[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

Search:


View post   

>> No.10311249 [View]
File: 28 KB, 380x499, stringyboi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10311249

Is it worth it learning from this book? I picked this up a few weeks ago, and it's accessible enough to my level (adv undergrad). The first few chapters are going pretty smoothly. Should I keep going, or is it better to wait until I'm ready to tackle Polchinski?

>> No.10206379 [View]
File: 28 KB, 380x499, 51ks85+RVtL._SX378_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10206379

i haven't bothered to read this book (pic related) but on principle i believe it is by definition absolute shit. it's a book intended to teach undergrads string theory.

it would be one thing if string theory could be considered "real physics" as opposed to a set of mathematical techniques that actually have no bearing on empirical physics, but alas, it is not. string theory is a niche subject for physicists who enjoy speculating on pure math (keep in mind that david gross says that "string theory is not a real theory yet. it's just a framework" and that no nonpurturbative formulation of string theory exists. also note that it has no experimental relevance and probably makes no more than zero predictions about real physical phenomena, even at high energies)

the fact that this book exists is shameful.

if you want to learn string theory (which, keep in mind, has no relevance to empirical physical science for the foreseeable future), then learn QM then GR then QFT and then maybe study ST from Polchinski's books. pic related book is entirely and completely useless and its use in undergrad courses is disgraceful

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]