Suggestions for future reading — Supergravity by Freedman or A First Course in String Theory by Zweibach?

[MathematicalPhysicist]

What do you recommend to read first, Supergravity by Freedman or A First Course in String Theory by Zweibach?
For future consideration.

 

[dextercioby]

What is your goal?

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

What is your goal?

Eventually I would like to find out if possible what are M- and F-theory.
I did finish reading the books by Peskin and Schroeder and Srednicki a few years ago on QFT and last year in November I finished reading Schutz's textbook; so I think I have the perquisites for both.

I thought of reading after I'll finish reading Muller's book on pQCD, the book by Zweibach.
But now I am not so sure, so if someone read both books and had done the exercises, what do you recommend to read first?

Thanks.

 

[dextercioby]

It is Zwiebach, not Zweibach. I didn't go through his book in detail, but I thought he was gentle on a very difficult topic. A book going deep in SuGra is one thing, a book going midway into Strings is another. You needn't deep know-how in SuGra to understand everything there is to know of strings. So I would simply let you choose one direction.
Here's my list of recommendations (that book and some lecture notes) with a common name (former I presume) prof. van Proeyen from KUL. "The tools for supersymmetry" is a must (it should be somehow still contained in the intro to his SuGra book).

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

It is Zwiebach, not Zweibach. I didn't go through his book in detail, but I thought he was gentle on a very difficult topic. A book going deep in SuGra is one thing, a book going midway into Strings is another. You needn't deep know-how in SuGra to understand everything there is to know of strings. So I would simply let you choose one direction.
Here's my list of recommendations (that book and some lecture notes) with a common name (former I presume) prof. van Proeyen from KUL. "The tools for supersymmetry" is a must (it should be somehow still contained in the intro to his SuGra book).

To tell you the truth I never get it correct words with i and e together, also friend receive etc.
I was sure it was Zweibach... thanks for the correction.
It's a pity there's no auto-correction for last names.

 

[berkeman]

To tell you the truth I never get it correct words with i and e together, also friend receive etc.
I was sure it was Zweibach... thanks for the correction.
It's a pity there's no auto-correction for last names.

That is a very small (albeit helpful) part of his reply. What did you think about the rest of his reply?

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

That is a very small (albeit helpful) part of his reply. What did you think about the rest of his reply?

I guess I'll try Zwiebach (is it now correct?) first.

 

[Demystifier]

Eventually I would like to find out if possible what are M- and F-theory.

Then start with Zwiebach.

 

[haushofer]

SUGRA is a topic on its own. If you're interested in strings, then I'd start with Zwiebach, but be aware that other string texts have much, much steeper learning curves.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

SUGRA is a topic on its own. If you're interested in strings, then I'd start with Zwiebach, but be aware that other string texts have much, much steeper learning curves.

Do you refer to GWS and Polichinski's? yes they are on my list of reading after Zweibach, First GWS and then Polichinski's.

But not in the near future that's for sure.
Patience is a virtue...

 

[haushofer]

Do you refer to GWS and Polichinski's? yes they are on my list of reading after Zweibach, First GWS and then Polichinski's.

But not in the near future that's for sure.
Patience is a virtue...

For example. I used GSW with Tong's notes, which are excellent. GSW contains no CFT, which is covered by Tong in a compact and concise way. I never understood what people like about Polchinski.

 

[Demystifier]

GSW contains no CFT

My first reaction was that it cannot be true, but then I checked and realized that you are essentially right.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Theres CFT iin the Di Frachneskk and it mat tale quute a long time tead them at alkm i.e Di Frachenso er al monumental book.

 

[Demystifier]

Theres CFT iin the Di Frachneskk and it mat tale quute a long time tead them at alkm i.e Di Frachenso er al monumental book.

Are you tired, drunk or just in a hurry?

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

All of the above...:-

Are you tired, drunk or just in a hurry?

Why not both?! it's not mutually exclusive.

 

[martinbn]

Why not both?! it's not mutually exclusive.

Why do you think he exluded that option?! He said "or" not "xor".

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Why do you think he exluded that option?! He said "or" not "xor".

Or maybe Xor when the "or" has disjoint disjuncts.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

All of the above...:-

Why not both?! it's not mutually exclusive.

I was more tired as I haven't slept for a few weeks, from too work and studying.
I wish there was more easy and enjoying work like in academic work...
I haven't drunk alcohol, don't like it anyways.