1 - 1/2 (diagram)". (Thanks to K. Nagami.)
- p. 457: In eq. (13.82), the second line should be multiplied by (-1).
(Thanks to K. Nagami.)
- p. 457: In eq. (13.84), the second term in the first line should
be multiplied by "delta^{kl}". (Thanks to K. Nagami.)
- p. 467: In the Lagrangian in part (a) of Problem 13.3, the "+" in
front of the second term should be replaced by a "-". (Thanks to
P. Amore.)
Chapter 14:
- p. 474: In the fifth line from the bottom of the page, "noninterating"
should be "noninteracting". (Thanks to G. Felder.)
Chapter 16:
- p. 506: In the fifth line below eq. (16.3), "contains of" should
read "contains". (Thanks to G. Felder.)
- p. 509: In the second line above eq. (16.16), "epsilon_nu(k_2)" should
be replaced by "epsilon_nu^*(k_2)". (Thanks to D. Novikov.)
- p. 511: In eq. (16.21), in the first line "[-k_1^rho k_1^mu]" should
be "[+ k_1^rho k_1^mu]", and in the second line "(-g)" should be
simply "g". (Thanks to E. Lima.)
- p. 514: In eq. (16.31), the last parenthesis (just after "c") should
be omitted. (Thanks to C.-W. Choi.)
- p. 514, 517, 519: In eq. (16.29), the gauge boson propagator
should be proportional to "(g_mu nu - (1-\xi) k_mu k_nu/k^2)", as in (9.58)
and in Fig. 21.1 on p. 735. This seems to be correct in all
editions, but in some editions an extra minus sign is later injected in
front of "xi", generating incorrect signs in eqs. (16.34), (16.44),
and (16.53). The correct signs are "-(1/2\xi)(del^mu A^a_mu)^2"
in eq. (16.34), "+(xi/2)(B^a)^2" in eq. (16.44), and "+\xi B^a" in
eq. (16.53).
- p. 516: In eq. (16.40), as the result of the error on p. 511,
the factors "-gf^{abc}" should become "+gf^{abc}". For consistency,
one should make this replacement also in eq. (16.42); this
corresponds to reversing the direction of the arrow on the ghost
line. In any event, these minus signs come in pairs and do not
affect the final cancellation. (Thanks to E.
Lima.)
- p. 517: In the last line on the page, "auxilliary field" (in italics,
yet) should read "auxiliary field". (Thanks to E. Lima.)
- p. 518: The expression in eq. (16.47) should be multiplied by epsilon.
(Thanks to S.-H. Nam.)
- p. 519: In the footnote, the reference to the paper of Kugo and Ojima
should read "Suppl. Prog. Theor. Phys. 66, 1 (1979)." (Thanks to H.
Hata.)
- p. 521: The last word on the page should be "diagrams".
(Thanks to M. Braendle.)
- p. 531: In the last line of eq. (16.86), "g" should be "g_0" and, in the
last term "A^0_b mu" should be "A^b_0 mu". Also, in the first term
in the last line and the second term in the second line, one pair
of indices "mu nu" should be raised. (Thanks to S.-H. Nam.)
- p. 532: In eq. (16.87), the first term in the third line should have a
factor "1/4" in front of it. (Thanks to T. Kanazawa.)
- p. 533: In eq. (16.90), the first term on the right-hand side should
have a (-) sign in front of it. (Thanks to R. Basu.)
- p. 534: In eq. (16.97), "G(A)" should read "G^a(A)". (Thanks to
O. Lechtenfeld.)
- p. 535: In the last term of eq. (16.98), "D^2" should read "(D^2)^{ac}".
Also, note that D^mu acts on everything to the right of it; thus
it acts on the index "a" of f^abc or, equivalently, on both indices
"b" and "c". (Thanks to
O. Lechtenfeld.)
- p. 535: In the sixth line below eq. (16.99), "the transformation
(16.98)" should read "the transformation (16.99)". (Thanks to G. Felder.)
- p. 535: In eq. (16.100), in the second term in brackets, "A^b_mu A^b_nu"
should read "A^b_mu A^c_nu". (Thanks to
L. Bergamin and I. Seggev.)
- p. 536: In eq. (16.109), a factor "t^b" should be included just
before the comma (as in eq. (16.107)). (Thanks to
O. Lechtenfeld.)
- p. 538: The same correction should be made in the third line of
eq. (16.119). (Thanks to an anonymous reader at Penn State.)
- p. 538: In the line just below eq. (16.119), the expression "Delta^(J)"
does contain a term with two powers of "A^a_mu". However, this
term, taken in first order, gives zero contribution when we trace
over color indices. (Thanks to
O. Lechtenfeld.)
- p. 539: In eq. (16.121), "gamma^{mu nu}" should read "g^{mu nu}".
(Thanks to Y. Jia.)
- p. 539: In eq. (16.122), the right-hand side of the equation should
be multiplied by (-1). (Thanks to H. Liu.)
Chapter 17:
- p. 551: In eq. (17.13), the right-hand side of the first equality
should read "-b_0 g^3/(4pi)^2". (Thanks to S. Ogushi.)
- p. 552: In eq. (17.17), the left-hand side of the equation should
read "alpha_s(Q)". (Thanks to S. Ogushi.)
- p. 575: In the third line of the second paragraph, "tranfer" should be
"transfer". (Thanks to C. Burrell.)
