View Full Version : New book by Zwiebach
Stefan Nuentz
Jul5-04, 05:48 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>In June 2004 a new book by Barton Zwiebach appeared, its title\nbeing "A First Course in String Theory". Unfortunately, I couldnīt\nfind very much detailled information about it on the web. Do any of\nyou know this book? It is said that it is written for undergraduates -\ncan you tell me how far I must have proceeded in mathematics in\norder to be able to understand the largest part?\n\nThanks in advance for any answers!\n\nBest,\nStefan.\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>In June 2004 a new book by Barton Zwiebach appeared, its title
being "A First Course in String Theory". Unfortunately, I couldnīt
find very much detailled information about it on the web. Do any of
you know this book? It is said that it is written for undergraduates -
can you tell me how far I must have proceeded in mathematics in
order to be able to understand the largest part?
Thanks in advance for any answers!
Best,
Stefan.
Lubos Motl
Jul18-04, 12:46 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Stefan Nuentz wrote:\n\n> In June 2004 a new book by Barton Zwiebach appeared, its title\n> being "A First Course in String Theory". Unfortunately, I couldnīt\n> find very much detailled information about it on the web. Do any of\n> you know this book? It is said that it is written for undergraduates -\n> can you tell me how far I must have proceeded in mathematics in\n> order to be able to understand the largest part?\n\nWell, I think that first of all you should understand some *physics*, not\nmathematics - you should know some (basic) quantum mechanics (of\nparticles) and classical electromagnetism - and of course, elementary\nknowledge of quantum field theory is useful, but you can also get it from\nhis book. As far as knowledge of mathematics goes, I guess that you just\nneed to know Calculus at a rudimentary level. Maybe I am forgetting about\nsomething...\n_____________________________ _________________________________________________\ nE-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: +1-617/496-0110 Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/\neFax: +1-801/454-1858 work: +1-617/496-8199 home: +1-617/868-4487 (call)\n^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Stefan Nuentz wrote:
> In June 2004 a new book by Barton Zwiebach appeared, its title
> being "A First Course in String Theory". Unfortunately, I couldnīt
> find very much detailled information about it on the web. Do any of
> you know this book? It is said that it is written for undergraduates -
> can you tell me how far I must have proceeded in mathematics in
> order to be able to understand the largest part?
Well, I think that first of all you should understand some *physics*, not
mathematics - you should know some (basic) quantum mechanics (of
particles) and classical electromagnetism - and of course, elementary
knowledge of quantum field theory is useful, but you can also get it from
his book. As far as knowledge of mathematics goes, I guess that you just
need to know Calculus at a rudimentary level. Maybe I am forgetting about
something...
__{_______________________________________________ _____________________________}
E-mail: lumo@matfyz.cz fax: +1-617/496-0110 Web: http://lumo.matfyz.cz/
eFax: +1-801/454-1858 work: +1-617/496-8199 home: +1-617/868-4487 (call)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>This is the Amazon page on this book.\nGiovanni\n\nhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521831431/\n\n"Stefan Nuentz" <nuentz@no-spam.de> ha scritto nel messaggio\nnews:2kr032F5au77U1-100000@uni-berlin.de...\n\n> In June 2004 a new book by Barton Zwiebach appeared, its title\n> being "A First Course in String Theory". Unfortunately, I couldnīt\n> find very much detailled information about it on the web. Do any of\n> you know this book? It is said that it is written for undergraduates -\n> can you tell me how far I must have proceeded in mathematics in\n> order to be able to understand the largest part?\n>\n> Thanks in advance for any answers!\n>\n> Best,\n> Stefan.\n>\n>\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>This is the Amazon page on this book.
Giovanni
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521831431/
"Stefan Nuentz" <nuentz@no-spam.de> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:2kr032F5au77U1-100000@uni-berlin.de...
