Talk:David J. Griffiths
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Elementary Particles vs. QFT edit
The last line: "His Elementary Particles course, typically taught to junior-level undergraduates, has been compared favorably with graduate courses in quantum field theory at Stanford University." is not true. At Stanford Griffith's book is used in an undergraduate course on high energy physics. Above that course Stanford offers a higher undergrad course on quantum field theory and string theory. The graduate courses in quantum field theory use the book on QFT by Peskin. The level of that series is several leagues above Griffith's book. I mean no disrespect to his book, which is absolutely fantastic, but the comparison is incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.12.93.35 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actually I took both Griffith's undergraduate course on Elementary Particles in '88-'89 at Reed and Lin's graduate course on QFT in '91 at Stanford and Griffith's was far superior. Can't speak to Peskin's current course. zowie 06:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I actually really like Griffith's book much more. But the level of QFT in Peskin is far beyond the level in Griffith's book. Peskin is actually the one currently teaching the QFT series at Stanford now, and it's about as difficult as it gets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.12.93.35 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
List of thesis students edit
I started a list of thesis students. Please add any additions you know of with thesis titles if possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waitati (talk • contribs) 00:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Does a list of student theses really satisfy notability? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.31.106.34 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well actually for future historical reasons and the impact David Griffith's Introduction to Quantum Mechanics has had on the academic community. Actually a list of some of his students might be useful; however, I think we should wait 20 years for the dust to settle a bit if you know what I mean. (If you don't then it the concept that every event, even ones in physics, needs at least 20 years for all the politics and issues to settle before we will completely understand it. In practice though, there are notable examples like Henry Moseley where it has taken 70-90 years for people to appreciate the connections between people in physics history Physics16 (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)