How do I start string theory research?

[walkinglunchmoney]

TL;DR: I want to study and research string theory but get stuck on the advanced concepts and need help getting started ("explain to me like I'm a golden retriever" type thing)

I have a good grasp on the concepts behind Einstein's relativity, quantum mechanics, and the basics of string theory (multiple dimensions in the form of Calabi-Yau shapes, open/closed strings, etc). I don't understand the math behind them but I'm taking ALG 2 and plan on teaching myself calculus (even if only at the most basic level) this year to start an understanding of the math behind these theories. I want to learn more about string theory and eventually start independent research, but I get stuck on some of the concepts (some of them are talked about so much that it feels like I just missed a step and don't know where to go to figure it out).

For example, while trying to learn about moduli stabilization, the terms "de Sitter space" and "Anti-de Sitter space" kept appearing, and I have no idea what that is and can't find where to learn it (a quick google search doesn't give a good enough understanding and review/research papers don't help because of other concepts/terms that I see and don't understand). Some of these terms appear often enough that it seems like it would be one of the first things you'd learn about string theory, yet I have no idea what they mean (another example is the term "moduli," I understand that it refers to a variable that determines the size and shape of the dimensions but I don't find anything about specific examples of a modulus, how/why they affect size/shape, or anything else about them).

Because of this, I think what I need is a review paper/book that really starts at the beginning but I can't seem to find one like that, or just someone to explain the things I need to get started (I'd think there are some things that you just wouldn't know about unless someone told you, that's been my experience with other things). Basically, are there any good books/review papers I could read that wouldn't be too mathematically demanding and would teach me the concepts needed to go in-depth into the field? If it helps any, I've read Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" and currently reading Barton Zwiebach's "A First Course in String Theory" (which does not feel like a first course).

Once I have a real foundation on string theory, I'd like to start independent research with it. Recently I have been interested in the multiple dimensions, like I mentioned before specifically with the moduli stabilization problem. I would be open to any research direction in the theory, but that's a start. If there is a better place to start then I'd be willing to change directions, but I just want to know if that is a good research area/what are some of the other areas of research, and what would be a good way of starting it? If it helps any, I have already done a good bit of coding so anything to do with simulations I don't think would be a far reach for me.

Any other advice would be highly appreciated

 

[berkeman]

What is your level of education so far? High school, undergraduate, graduate, etc.? What Math and Physics classes have you taken so far?

 

[Demystifier]

Zwiebach is an excellent start in string theory, but it assumes that you have already learned more basic stuff in physics and math. For physics, start with the theoretical minimum book series by Susskind. For math, learn calculus (as you said you will), linear algebra (vectors and matrices), and some probability theory. There are many books with the title "math for physics" or something like that, so if you learn everything what is written in one such book, you will be more or less mathematically prepared. You need that stuff to start any research in theoretical physics. In string theory you will eventually need much more, but when you learn those basics you will be able to figure by yourself what else you need.

Also, when you get stuck on any question, you can ask AI for assistance. It can provide good explanations of almost anything, if you ask good questions. Among other things, it can recommend books. Or, you can attach a photo of one page from the Zwiebach book, and write "Explain how Zwiebach derived equation (27) from (26)". If you can write equations in LaTeX code (which you need to learn anyway), so that you don't need to attach pictures, even better. But don't take the answers by AI for granted. It makes errors too, and it often tends to say what you want to hear, so if you have misconceptions there is a big chance that AI will accept your misconceptions as truth and adjust its answers accordingly. So be very critical with the use of AI, but if you can be that, it can help a lot.

 

[pines-demon]

I have a good grasp on the concepts behind Einstein's relativity, quantum mechanics, and the basics of string theory (multiple dimensions in the form of Calabi-Yau shapes, open/closed strings, etc).

Great

I don't understand the math behind them

what?? You said you understood Calabi-Yau shapes and advanced physics.

and plan on teaching myself calculus

Start there then.

I want to learn more about string theory and eventually start independent research,

Why not learn physics and work with an academic advisor, that's the only (successful) way I know.

For example, while trying to learn about moduli stabilization,

ok.

the terms "de Sitter space" and "Anti-de Sitter space" kept appearing, and I have no idea what that is and can't find where to learn it (a quick google search doesn't give a good enough understanding and review/research papers don't help because of other concepts/terms that I see and don't understand).

You are trying to learn moduli stabilization and said you understood relativity but your problem is De Sitter space?. Even without the math it is pretty straightforward to Google what De Sitter vs anti-De Sitter means. Use a textbook if not you are skipping steps and that's why you get so messed up.

