Beginner-friendly resources on supergravity include a collection of reviews and lectures available at stringwiki.org, which serves as a comprehensive starting point. A recommended textbook is '1001 Lessons,' though it may be considered outdated. Samtleben's introduction is praised for its clarity and accessibility, making it a solid choice for self-learners. Van Proeyen's notes are also noted, though some find his conventions challenging. Overall, users seek specific, reliable sources to avoid confusion and maximize learning efficiency.
#1
arroy_0205
127
0
Can you suggest any lecture notes/review articles/free books available in the internet at introductory level and which uses standard conventions in use at present? Thanks.
As for a freely available textbook, there's always '1001 lessons'
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?irn=1149288
although it's a little old now.
Simon
Last edited by a moderator:
#3
humanino
2,523
8
It's not free, but if you like his style, Weinberg's 3rd volume is pretty good.
#4
arroy_0205
127
0
Thanks for your responses. I have come across some review articles but I am not sure exactly which one would be best to learn from. Since I will have to learn myself, first I want to be sure about a particular source. In past I have at times felt this difficulty: I grabbed whatever source I found to learn some specific topic and after sometime realized that I should switch the source due to difficulty in following the material at later stages. So effectively I wasted time. The reason I asked this question here was to learn from your experiences: get a specific suggestion about a material which one would be possibly able to use alone. Thanks for your attention, anyway.
I really liked Samtleben's introduction. He also wrote a nice introduction about gauged sugra. Samtleben's intro is the most basic but also one of the clearest I could find when I tried to get a grasp on sugra.
Van Proeyen's notes are also quite nice, but his conventions are in my opinion sometimes quite awful. That's a matter of taste ofcourse.
Hopefully that link worked out. I was given that to learn from, and although I'm no expert in the field, I've certainly found it reasonably intelligible. I understand that it's a bit outdated, but nonetheless, it's still good for learning the basics.
It'd be nice to find a newer review that discusses what went wrong in this paper so I can understand the current state of affairs.
"Supernovae evidence for foundational change to cosmological models" https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.15143
The paper claims:
We compare the standard homogeneous cosmological model, i.e., spatially flat ΛCDM, and the timescape cosmology which invokes backreaction of inhomogeneities. Timescape, while statistically homogeneous and isotropic, departs from average Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker evolution, and replaces dark energy by kinetic gravitational energy and its gradients, in explaining...