Strings

Learn the math first. There is no way to understand string theory better than popsci level without a proper math background.

>>8746803
>to understand string theory better than popsci level without a proper math background.

And by that he means at least an undergrad degree in Math to just to be able to begin learning the math required. Realistically it requires a few years more than a basic undergrad degree in Maths worth to merely get your feet wet.

>>8746779
>books would be nice

Polchinkski Vol.1&2 is the obvious reference, so I'll list a few others.


For a basic introduction:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string.html:


For a very diversified discussion (ch:2-7 intro level and chapter 8-12 higher level):
-String Theory & M-Theory by Becker,Becker,Schwarz


Go deep into physical aspects:
- Gauge/Gravity Duality by Ammon/Edmenger chapters 5-15

Go deep intro mathematical aspects:
- Mirror Symmetry by Hori et al.
- Dirichlet Branes and Mirror Symmetry by Aspinwall et al.

Superstring is a trash theory that predicts nothing. Fuck off back to the 90s with that popsci.

>>8746844
What do you mean?

>>8746853
He means he is a brainlet who can't into string theory.

>>8746844
The main complaint about string theory is not that it's "popsci" but that there could be other, better theories out there that are simply going ignored because everyone is working mainly on this.

Also the fact that it can't be shown experimentally, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's false. It just means we won't know if it's true or not for quite some time. It could well be true. Time will tell.

>>8746863
What other theories are you speaking of?

>>8746838
These are good but I would add
Supplement polchinski wit Schwarz and Green's super string theory
Also
Quantum Fields and Strings: Course for mathematicians.

File: back-to-pol.jpg (35KB, 490x290px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 490x290px

>>8746779
>Redpoll me
gtfo pill-popping /pol/esmoker

>>8746805
Bullshit, you dent need a full degree to understand the basics, linear algebra and calc obviously, then just complex analyses and real analyses, group theory and some abstract algebra and functional analyses (plus tensor calculus if you don't count that under linear algebra), maybe a little bit of topology and manifolds and you know enough for a basic understanding of string theory

>>8746838
I personally didn't really like Gauge/Gravity Duality (the book), it's more of an overview for people who are already familiar with similar subjects and does not go into details.

Blumenhagen, Lüst, Theisen

File: 10Dchess.jpg (281KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1920x1080px

>>8746779
The Elegant Universe

>>8746884
U mad?

>>8747054
I think it does what it is supposed to well.

The first 4 chapters are review, things you should definitely already know.

Chapters 5-11 take you through the fundamentals of the Ads/CFT.

Then Chapters 12-15 provide an introduction to how it intersects w/ other fields, like QCD.

The red pill is that it's bullshit

>>8746779
>theoretical physics
May as well be asking monks to redpill you on their goofy religion

>>8747471
Well well.. care to share your proposal then?

Kindergarten-level math brainlet here.

If I had a second lifetime, I would devote it to learning string theory. But if I had a second lifetime, string theorists likely would too, and they would forever remain lightyears ahead of me. I'd still probably try to learn it out of interest.