> In June 2004 a new book by Barton Zwiebach appeared, its title
> being "A First Course in String Theory". Unfortunately, I couldnīt
> find very much detailled information about it on the web. Do any of
> you know this book? It is said that it is written for undergraduates -
> can you tell me how far I must have proceeded in mathematics in
> order to be able to understand the largest part?
>
> Thanks in advance for any answers!
>
> Best,
> Stefan.
>
>
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Stefan wrote:\n\n> In June 2004 a new book by Barton Zwiebach appeared, its title\n> being "A First Course in String Theory". Unfortunately, I couldnīt ...\n\nI bought the book prepublication and I have had it for 10 days. It is\nindeed based on a course given to MIT sophomores. The presentation is\nvery original, Zwiebach has rethought the pedagogy of string theory so\nthat he mixes advanced topics (light-cone coordinates, orbifolds) in\nwith basic relativity review.\n\nThe stated requirements are undergraduate level special relativity,\nEM, and quantum mechanics, plus "an exposure" to statistical mechanics\n(translation: be cool about the partition function). The\ncorresponding math (multivariate calculus, vector analysis, Gaussian\nintegrals} is also assumed.\n\nI am now on the third chapter, which as before does elementary review\n(relativistic EM) plus advanced topics (EM is different dimensions,\nboth lower and higher, and an introduction to compaction). As you can\nsee, there is a kind of ratchet in which you become familiar with the\nnew concepts by working out how familiar physical ideas interact with\nthem.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Stefan wrote:
> In June 2004 a new book by Barton Zwiebach appeared, its title
> being "A First Course in String Theory". Unfortunately, I couldnīt ...
I bought the book prepublication and I have had it for 10 days. It is
indeed based on a course given to MIT sophomores. The presentation is
very original, Zwiebach has rethought the pedagogy of string theory so
that he mixes advanced topics (light-cone coordinates, orbifolds) in
with basic relativity review.
The stated requirements are undergraduate level special relativity,
EM, and quantum mechanics, plus "an exposure" to statistical mechanics
(translation: be cool about the partition function). The
corresponding math (multivariate calculus, vector analysis, Gaussian
integrals} is also assumed.
I am now on the third chapter, which as before does elementary review
(relativistic EM) plus advanced topics (EM is different dimensions,
both lower and higher, and an introduction to compaction). As you can
see, there is a kind of ratchet in which you become familiar with the
new concepts by working out how familiar physical ideas interact with
them.
Peter Woit
Jul19-04, 02:58 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>DickT wrote:\n\n>I bought the book prepublication and I have had it for 10 days. It is\n>indeed based on a course given to MIT sophomores.\n\n\nSophomores????\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>DickT wrote:
>I bought the book prepublication and I have had it for 10 days. It is
>indeed based on a course given to MIT sophomores.
Sophomores????
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Peter Woit <woit@cpw.math.columbia.edu> wrote in message news:<cdh37q\\$nir\\$1-100000@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>...\n> DickT wrote:\n>\n> >I bought the book prepublication and I have had it for 10 days. It is\n> >indeed based on a course given to MIT sophomores.\n>\n>\n> Sophomores????\n\nAye indeed! Well, maybe Juniors. From the preface:\n"The idea of having a string theory course for undergraduates was\nfirst suggested to me by a group of MIT sophmores sometime in May of\n2001...At the end of 2001, a new course was addded to the\nundergraduate physics curriculum at MIT....\n...."Can the material really be explained at this level?" After\nteaching the subject two times, I am convinced that the answer to the\nquestion is a definite yes...the basics of string theory can be well\nunderstood with the limited tools acquired in the first two or three\nyears of an undergraduate education...\n"A First Course in String Theory should be accessible to anyone who\nhas been exposed to special relativity, basic quantum mechanics,\nelectromagnetism and introductory statistical mechanics. Some\nfamiliarity with Lagrangian mechanics is useful but not\nindispensible."\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Peter Woit <woit@cpw.math.columbia.edu> wrote in message news:<cdh37q$nir$1-100000@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>...