Because of this, I think what I need is a review paper/book that really starts at the beginning

Ok, but then why not learn calculus and normal physics first?

Basically, are there any good books/review papers I could read that wouldn't be too mathematically demanding and would teach me the concepts needed to go in-depth into the field?

No. The closest to what you are referring to are popular book by Hawking or Penrose that blasts you with string theory terms, but they do not care that you understand the details anyway.

Any other advice would be highly appreciated

For your own good, ask yourself what do people in string theory know. They clearly know at least undergrad physics math, start there do whole courses on physics and see if you like it and get it, from there you can jump to string theory and find an academic advisor.

You cannot just start from nothing and hope to contribute there without knowing the basics. It's like trying to build a bridge or do a heart operation just from having learned from TV documentaries.

 

[mitchell porter]

Penrose's "Road to Reality", then Polchinski's "String Theory". But if you haven't learned calculus you have a long road ahead.

 

[Hornbein]

Start with calculus, statics and mechanics and optics, the most basic physics. Then try vector calculus and electromagnetism. String theory is far, far out of reach.

 

[walkinglunchmoney]

Great

what?? You said you understood Calabi-Yau shapes and advanced physics.

Start there then.

Why not learn physics and work with an academic advisor, that's the only (successful) way I know.

ok.

You are trying to learn moduli stabilization and said you understood relativity but your problem is De Sitter space?. Even without the math it is pretty straightforward to Google what De Sitter vs anti-De Sitter means. Use a textbook if not you are skipping steps and that's why you get so messed up.

Ok, but then why not learn calculus and normal physics first?

No. The closest to what you are referring to are popular book by Hawking or Penrose that blasts you with string theory terms, but they do not care that you understand the details anyway.

For your own good, ask yourself what do people in string theory know. They clearly know at least undergrad physics math, start there do whole courses on physics and see if you like it and get it, from there you can jump to string theory and find an academic advisor.

You cannot just start from nothing and hope to contribute there without knowing the basics. It's like trying to build a bridge or do a heart operation just from having learned from TV documentaries.

What I meant with Calabi-Yau shapes was leaning more towards the "basics." Like I understand that the extra dimensions take form in these shapes, that they can expand/contract, that they are extremely small, that the shape governs physics, these really basic concepts. Not the math behind them.
"Why not learn physics and work with an academic advisor, that's the only (successful) way I know." I am trying to learn physics, specifically advanced physics. I also don't see how an academic advisor helps as my understanding is that they just help you map out things like classes (as a high schooler, I have tried looking at professors in-state but because it is such a niche topic I didn't really find any and figured it would be harder to find someone outside of state who would actually teach me, which is why I came here first).
"You are trying to learn moduli stabilization and said you understood relativity but your problem is De Sitter space?. Even without the math it is pretty straightforward to Google what De Sitter vs anti-De Sitter means. Use a textbook if not you are skipping steps and that's why you get so messed up." Like I said, I get the concepts but not the math, and things like types of spaces (Minkowski, de Sitter, Hilbert) I get confused on because 1 I lack mathematical knowledge (working on that) and 2 these are the terms that I never find a good explanation for and either don't understand or just always forget what they mean (I think the problem may be more the former but IDK). And honestly, the only reason I got into moduli stabilization was because I watched videos on how to come up with a research question, looked at some review papers, and found that as a common field of interest. Also why I asked for other research areas in case there was something better to start with that I missed
"They clearly know at least undergrad physics math, start there do whole courses on physics and see if you like it and get it," honestly just didn't know that you could find their course materials and didn't think to check, so thanks. "You cannot just start from nothing and hope to contribute there without knowing the basics" I realize that, which is why I'm asking, because it feels like I have somehow just skipped the basics and now am trying to figure out how to go back and learn the foundation

 

[walkinglunchmoney]

What is your level of education so far? High school, undergraduate, graduate, etc.? What Math and Physics classes have you taken so far?

Sophomore in high school, which might make me sound crazy for trying to learn this I've realized. Currently in AP Physics 1 and Algebra 2, but I've been pretty good at being self taught for around 3 years now and am confident that I could learn calculus on my own and have been doing relativity/quantum physics for about that long as well, which now that I think about it kinda puts this on an unrealistic timeline but I still want to get into that theoretical physics early. To be a little more clear, the reason I ask for help is because it kinda feels like I've skipped over the foundation and now I'm trying to fix that but can't find anything that really helps. Like another guy pointed out, I really shouldn't be getting stuck on "de sSitter space" given what I've just discussed, but that's exactly what I was thinking and why I feel like there's a lot that I somehow missed and don't know where to go to learn it. Like I said, currently reading A First Course in String Theory but because of the intensive math it gets confusing and even then, there are terms that I just don't know that make it feel not like a "first course" and hence why I don't know where to look to find some of the information I missed.