- p. 577: In eq. (17.87), the right-hand side of the equation should
begin "ie" instead of "-ie". The relations (17.90) and (17.91) are
correct as written. (Thanks to S. Ogushi.)
- p. 588: In eq. (17.125), a factor "x" should appear in front of
"f_f(x,Q)". (Thanks to S. Baek.)
Chapter 18:
- p. 603: In eq. (18.18), the coefficient "8" should be "4". The equations
following this one are correct as written. (Thanks to Z. Ligeti.)
- p. 608: At the end of the first line of eq. (18.45), "t^a s_L" should
read simply "s_L". (Thanks to X.-Y. Pham.)
- p. 620: In eq. (18.97), the expression on the right-hand side should
be multiplied by "-4 pi alpha". (Thanks to L. Bertora.)
- p. 620: In the first line of eq. (18.99), the denominator should be
raised to the power "n+1". The second and third lines of this
equation are correct. (Thanks to C. Burrell.)
- p. 628: In the first line of eq. (18.130), "q(0)gamma^nu q(0)" should
read "qbar(0) gamma^nu q(0)". Also, the fields "q(x)" and
"qbar(0)" should be contracted, as in eq. (18.125).
(Thanks to S. Bashinsky.)
- p. 639: In Figure 18.14, two additional diagrams should be included.
These are 2-point diagrams in which the one of the gluon lines
attaches to the operator vertex. These diagrams do not
contribute in the calculation of eq. (18.177).
(Thanks to S. Bashinsky.)
- p. 639: In eq. (18.174), the factor "1/2" in front of this expression
should be removed. This is needed to give the correct
normalizations for (18.181) and (18.188).
(Thanks to S. Bashinsky.)
- p. 642: In eq. (18.189), the exponent in the second line should
be "-(4/3)(16/3 + n_f)/2b_0". The exponent in the third
line should be "-32/9b_0".
(Thanks to S. Bashinsky.)
Chapter 19:
- p. 670: In eq. (19.91), a factor "gamma^5" should be inserted before
"Q". (Thanks to V. Del Duca.)
- p. 671: In eq. (19.95), a factor "gamma^5" should be inserted in the
second term in the brackets, in front of "F^5_2".
(Thanks to S. Bashinsky.)
- p. 671: Also, in eq. (19.95), a factor "tau^a" should be inserted just
after the bracket "]". (Thanks to P. Amore.)
- p. 671: In the footnote, the reference should be to "Phys. Repts. 87, 77
(1982)". (Thanks to M. Yan.)
- p. 672: Just below eq. (19.102), the "Goldberger-Trieman relation" should
of course be the "Goldberger-Treiman relation". This adds to the embarassment
that the relation was given incorrectly in the original printing. (Please
see the correction to p. 672 in the earlier errata list.) (Thanks to C.
Burrell.)
Chapter 20:
- p. 698: For consistency with the conventions of chapters 9 and 15,
eq. (20.43) should have a "+" sign, and eq. (20.45) should have
a "-" sign. (Thanks to V. Del Duca.)
- p. 699: In paragraph leading to eq. (20.52), 1, 2, and 3 should be
replaced consistently by {\hat 1}, {\hat 2}, {\hat 3}.
(Thanks to D. Latas.)
- p. 705: In the fourth line of eq. (20.80), " + + " should read
simply "+". (Thanks to J. Wendland.)
- p. 716: Equation (20.114) should read "m_h = sqrt{2} mu = sqrt{2 lambda}
v". (Thanks to S. Ogushi.)
- p. 716: In the bottom right of Figure 20.6, the value of the 3-Higgs
vertex should read "-6i sqrt(lambda/2} m_h = - 3i m_h^2/v".
(Thanks to Y.-J. Kim.)
- p. 723: In eq. (20.142), in the first term on the right-hand side,
"d^j_R" should be "d^i_R". (Thanks to K. Scaldeferri.)
- p. 726: In the first footnote, "Kobayaski" should read "Kobayashi".
Though many theories were discovered first in Russia, this one was
not. (Thanks to Y. J. Kim.)
"d^j_R" should be "d^i_R". (Thanks to K. Scaldeferri.)
- p. 730: In the displayed equation in Problem 20.5, part (d), the
factor "epsilon^{ab}" should be inserted just after "lambda^{ij}_u".
(Thanks to A. Aranda.)
Chapter 21:
- p. 741: In the first line of eq. (21.47), the term "-g^2 F^a_i F^b_i"
should be followed by "g^{mu nu}". (Thanks to K. Scaldeferri.)
- p. 743: In unnumbered equation just above (21.55), both sides should
be multiplied by "xi". (Thanks to O. Lechtenfeld.)
- p. 750: In eq. (21.87), the right-hand side should be multiplied by
"sin^2 theta". (Thanks to Shri.)
- p. 768: In eq. (21.144), the factor of i in the prefactor at the beginning
of the second line should be removed. Then (21.144) will be
consistent with the convention (7.72) for a vacuum polarization,
and with eq. (21.145). (Thanks to J. Shelton.)
- p. 768: The second line of eq. (21.145) should begin:
Pi_{LR} = Pi_{RL} = ... (Thanks to J. Shelton.)
Chapter 22:
- p. 793: In the first line of the footnote, "comformally" should be
"conformally". (Thanks to M. Moriconi.)
The Book
M. E. Peskin
SLAC