Yes, McMahon's QFT Demystified has lots of erratas... Suddenly, an equation is compatible with $c=1$ units, and in the next line another one appears with a factor $\frac{1}{c^2}$. I am not any more sure if a changed sign is an errata or if I have made a mistake when solving the exercise. But is worth the effort of correcting them, I think it is a fantastic introductory text for non-theoretical physicists, with very simple but illustrating solved problems.

Would this site a good place to open a wiki-question, so that anybody can post the typos he/she finds? Perhaps can anybody put me in the right track of where and how to open something like a blog for that purpose? I ask first here in meta.

(Please notice how 'not-localized' I have made the question: errata for physics books in general...)

EDIT: I have just created this blog: https://mcmahondemystifiederrata.wordpress.com for posting errata, not only in QFT, but also for the other McMahon books (GR, QM and String Theory demystified). I have no idea on how to rule it, if it is visible, etc, it is the first time I create a blog, and I don't want to spend much time on it. I welcome any suggestions and help.

  • $\begingroup$ For moderators: If I post a, ahem ahem, question on the main site to give that address of that blog I have created, so that many people can see it, it will be closed in minutes, right? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 31, 2013 at 16:18
  • $\begingroup$ Well, I have just published some comments following questions that mentioned the book. I think that will be enough. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 31, 2013 at 16:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Pretty much :/ Again, create a chat room for collaboration on finding errata. Then collect them in one place (blog, etc). Not a bad idea. But off topic for main and meta. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 31, 2013 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ Comments about it are OK :) $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 31, 2013 at 16:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Umm, you were told that it would be closed, yet you re-posted? Why? That goes for physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52687/… as well :/ $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 31, 2013 at 18:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Manishearth, no I did not re-posted. It is a completely different question, with no mention to McMahon book. I just had the idea nearly at the same time. Look at the post. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 31, 2013 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ I was talking about physics.stackexchange.com/q/52673/7433 (which talks about errata and is a generalised version of the question you listed), the other link was just to refer to the other question. I said That goes for <link> as well, which means that <link> wasn't my original topic of discussion. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 1, 2013 at 4:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Manishearth, then I simply don't know what you mean, because I didn't re-post anything. I posted two different questions. And they were pretty general. Thay have been closed because they don't match whatever they need to match or whatever. I would be "re-posting" if I first had "posted", but... There may be a new, hidden meaning of the prefix "re-" that is unknown for me, in english, perhaps? $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 1, 2013 at 14:14
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I meant "post", not "re-post". My point basically was that I already told you that a similar question would be off topic. Never mind :/ $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 1, 2013 at 15:38
  • $\begingroup$ No problem. I posted because I though it would fit inside a wider topics (errata for books in general, rather than the project for that title) but it's ok. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 1, 2013 at 17:40

1 Answer 1


No, the site wouldn't be. The scope of that "question" is waaay too broad. Instead, create a chat room if you'd like and collaborate with others (You may want to use Google Docs or something for the draft). That would be an interesting project.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .