Errors reported since March 2001, updated March 2012: Notations and Conventions: Chapter 2: p.

18: [The following correction has been here for some time, but it was posted in error and should be removed. We apologize. Eq. (2.15) is consistent given the definition of Delta in (2.9). The incorrect correction read: In eq. (2.15), the factor of "alpha" on the left-hand side of each equation should be omitted. (Th anks to R. Kallosh for straighting us out.)] p. 28: Two lines under eq. (2.53), the phrase "since each term is separately Lor entz invariant" should properly read "since each term is separately invariant un der continuous Lorentz transformations". (Thanks to T. Wettig.) Chapter 3: p. 42: In the unnumbered equation at the bottom of the page, please note that th e notation "del_nu psi(Lambda^{-1}x)" means "del/del y^nu psi(y), evaluated at y = Lambda^{-1}x". Thus, del/del x^mu psi(Lambda^{-1}x) = (Lambda^{-1})^nu_mu del _nu psi(Lambda^{-1}x). This is the origin of the factor (Lambda^{-1})^nu_mu on t he right-hand side of the first line. (Thanks to J. Fredsted). p. 46: On this page, the spinors u(p) are represented using square roots of matr ices: sqrt(p.sigma) and sqrt(p.sigmabar). It is useful to note that these object s 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. 61: In the eighth line on the page "annihiliation" should read "annihilation" . (Thanks to N. Yamanaka.) p. 61: In the second line below the first displayed equation, the indices r on a ^dagger operators should be changed to r'. In the second displayed equation, u^d agger and xi^dagger should have the index r and u and xi should have the index s . The final result of the calculation is unchanged. (Thanks to R. Lebed.) Chapter 4: p. 79: We are informed that the gauge condition "del_mu A^mu = 0", which in ever y modern textbook is called the `Lorentz condition', should actually be the `Lor enz condition'. Ludwig Valentin Lorenz, the inventor of the retarded potential, actually wrote down this condition in 1867, when Hendrik Antoon Lorentz was 14 y ears old. It is another example of the Matthew effect at work. See E. T. Whittak er, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, vol. 1, p. 269 and J. V an Bladel, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, vol. 33, p. 69 (1991). (Thank s to J. Bielawski.) p. 124: In the setence just below the figure, "Q_d" should read "Q". (Thanks to K. Matawari.) Chapter 5: p. 156: There is some confusion in the paragraph just below eq. (5.70). In the c rossing procedure described, the initial electron momentum p and the final muon momentum k remain unchanged, while the initial positron momentum p' is continued to the momentum of a final-state electron and the final anti-muon momentum k' i s continued to the momentum of an initial state muon. Since p and k are unchange d, (p-k)^2 is unchanged. We wrote in the text that u is unchanged, but this is n ot quite right. In e-e+ -> mu-mu+, we would naturally call (p-k)^2 = t, but in e -mu- -> e-mu-, we would naturally call (p-k)^2 = u. So, the rearrangement descri bed in the text as s <-> t with u unchanged is described better as s->t t->u u-> s. However eq. (5.71) is symmetric under interchange of s and u, so either cross ing process gives the right answer. (Thanks to C. Schubert.) p. 169: In the equation in Problem 5.1, the right-hand side should be multiplied by Z^2 to be consistent with Problem 4.4, part (c). (Thanks to B. Souto.) p. 171: In the fourth line of Problem 5.3, part (d), "v_R" should be replaced by "u_R". (Thanks to K. Matawari.) p. 172: In Problem 5.4, part (c), there are two issues. First, in the formula fo r |B(k)> we should have been more explicit and written: the creation and annihil ation operators as tw-component objects: a_k = (a_1, a_2), b_k = (b_2, b_1). Mor e importantly, the last lines of part (c) should read: "for which a typical valu

