Yes, but until further data debunks the paper I mentioned there is no reason to think that it is not a credible observation.Subsequent observations suggested that the quasar pair was not lensed!
I'm not sure. Maybe it's because string theory predicts a phenomena that is derived from an established theory which boarders with quantum gravity.If it is so simple, why is the derivation of "BH" entropy claimed to be one of main successes of ST, e.g. in the Elegant Universe?
That's seems like a weird statement to me. It's like saying that QFT is wrong because Feynman's invariant perturbation formulation is only adapting it to special relativity.As said if D=/=26 either you obtain an inconsistent theory or violating experimental data one, e.g. special relativity.
I would like to see some references to the contrary.If ST was only a theory of quantum gravity as you claim, then would be a nonsense the ST popular claim of derivation of Einstein field equations and the string criticism to LQG of that still cannot derive them.
I see. Thank you for the information. I think that I will purchase it sometime in the near future.selfAdjoint said:Whether it would be good after 't Hooft depends on what you want. P&S is oriented to giving you the capability of doing relevant calculations: N point functions, crossing symmetries, cross sections, lifetimes, et al. It's a real working physics text.
It sounds like good advice. I too will try to use that method.selfAdjoint said:A friend told me the way to do a physics text was (a) Read through for meaning, and don't worry about derivations or excercises), then (b) read again doing the derivations if possible and getting someone to help you if you run into trouble, and finally (c) do the excercises with the same stipulations as (b).