/sci/ - Science & Math

rare Witten edition

Well?

if there are good string theory anons here who want to talk about string theory i’d be happy to have more stringt threads here and would (try to) participate. but a thread like this attracts too many buttblasted smallbrains who derail any conversation.

we should make the threads sufficiently obscure, like instead of the words “string theory” we could say instead “worldsheet dynamics” or “NS/RR sector phenomena” or “Nambu-Goto systems”. or be even more specific. like if i saw a thread with a title like “heterotic E8xE8 shadow sector” i would for sure give permission to OP to save some of my ultra-rare Wittens (picrel rarity is a teaser with rarity level Common but i assure you i have Rare’s and even Hologram’s)

Does anyone have that meme of Jacob Barnett with a shotgun that says "welcome to /sci/, what's your IQ?"

>>11324016
you know what you did

>>11234368
Daily reminder Edward Witten studied history first.

Which /sci/entist would get the most likes?

Also shameless up-liking thread.

*ahem*
I have an announcement...

>>10105942
Right, but what annoyed me is that in casual settings the physicists I talked to seemed to reason about strings as if they were real physical things. If there is no clear physical picture presented, I think your imagination will just make one up on it's own, and chances are it'll be totally wrong and misleading.

I'm also just following the word of physicists I trust more. So far ever physicist whom I've actually learned from and have been able to appreciate at least a part of their work has been pessimistic about the state of high energy and string theory. John Baez, t'Hooft and Weinberg have all wrote things that have stuck with me. My favorite teacher in my physics department whom I've learned the most from flat out told me don't go into high-energy, it's a disaster, and possibly the worst teacher who spends 90% of efforts going to talks and getting funding and hasn't done an honest calculation in 10 years thinks everything is fine. I also have never felt enlightened or taken anything meaningful away from any of Witten's papers or books.

I realize the above is pretty crankish, which why I switched to quantum chemistry. If I stayed it was either shut up and work on something I don't believe in, or become an outcast crank.

>>10071219

> Not realizing that the TOE described by the SU(123ABC) gauge group

Brainlet

Topological Quantum Computer

ITT: name your math/science objective/goal and anons post textbooks that would guide you to this goal.

For example: anon 1:
>I want to learn about topological K-theory, and I know the basics of topology and abstract algebra

anon 2:
>read up on the chapters of Munkres Topology about Urysohn lemma / tietze extension and paracompactness
>read the intro chapters on (co)homology in any algebraic topology book (easiest is Hatcher)
>read Hatcher's vector bundles and k-theory or Atiyah's k-theory (or both concurrently)

Example 2: brainlet anon:
>I'm a shitter high school drop out, I want to learn calculus

patrician anon:
>baby rudin is all you need

This thread is for questions that don't deserve their own thread.
>give context
>describe your thought process if you're stuck
>try wolframalpha.com and stackexchange.com
>How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

prev >>9714560

>>9398859
>Stopped reading right there. You are retarded.

>>9348310
how long are string-theoretic strings?

>>9241087
>Where to start?
Read Witten.