> DickT wrote:
>
> >I bought the book prepublication and I have had it for 10 days. It is
> >indeed based on a course given to MIT sophomores.
>
>
> Sophomores????
Aye indeed! Well, maybe Juniors. From the preface:
"The idea of having a string theory course for undergraduates was
first suggested to me by a group of MIT sophmores sometime in May of
2001...At the end of 2001, a new course was addded to the
undergraduate physics curriculum at MIT....
...."Can the material really be explained at this level?" After
teaching the subject two times, I am convinced that the answer to the
question is a definite yes...the basics of string theory can be well
understood with the limited tools acquired in the first two or three
years of an undergraduate education...
"A First Course in String Theory should be accessible to anyone who
has been exposed to special relativity, basic quantum mechanics,
electromagnetism and introductory statistical mechanics. Some
familiarity with Lagrangian mechanics is useful but not
indispensible."
Tom Mattson
Jul22-04, 01:38 PM
Do any of you know this book? It is said that it is written for undergraduates -
can you tell me how far I must have proceeded in mathematics in
order to be able to understand the largest part?
I know of it, and I have every intention of buying it. In the meantime, check out this page at MIT Open Course Ware. It's Zweibach's own page for his course, String Theory for Undergraduates. It contains problem sets that should give you a feel for what is required mathematically (unfortunately, no lecture notes :( ).
http://mitocw.hagongda.com/OcwWeb/Physics/8-251String-Theory-for-UndergraduatesSpring2003/CourseHome/index.htm
Pierre Jouvelot
Jul23-04, 04:05 PM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Tom Mattson" <physicsforums@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de\nnews:Tom.Mattson.19t55l-100000@physicsforums.com...\n\n> Stefan Nuentz Wrote:\n> >\n> > Do any of you know this book? It is said that it is written for\n> > undergraduates -\n> > can you tell me how far I must have proceeded in mathematics in\n> > order to be able to understand the largest part?\n>\n> I know of it, and I have every intention of buying it. In the\n> meantime, check out this page at MIT Open Course Ware. It\'s Zweibach\'s\n> own page for his course, String Theory for Undergraduates. It contains\n> problem sets that should give you a feel for what is required\n> mathematically (unfortunately, no lecture notes :( ).\n>\n>\nhttp://mitocw.hagongda.com/OcwWeb/Physics/8-251String-Theory-for-UndergraduatesSpring2003/CourseHome/index.htm\n>\n\nI just went over the first 100 or so pages, and you basically need to know\nthe basics of the first two volumes of Landau-Lifschitz, i.e., Lagrange\nmechanics, SR (not much GR upto now), tensor notation and classical field\ntheory (EM). I\'m having a blast reading this book so far. Great job.\n\nPierre\n\n\n---\nOutgoing mail is certified Virus Free.\nChecked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).\nVersion: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date: 22/07/2004\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Tom Mattson" <physicsforums@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:Tom.Mattson.19t55l-100000@physicsforums.com...
> Stefan Nuentz Wrote:
> >
> > Do any of you know this book? It is said that it is written for
> > undergraduates -
> > can you tell me how far I must have proceeded in mathematics in
> > order to be able to understand the largest part?
>
> I know of it, and I have every intention of buying it. In the
> meantime, check out this page at MIT Open Course Ware. It's Zweibach's
> own page for his course, String Theory for Undergraduates. It contains
> problem sets that should give you a feel for what is required
> mathematically (unfortunately, no lecture notes :( ).
>
>
http://mitocw.hagongda.com/OcwWeb/Physics/8-251String-Theory-for-UndergraduatesSpring2003/CourseHome/index.htm
>
I just went over the first 100 or so pages, and you basically need to know
the basics of the first two volumes of Landau-Lifschitz, i.e., Lagrange
mechanics, SR (not much GR upto now), tensor notation and classical field
theory (EM). I'm having a blast reading this book so far. Great job.