 

[Mark44]

Penrose's "Road to Reality", then Polchinski's "String Theory". But if you haven't learned calculus you have a long road ahead.

To be a little more clear, the reason I ask for help is because it kinda feels like I've skipped over the foundation

Right, since you said you are taking Algebra 2 at the moment and the very first part of basic physics. Like @mitchell porter said, you have a long road ahead...

 

[gleem]

I am trying to learn physics, specifically advanced physics

Patience, You must learn elementary physics before advanced physics.

Course in String Theory but because of the intensive math it gets confusing and even then, there are terms that I just don't know that make it feel not like a "first course" and hence why I don't know where to look to find some of the information I missed.

A first course in String Theory is not an elementary course. What you miss in advanced courses is presented and discussed in lower level courses. It is hard for me to see how you "understand" certain topics in String Theory or how you "do" quantum mechanics without the proper math background.

I can understand your enthusiasm for learning these topics, but you must approach them in an orderly manner. You seem very confident but be careful of becoming overconfident. Do not rush through the foundational courses.

Finally, who knows what the status of String Theory will be when you are in a position to contribute to it in the next 10 years, which I expect you will have to endure to reach your goal.

 

[PeroK]

Sophomore in high school, which might make me sound crazy for trying to learn this I've realized. Currently in AP Physics 1 and Algebra 2, but I've been pretty good at being self taught for around 3 years now and am confident that I could learn calculus on my own and have been doing relativity/quantum physics for about that long as well, which now that I think about it kinda puts this on an unrealistic timeline but I still want to get into that theoretical physics early. To be a little more clear, the reason I ask for help is because it kinda feels like I've skipped over the foundation and now I'm trying to fix that but can't find anything that really helps. Like another guy pointed out, I really shouldn't be getting stuck on "de sSitter space" given what I've just discussed, but that's exactly what I was thinking and why I feel like there's a lot that I somehow missed and don't know where to go to learn it. Like I said, currently reading A First Course in String Theory but because of the intensive math it gets confusing and even then, there are terms that I just don't know that make it feel not like a "first course" and hence why I don't know where to look to find some of the information I missed.

There are generally two points of view about trying the impossible. The first is that by setting your sights on an impossible goal, you give it your best shot and optimise your achievement. The other is that you may end up demoralised.

String Theory is no ordinary research topic. My guess is that you would have to be an extremely gifted mathematician to contribute. And, many mathematicians do their best work when they are young. So, it may be too late for anyone, not just you.

You are confident you can learn calculus on your own. That's a good first objective. Getting an undergraduate degree in physics would be a massive achievement.

It would be interesting to see something you've done on your own initiative in relativity or QM. Possibly a neat solution to a problem, or a problem you set yourself. It doesn't have to be genuinely original idea - but something you found yourself without being taught it directly.

You might be genuinely competent at what you've learned so far. You could post something in the relevant forum on here.

 

[pines-demon]

What I meant with Calabi-Yau shapes was leaning more towards the "basics." Like I understand that the extra dimensions take form in these shapes, that they can expand/contract, that they are extremely small, that the shape governs physics, these really basic concepts. Not the math behind them.

Anything is a basic concept if you take it for granted. Actions like "contract" however have a meaning mathematically, these terms are not just analogies.

I am trying to learn physics

Except first year physics for some reason.

I also don't see how an academic advisor helps as my understanding is that they just help you map out things like classes (as a high schooler, I have tried looking at professors in-state but because it is such a niche topic I didn't really find any and figured it would be harder to find someone outside of state who would actually teach me, which is why I came here first).

Academic advisors give problems adjusted to your level of knowledge, that trains you for harder problems. They also know what problems are open and which aren't. It is almost impossible to contribute to these fields alone.

Like I said, I get the concepts but not the math, and things like types of spaces (Minkowski, de Sitter, Hilbert) I get confused on because 1 I lack mathematical knowledge (working on that) and 2 these are the terms that I never find a good explanation for and either don't understand or just always forget what they mean (I think the problem may be more the former but IDK).

Again even if you have like a very very basic grasp, almost no mathematics, Minkowski space vs normal space, or de Sitter vs anti-de Sitter are pretty much straightforward to Google. These are relatively "basic" topics that can be understood at least by analogy. While moduli stabilization and Calabi-Yau stuff needs heavy physics and math.