Current editing version draft.pdf, not recommended for a general reader

Please use the stable, hyperlinked version of the manuscript whenever you want to refer to a particular part of the text, and send comments, corrections, etc., to dasgroup snail mail.gatech.edu, note the number of the version that you are reading.

xfig source for all birdtracks

Errata

1. Marty Einhorn (22 Oct 2016)

I think there is a mistake in section 11.7, where you are speaking about SO(n). You conclude that there are "chiral" irreps for SO(n) for n-odd. Not so. For n=2m+1, (the B_m series,) there is only one simple spinor irrep, which has dimension 2^m, and it is self-conjugate. The ones with handedness are for even n=2m (the D_m series), which breaks up into two inequivalent irreps of dimension 2^{m-1}. For m even, m=2k or n=4k, they are self-conjugate although inequivalent. For m-odd (m=2k+1 or n=4k+2), the two irreps are complex and conjugate to each other, e.g., the 16 and 16-bar of SO(10).

Suppose for SO(10), I have a complex scalar \phi in the 126 irrep. In how many inequivalent ways can 126^4 form a singlet? (I am not including the 126-bar, which is a somewhat easier problem.) I haven't found this non-supersymmetric potential in the literature.

Using a Mathematica module called LieART, I find that there are 3 different ways to do this, but one is antisymmetric under exchange of two fields and ruled out for a single 126-boson. The other two are symmetric under exchange of any two 126's, but I wanted to use chickentracks to check that this Mathematica routine gets it right. (In fact, the code assumes that the different irreps are not identical, i.e., it is as if each field had a different flavor, so it isn't obvious which are inequivalent for identical fields.)

 
2. Tony Kennedy (15 Apr 2013)

My student says there an error on the top line of Table 7.2 on page 68? The diagram is the adjoint “box” for su(n) - there should be a factor of n in front of the first term.

If I calculate the adjoint quadratic Casimir CA = 2n (choosing the normalization of the generators such that a = 1) then I can generate the same bubble graph by contracting two quadratic Casimirs or by (adjointly) tracing the (adjoint) box. The first gives me 4n2N and the latter 2?n(N/n)2 + 2(2N + N2) where ?=1 from your table or ?=n from his program, and of course N = n2-1. These two seem agree only for ?=n.

 
3. Ruben L Mkrtchyan (12 Mar 2013)
column m=30, Table 21.1 page 236, misprint: should be 36 instead of 56.
 
4. Appendix B (17 Mar 2012)
The short argument in Appendix B is too good to be true

Major editing suggestions (PUP reviews refer to version 8.3.7)

1. Hendryk Pfeiffer (25 Feb 2003)

Small corrections, of interest only for editing purposes.

1. Sam Yoffe on n (= defining dimension) in eq. (6.28) (16 Apr 2009)
2. Robert Pearson (26 Nov 2008)
3. Jurgen Fuchs (20 Dec 2002)
4. Pascal Anastasopoulos (26 Mar 2003)
5. Darwin Chang (8 May 1997)
6. Bruce Wallace Westbury (5 Dec 2002)
7. Giovanni Cicuta (9 Jan 2003)

Edits incorporated

1. PUP Reviewer 2 (Jan 29 2003)
2. Dylan Thurston (Dec 23 2002)
3. PUP Reviewer 1 (Jan 29 2003)
4. Bruce Wallace Westbury "Vogel" (?) bibliography (5 Dec 2002)
5. Hendryk Pfeiffer (2 Dec 2002)
6. Terry Goldman (22 Jun 2005)
7. Marcos Alvarez (3 Dec 2002)
8. Benedict H. Gross (5 Mar 2005)
9. Tony Kennedy (Feb 26 2004, blank vers. 7.4.0 PDF, starting off where the edits below stopped)
10. Tony Kennedy (Feb 6 2003, up to p. 55)
11. Giovanni Cicuta (21 Aug 95)
12. Steve Giddings (21 Aug 95)
13. Bernard Julia (28 Jan 2003)
14. Bernard Julia, on Les Houches lecture (15 Jan 2004)
15. Joseph Kornblum (29 Dec 2002)
16. Joseph Landsberg (11 Dec 2002)
17. David Haren (29 Jan 2003) - page numbers misaligned?
18. Marcos Marino (13 Aug 2001)
19. Ruben Mkrtchyan (20 Dec 2002)
20. Gordan Savin; Rumelhart review

editing instructions (of no interest to readers of the book)