Pierre
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6..726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date: 22/07/2004
Fausto Saporito
Sep28-04, 02:14 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Pierre Jouvelot" <jouvelot@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote in message\nnews:41016fbb\\$0\\$5439\\$626a14ce-100000@news.free.fr...\n> "Tom Mattson" <physicsforums@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de\n> news:Tom.Mattson.19t55l-100000@physicsforums.com...\n>\n>> Stefan Nuentz Wrote:\n>> >\n>> > Do any of you know this book? It is said that it is written for\n>> > undergraduates -\n>> > can you tell me how far I must have proceeded in mathematics in\n>> > order to be able to understand the largest part?\n>>\n>> I know of it, and I have every intention of buying it. In the\n>> meantime, check out this page at MIT Open Course Ware. It\'s Zweibach\'s\n>> own page for his course, String Theory for Undergraduates. It contains\n>> problem sets that should give you a feel for what is required\n>> mathematically (unfortunately, no lecture notes :( ).\n>>\n>>\n> http://mitocw.hagongda.com/OcwWeb/Physics/8-251String-Theory-for-UndergraduatesSpring2003/CourseHome/index.htm\n>>\n>\n> I just went over the first 100 or so pages, and you basically need to know\n> the basics of the first two volumes of Landau-Lifschitz, i.e., Lagrange\n> mechanics, SR (not much GR upto now), tensor notation and classical field\n> theory (EM). I\'m having a blast reading this book so far. Great job.\n>\n> Pierre\n>\n\nHi all,\n\ndo you know if there\'re on the net the solutions to the problems?\n\nthanks,\nfausto\n\n\n\n\n---\nOutgoing mail is certified Virus Free.\nChecked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).\nVersion: 6.0.770 / Virus Database: 517 - Release Date: 9/27/2004\n\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Pierre Jouvelot" <jouvelot@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote in message
news:41016fbb$0$5439$626a14ce-100000@news.free.fr...
> "Tom Mattson" <physicsforums@hotmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:Tom.Mattson.19t55l-100000@physicsforums.com...
>
>> Stefan Nuentz Wrote:
>> >
>> > Do any of you know this book? It is said that it is written for
>> > undergraduates -
>> > can you tell me how far I must have proceeded in mathematics in
>> > order to be able to understand the largest part?
>>
>> I know of it, and I have every intention of buying it. In the
>> meantime, check out this page at MIT Open Course Ware. It's Zweibach's
>> own page for his course, String Theory for Undergraduates. It contains
>> problem sets that should give you a feel for what is required
>> mathematically (unfortunately, no lecture notes :( ).
>>
>>
> http://mitocw.hagongda.com/OcwWeb/Physics/8-251String-Theory-for-UndergraduatesSpring2003/CourseHome/index.htm
>>
>
> I just went over the first 100 or so pages, and you basically need to know
> the basics of the first two volumes of Landau-Lifschitz, i.e., Lagrange
> mechanics, SR (not much GR upto now), tensor notation and classical field
> theory (EM). I'm having a blast reading this book so far. Great job.
>
> Pierre
>
Hi all,
do you know if there're on the net the solutions to the problems?
thanks,
fausto
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6..770 / Virus Database: 517 - Release Date: 9/27/2004
I don't think its appropriate to teach undergrads (much less sophomores) this material. They should be learning the things that are tried and true, down to 11 decimal places.
Consider that perhaps only half of them go to grad school, the remaining lot need to be learning the successful applications of the scientific method, and how to be skeptics. We shouldnt' be indoctrinating them with highly advanced material that conceptually changes every 5 years (read astrophysics and quantum gravity), that sorta defeats the fundamental purpose of the education of science, not to mention confuses issues that they may not have even seen before (I didn't even have quantum mechanics 1 until junior year at a level beyond the usual hand wavey experimental successes).
Consider that even the rudiments of field theory is rarely taught at a phenomenological level until senior year.
However it should be a first year elective graduate level class, at least in principle, with levels 2 and 3 for those who are interested in subsequent semesters. Unfortunately, not every school offers courses like that, which is highly irratating.
But sophomores, come on! How much can you really teach them beyond a pseudo religious handwavey type of spiel.
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Lubos Motl wrote:\n\n> Even if someone thought that string theory is *not* true,\n> the book shows many different physical situations that require both\n> physical and mathematical tools that are useful nearly everywhere in physics.\n\nSure, that is fine, but they can get those same tools in regular\nclasses.\n\n> Incidentally, only QED, the\n> non-perturbatively inconsistent quantum field theory of light and matter,\n> has been tested with the accuracy you mentioned.\n\nErr you can find examples in statistical mechanics, optics, fluid\nmechanics, general mechanics, fluid mechanics, etc etc where the\ndesired accuracy is greater than particle physics success stories\n(read QED).\n\n> And string theory is, of course, the most\n> logically rigid "new" theoretical structure the physicists study today - and\n> among the theories under development,\n\nMaybe, sure why not. But again it begs the question.. Why aren\'t we\nteaching the cutting edge intro classes in other areas like\nstatistical mechanics.. Like say the BCS theory of superconductors.\nPrecisely b/c its *hard* and the amount of material needed to\nunderstand things fully requires more than 1 year of freshman physics.\n\n> There is virtually nothing that can change about a book\n> by Zwiebach in next 5 years.\n\nFine, 5 years is too broad a stroke. Still other fields like\ncosmology have been changing so rapidly, its hard to keep pace with\nthe current thinking. Consider, when I learned relativity (also at\nthe age of 15), Inflation wasn\'t even taught. Black holes had scarce\nempirical evidence.. Most people still were convinced we were living\nin a closed universe, hell most people didn\'t even know what a D-Brane\nwas. I\'d say the paradigm has shifted slightly in the last 10 years\nsince then. Likewise, I would assume quantum gravity is equally as\nfast paced and active a field.\n\n[Moderator\'s note: I just wanted to say that Zwiebach\'s book is not\na book about some over-specialized speculations. It is a book about\nserious stuff related to physics of strings, and the mathematical\nmethods and steps explained in this book are - and will be -\nundisputable. LM]\n\n> In my opinion, science is not a collection\n> of completed religious dogmas that don\'t allow any extensions, and it\n> is still making clear progress - and the understanding of this fact is,\n> I believe, one of the fundamental purposes of science education. LM]\n\nI see what you are saying, but I don\'t quite agree. Respective\ntheories like Maxwell\'s equations ARE religious dogma. They won\'t\nchange in 5 years, 1000 years from now, or 10000 years from now. They\nare simply the way nature is at some suitable approximation of\nvalidity. Now, curiousity of the cutting edge is important, and its\nnice to throw in some examples here and there to tantalize people.\nBut a full on course, without the background material.. mmm\n\n> But sophomores, come on! How much can you really teach them beyond a\n> pseudo religious handwavey type of spiel.\n>\n> You obviously have not read a single page of that book\n> because otherwise you could never say a nonsense like that. Even for\n> those who don\'t want to believe string theory, the book is a perfect\n> collection of great arguments and exercises training the concepts of\n> mechanics, field theory, quantization, and so on.\n\nWell you are correct, I admit I have never read a page of that book\n(id love too actually, now that I am quite well versed in texts like\nPolchinski)\n\nYou know, I considered quantum mechanics 1 pseudo religious handwavey\ntype of spiel as well when I was in college. Why? B/c I had already\ntaken relativity, and Schroedingers equation is manifestly non\ncovariant. It wasn\'t until Dirac\'s eqns, field theory et al that\nthings all of a sudden made sense in a somewhat rigorous way. Here\nyou are teaching string theory, without knowledge of things like\nconformal field theory. How seriously do you think people are going\nto take things? Even if the theory deep down is fundamentally sound,\nwhat you teach them is literally replete with conceptual holes.\n\nSo I mantain, if you are going to teach something with conceptual\nholes to beginners, might as well start from the basics.. Like\nclassical mechanics, and progress onwards, in a logical fashion.\n\nStill, point taken, his seems to be a popular success story.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Lubos Motl wrote:
> Even if someone thought that string theory is *not* true,
> the book shows many different physical situations that require both
> physical and mathematical tools that are useful nearly everywhere in physics.