e might be h^{12} = h^{21} = 1/sqrt{2} and all other components zero. (Thanks to J. Wang.) Chapter 6: p. 188: At the bottom of the page, we say, "the g-factor of the proton differs b y 40% from the Dirac value." Actually, the g-factor of the proton is 5.58, almos t a factor of 3 away from Dirac. Nevertheless, eq. (6.33) still applies, as it d oes for any spin-1/2 particle. The large value of g is easily understood when th e proton is modeled as a bound state of three quarks, each of which has a g-fact or close to 2. (Thanks to R. Gerasimov.) p. 201: In the un-numbered equation just below Eq. (6.69), the denominator on th e right-hand side should read "p^0 - |\vec p| cos theta". (Thanks to A. Gupta.) p. 208: In the figure associated with Problem 6.1, the right-hand side should in clude a factor "ie". (Thanks to K. Matawari.) Chapter 7: p. 218: Directly below eq. (7.20), "Sigma_2(p^2)" should read "Sigma_2(p)". Howe ver, the comment refers to the analytic functions that multiply "m_0" and "pslas h" in eq. (7.19), considered as functions of the complex variable "p^2". (Thanks to L. Gerland.) p. 222: In the footnote, the reference should read: Nuovo Cimento 1, 205 (1955). (Thanks to R. Vaidya.) p. 224: In first line of eq. (7.40), which appears at the bottom of this page, t here should be an additional factor exp[ i (p_0 - E_k + i epsilon)T_+ ]. However , this factor should not appear in the second line of eq. (7.40), at the top of p. 225, which includes the pole term only. (Thanks to K. Arai.) p. 225: In the second line of eq. (7.40), at the top of this page, the expressio n under the tilde should read "p^0 -> + E_k". (Thanks to Y. Wu.) p. 243: In the equation just below the figure at the top of the page, "m" in the denominator should be replaced by the bare mass "m_0". Actually, all of the for mulae in this section use "m" to represent the bare mass of the electron, but no w it becomes very important to recognize this explicitly. That is because, in th e argument on this page, we use the result of Section 7.1 to rewrite the singula rity in the exact propagator in the form of the second equation above (7.70), wh ere now "m" is the physical mass of the electron. If you are careful about these distinctions, you will see that the final conclusion of the section, eq. (7.70) , is correct. (Thanks to S. Pi.) <\UL> Chapter 8: Chapter 9: p. 279: Just above the unnumbered equation at the bottom of the page, "(9.4)" sh ould read "(9.5)". (Thanks to J. Larsen.) p. 305: The trace in the first line of the right-hand side of eq. (9.80) should read: "tr[(-ie Aslash(x1)) S_F(x1-x2) (-ie Aslash(x2)) S_F(x2-x3) ... (-ieAslash (xn)) S_F(xn-x1) ] ". (Thanks to M. Smedback.) p. 312: In Problem 9.1, part (c), "Pi^{mu nu}(q^2)" should read "Pi^{mu nu}(q)". (Thanks to K. Matawari.) Chapter 10: p. 336: In the first line of eq. (10.50), the first factor alpha should be omitt ed, since it is already included in Pi_2(q^2). (Thanks to W. Kaufmann.) p. 345: In Problem 10.4, the numerical coefficient in the order lambda^3 term sh ould be "3/2", not "5/2". (I am very grateful to D. Lee for bring this to my att ention, and I apologize to any reader who has suffered greatly over this problem only to reach an answer different from that in the text.) Chapter 11: p. 355: In the third equation in (11.17), the left-hand side should read: " i Im ( .. ) = ". (Thanks to C. Locke.) p. 363: The expressions in eq. (11.39) and in the unnumbered equation just above it should be multiplied by (-1). (Thanks to K. Mawatari.) p. 368: In the first line of the second paragraph, "V(phi)" should read "V(phi_c l)". (Thanks to K. Mawatari.) p. 369: The vertical axis of the figures 11.6 and 11.7 should be labeled "V_eff" . (Thanks to K. Mawatari.)

p. 385: In eq. (11.99), the large parenthesis surrounding the integrand should n ot include "+1/2 log det(-iD)". (Thanks to K. Mawatari.) p. 369: The vertical axis of the figures 11.6 and 11.7 should be labeled "V_eff" . (Thanks to K. Mawatari.) p. 371: In eq. (11.60), "-i" should be simply "i". (Thanks to K. Arai.) p. 373: Just below eq. (11.66), "According to Eq. (11.63) should read "According to Eq. (11.64)". Also, in eq. (11.67), the left-hand side should be evaluated a t phi = phi_cl. (Thanks to S. H. Jung.) p. 382: In the unnumbered equation in the middle of the page, the denominator of the left-hand side should read: "delta phi_cl(x) delta phi_cl(y) delta phi_cl(z )" (Thanks to M. Yamada.) phi_cl(z)". eq. (11.100), we should have stated explic itly that the quadratic form D^{ij} is to be evaluated at phi_c(x). (Thanks to C . Locke.) p. 385: In eq. (11.100), we should have stated explicitly that the quadratic for m D^{ij} is to be evaluated at phi_c(x). (Thanks to C. Locke.) Chapter 12: p. 402: In the line just below eq. (12.27), "Notice that the coefficient" should be replaced by "Notice that the exponent". (Thanks to S. Groote.) p. 421: Just above eq. (12.77), the condition should read: "evaluated at spaceli ke momenta p_i such that p_i^2 = -P^2 and all three invariants s, t, and u are o f the order of -P^2." (Thanks to S. Gubser.) p. 435: In the second and third lines below eq. (12.131), "the omitted correctio n terms are of order lambda (d-4)" should be replaced by " ... lambda^2 (d-4)". (Thanks to M. P. Le). Chapter 13: p. 462: Eq. (13.107) should read: "eta = 2 gamma(T_*) = (N-1) epsilon/(M-2)". (T hanks to S. Osamu.) p. 466: In Problem 13.2, there is not an error, but there is an unexpected subtl ety. The value for gamma given in this problem is correct for phi^4 theory with the interaction term 1/4! lambda phi^4. However, the value of gamma given in eq. (13.47) is correct for the N-component scalar field theory, for which we use th e interaction term 1/4 lambda (phi^2)^2. See pp. 348-49 for a presentation of th ese conventions. (Thanks to D. Renner.) Chapter 14: Chapter 15: p. 482: In the 4th line under eq. (15.2), "tranformation" should read "transform ation". (Thanks to N. Yamanaka.) p. 492: In the footnote, David Bohm's name has no umlaut. (Thanks to H. Dreiner. ) p. 503: In the equation in Problem 15.3, part (c), the quantity in brackets on t he left-hand side should read "A^a_mu (x) A^b_nu(y)". (Thanks to E. Schemm.) Chapter 16: p. 511: The expressions for polarization vectors given in eq. (16.18) are those for epsilon^{+ mu} and epsilon^{ - mu}, that is, for the vectors with raised ind ices. (Thanks to H. Logan.) p. 532: The list of counterterms for the non-Abelian gauge theory should include a term "delta_xi (del^\mu A_\mu)^2" associated with a change of gauge. Since th e vacuum polarization is transverse, the loop corrections, in general, change th e gauge. To work in a fixed gauge, we need a counterterm to correct this effect. (Thanks to A. Nelson.) p. 535: In eq. (16.98), the "*" in the first line should be a "+". (Thanks to R. Schabinger.) p. 539: In eq. (16.121) "gamma^{mu nu}" should read "g^{mu nu}". (Thanks to Liju n Zhu.) Chapter 17: p. 551: Just after eq. (17.11), "were" should read "where". (Thanks to S. Saling er.) p. 552: In eq. (17.15), "+ +" should read simply "+". (Thanks to T. Azuma.) p. 559: The weak-interaction effective Lagrangian given in eq. (17.31) should ha ve a minus sign "-" in front of them. (Thanks to S. Martin, who points out that

this error has propagated acausally from eq. (20.90).) p. 562: In eq. (17.37), at the end of the line, "f_{dbar}" should read "f_dbar(x )". (Thanks to M. Yamada.) p. 563: In the second line of Section 17.4, "cosituent" should read "constituent ". (Thanks to A. Mariano.) p. 575: In the third line of the second paragraph, "tranfer" should be "transfer ". (Thanks to J. Vollinga.) p. 597: In problem 17.3, part (b), the text below the second unnumbered equation should read "... only six of the 16 polarized gluon scattering cross sections a re nonzero." These are the six cross sections that are derived by crossing gR gR -> gR gR. (Thanks to R. Schabinger.) Chapter 18: p. 603: In eq. (18.19), the symbol "m" in the middle expression should be "\bar m". (Thanks to M. Yamada.) p. 605: The weak-interaction effective Lagrangian given in eq. (18.27) should ha ve a minus sign "-" in front of them. This changes the overall sign of all effec tive Lagrangians given in Section 18.2. (Thanks to S. Martin, who points out tha t this error has propagated acausally from eq. (20.90).) p. 618: In eq. (18.94), the prefactor on the right-hand side should read "4 PI a lpha/s" (not "alpha^2"). (Thanks to Y. Wu.) Chapter 19: p. 658: Two lines above eq. (19.37), "adiabiatically" should read "adiabatically " (Thanks to N. Yamanaka.) p. 662: Just below eq. (19.49), "pass gamma^nu through gamma^5" should read "pas s gamma^lambda through gamma^5". (Thanks to K. Kumericki.) p. 675: In eq. (19.117), the quantity on the right-hand side should be multiplie d by (-1). This sign does not affect the discussion that follows on p. 676. (Tha nks to Q. Chang.) p. 683: The should be a minus sign in front of the right-hand side of eq. (19.14 8), since del g^mn /del(g_pq) = - g^mp g^qn. Fortunately, this sign does not pla y a role in the later parts of this section. (Thanks to M. Noorbala.) p. 683: In eq. (19.151), the term "+m" in the second parentheses should read " + gamma^0 m ". (Thanks to M. Yamada.) Chapter 20: p. 707: Figure 20.2 might also have included anomaly diagrams with one SU(2) bos on and two gravitons or one SU(3) boson and two gravitons. However, these anomal ies are zero by eq. (20.82). (Thanks to Y. Wu.) p. 708-9: The weak-interaction effective Lagrangians given in eqs. (20.90), (20. 92), (20.94) should have a minus sign "-" in front of them. (Thanks to S. Martin .) Chapter 21: p. 749: In equation (21.80), "phi^+" should read "phi^-". It is the phi^- field that creates the Goldstone boson phi^+. (Thanks to T. Toma.) Chapter 22: