Prerequisite
8.324 (Quantum Field Theory II)
Text
Manohar, Aneesh V., and Mark B. Wise. Heavy Quark Physics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Other References
Lecture notes on SCET by Iain Stewart (PDF)
Georgi, H. Weak Interactions and Modern Particle Theory. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1984. (Available here)
Donoghue, J. F., E. Golowich, and B. R. Holstein. Dynamics of the Standard Model. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Outline of Subjects to be Covered
- Introduction to Effective Field Theory, Standard Model Review
- Review of QCD, Renormalization
- EFT for Massive Particles
- Heavy Quark Effective Theory
- Chiral Perturbation Theory
- Non-Relativistic QCD
- Factorization in QCD, Soft-Collinear Effective Theory
Grading
There will be weekly problem sets, but no final exam.
Grading System for Problem Sets (Teaching Assistant Michael Forbes)
The grading system for the assignments this year will be based on an augmented letter system. Problems with well defined physical concepts and ideas will be assigned one of the following grades:
α Physical understanding seems to be correct.
β Something is wrong: some physics is not understood or incorrect, but basic idea is there.
γ Physics is wrong, or off base.
δ Problem not attempted.
These will be augmented with ± depending on whether or not the explanation was good (+) or confusing (—). These signs are very subjective: a negative sign might mean that I am a moron and did not understand your perfectly clear explanation. In any case, I hope you find these useful: They will not affect your overall grade in the course. For example: note that a β¯ might indicate that you have something wrong, but I could simply be confused by your explanation. In this case, please come see me if you think I simply misunderstood you.
Problems with direct answers may be marked out of numerical points for correct results and/ or mistakes. Ultimately though, these points will probably be less important than the letter grades for physical understanding.
For all results, please try to explain the physical meaning. I doubt that I will have time to go through every result to find all of the sign errors, factors of 2 etc. If you can explain why your answer is physically reasonable, or why there is obviously a mistake somewhere, it will make my job much easier (and hopefully you will learn more). Also, if you have any insights, revelations or ideas about a problem, please write them down or explain them to me: I will endeavour to share anything that seems important with you via recitation or comments on the solutions.