Sure, that is fine, but they can get those same tools in regular
classes.
> Incidentally, only QED, the
> non-perturbatively inconsistent quantum field theory of light and matter,
> has been tested with the accuracy you mentioned.
Err you can find examples in statistical mechanics, optics, fluid
mechanics, general mechanics, fluid mechanics, etc etc where the
desired accuracy is greater than particle physics success stories
(read QED).
> And string theory is, of course, the most
> logically rigid "new" theoretical structure the physicists study today - and
> among the theories under development,
Maybe, sure why not. But again it begs the question.. Why aren't we
teaching the cutting edge intro classes in other areas like
statistical mechanics.. Like say the BCS theory of superconductors.
Precisely b/c its *hard* and the amount of material needed to
understand things fully requires more than 1 year of freshman physics.
> There is virtually nothing that can change about a book
> by Zwiebach in next 5 years.
Fine, 5 years is too broad a stroke. Still other fields like
cosmology have been changing so rapidly, its hard to keep pace with
the current thinking. Consider, when I learned relativity (also at
the age of 15), Inflation wasn't even taught. Black holes had scarce
empirical evidence.. Most people still were convinced we were living
in a closed universe, hell most people didn't even know what a D-Brane
was. I'd say the paradigm has shifted slightly in the last 10 years
since then. Likewise, I would assume quantum gravity is equally as
fast paced and active a field.
[Moderator's note: I just wanted to say that Zwiebach's book is not
a book about some over-specialized speculations. It is a book about
serious stuff related to physics of strings, and the mathematical
methods and steps explained in this book are - and will be -
undisputable. LM]
> In my opinion, science is not a collection
> of completed religious dogmas that don't allow any extensions, and it
> is still making clear progress - and the understanding of this fact is,
> I believe, one of the fundamental purposes of science education. LM]
I see what you are saying, but I don't quite agree. Respective
theories like Maxwell's equations ARE religious dogma. They won't
change in 5 years, 1000 years from now, or 10000 years from now. They
are simply the way nature is at some suitable approximation of
validity. Now, curiousity of the cutting edge is important, and its
nice to throw in some examples here and there to tantalize people.
But a full on course, without the background material.. mmm
> But sophomores, come on! How much can you really teach them beyond a
> pseudo religious handwavey type of spiel.
>
> You obviously have not read a single page of that book
> because otherwise you could never say a nonsense like that. Even for
> those who don't want to believe string theory, the book is a perfect
> collection of great arguments and exercises training the concepts of
> mechanics, field theory, quantization, and so on.
Well you are correct, I admit I have never read a page of that book
(id love too actually, now that I am quite well versed in texts like
Polchinski)
You know, I considered quantum mechanics 1 pseudo religious handwavey
type of spiel as well when I was in college. Why? B/c I had already
taken relativity, and Schroedingers equation is manifestly non
covariant. It wasn't until Dirac's eqns, field theory et al that
things all of a sudden made sense in a somewhat rigorous way. Here
you are teaching string theory, without knowledge of things like
conformal field theory. How seriously do you think people are going
to take things? Even if the theory deep down is fundamentally sound,
what you teach them is literally replete with conceptual holes.
So I mantain, if you are going to teach something with conceptual
holes to beginners, might as well start from the basics.. Like
classical mechanics, and progress onwards, in a logical fashion.
Still, point taken, his seems to be a popular success story.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.