Quantum What books/materials/subjects are needed to understand String Theory?

[Riman643]

Hi,

I have heard all this hype about a Physicist named Ed Witten and how instrumental he is to something called “String Theory”. I tried listening to one of his lectures on YouTube and reading one of his papers and I couldn’t follow anything. I was hoping to figure out the prerequisite knowledge to understand it and see why he is so well regarded. I have never taken Physics and only got to pre-algebra level maths in secondary school. Maybe I am way too out of depths but it seemed like a very interesting topic and was hoping to learn more.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If you want to understand it, you would need about five or six college courses in math, and perhaps twenty in physics. A polularization might give you the flavor of the ideas, but to really understand will take years, not a weekend.

 

[Riman643]

If you want to understand it, you would need about five or six college courses in math, and perhaps twenty in physics. A polularization might give you the flavor of the ideas, but to really understand will take years, not a weekend.

I don't want to pay for college courses. Is there a textbook that explains it?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Any book will assume you have the background I described above. There will be no textbook that assumes only a junior-high level background in math.

 

[Riman643]

Any book will assume you have the background I described above. There will be no textbook that assumes only a junior-high level background in math.

So basically I have no chance to learn this? That’s depressing :(

 

[gmax137]

You can learn it, but you (anyone) has to start at the beginning. And it is a long hard road.

It's like saying, I want to play guitar like Eric Clapton.

 

[Riman643]

You can learn it, but you (anyone) has to start at the beginning. And it is a long hard road.

It's like saying, I want to play guitar like Eric Clapton.

What maths will I need to learn? Calculus? And for Physics, is there a text that covers the prerequisites to understand String Theory? I just need to chart a path for myself.

Also, Eric Clapton is the goat.

 

[gmax137]

Calculus is a good start but only if you're already good with algebra and trig.

 

[DaveC426913]

I will surely get banned for my impudence but if you're looking for a non math, pop sci primer on it, I found Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe to be just enough to put stretch marks on my brain without tearing it wide open.

Think of it as "Chopsticks" for the piano-curious.

 

[Riman643]

Calculus is a good start but only if you're already good with algebra and trig.

I am definitely not strong with algebra or trig, so I may need to brush up on that before doing Calculus.

 

[Riman643]

I will surely get banned for my impudence but if you're looking for a non math, pop sci primer on it, I found Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe to be just enough to put stretch marks on my brain without tearing it wide open.

Think of it as "Chopsticks" for the piano-curious.

Thanks for the suggestion! It will be good reading as I slog through the prerequisite Maths.

 

[Kontilera]

To become researcher in the field is basically a life time investment, at least if you wanna get some work done as well. However with that said.. it doesnt mean you cant reach different orders of understanding. The more time you invest the deeper understanding is possible, of course.

Im by no means a string theorist, but since you have to interest dont let it go to waste. Physics as a hobby can be equally fulfilling as a profession.

Here my advice:
1) Find out where your current knowledge ends. If youre pre-algebra Im sure theres tons of quality youtube channels that can help you out in the beginning.

2) Take your time. Dont stress. Enjoy the ride. Dont try to reach string theory as soon as possible, have joy in solving exercise, discussing topics and playing with examples.

3) Find out where your physics level ends as well and do the same, in parallell. Youtube is your friend.

4) When you've laid a fundation and reached the level of an undergraduate in physics you can start to look a lectures giving a birds eyes view of topics, examples are The Feynman Lectures on Physics and Susskinds The Theoretical minimum.

5) Continue to pursue self study in more advanced topics. You can use PF both as a springboard but also for guidance regarding literature and video courses.

Soon you will have some grasp of what the theory is about, which problems it aims to solve and also a (maybe more shallow) understanding of its state today.

Anyhow, if your interest tells you that this would be a nice journey, dont think too much, just start and good luck!

 

[Riman643]

To become researcher in the field is basically a life time investment, at least if you wanna get some work done as well. However with that said.. it doesnt mean you cant reach different orders of understanding. The more time you invest the deeper understanding is possible, of course.

Im by no means a string theorist, but since you have to interest dont let it go to waste. Physics as a hobby can be equally fulfilling as a profession.

Here my advice:
1) Find out where your current knowledge ends. If youre pre-algebra Im sure theres tons of quality youtube channels that can help you out in the beginning.

2) Take your time. Dont stress. Enjoy the ride. Dont try to reach string theory as soon as possible, have joy in solving exercise, discussing topics and playing with examples.

3) Find out where your physics level ends as well and do the same, in parallell. Youtube is your friend.

4) When you've laid a fundation and reached the level of an undergraduate in physics you can start to look a lectures giving a birds eyes view of topics, examples are The Feynman Lectures on Physics and Susskinds The Theoretical minimum.

5) Continue to pursue self study in more advanced topics. You can use PF both as a springboard but also for guidance regarding literature and video courses.

Soon you will have some grasp of what the theory is about, which problems it aims to solve and also a (maybe more shallow) understanding of its state today.

Anyhow, if your interest tells you that this would be a nice journey, dont think too much, just start and good luck!

I have started studying math, but I am unsure of the right path to take. I have my old middle school textbooks (6th, 7th, and 8th grade) that I am hoping to whiz through so that I can take on pre-algebra which I really struggled with. Then after that is I plan on studying: Algebra -> Geometry -> Algebra II -> Trigonometry -> Pre-Calculus -> Calculus. Is this a good path? Will I need to go beyond Calculus and at which level can I study Physics and Math concurrently? My physics knowledge is effectively none, except from general knowledge that I have heard from physicists on popular podcasts. Also, any resources where I can get my worked checked? Thanks for the encouragement, so far I am having fun relearning math.

 

[AndreasC]

What maths will I need to learn? Calculus? And for Physics, is there a text that covers the prerequisites to understand String Theory? I just need to chart a path for myself.

Also, Eric Clapton is the goat.

Yes you 100% need to learn calculus. Do that first. After that, my favorite resource for people who want to start learning these topics is Leonard Susskind's lectures and books. By the way, he is one of the people who originated the key concepts of string theory.

Susskind did a continued studies program where he basically taught people who already knew some math etc but weren't actually physics students the main concepts of modern physics. You can find his courses here: https://theoreticalminimum.com/courses

He also has books based on the courses. You can find them by searching for "Theoretical minimum books susskind" or something like that. I believe his books are on classical mechanics, special relativity, general relativity and quantum mechanics. I've looked into the classical and the quantum mechanics ones, I liked them. In my opinion you should both read the books and watch the lectures if you really want to understand. You should also not be afraid to use pen and paper and take down notes etc.

You'll see that in the supplementary courses section, Susskind has one on string theory. But you HAVE to have learned the main courses first well if you want to touch that, otherwise you won't understand what's happening.

As you can see there's lots of these lectures and books, even though they are supposed to be the "Theoretical Minimum", as in the absolute least you should know before you can understand modern physics. And of course you have to already know a bit of calculus. That's a lot of work, but imo you shouldn't look at it as a thing you have to do in order to get to the goal of string theory, it's an interesting journey on its own.

The alternative is to read a popular science book on string theory, but it's a subject far too advanced to be done any kind of justice by a pop sci book. You will learn words, but not much more than that.

 

[Kontilera]

I have started studying math, but I am unsure of the right path to take. I have my old middle school textbooks (6th, 7th, and 8th grade) that I am hoping to whiz through so that I can take on pre-algebra which I really struggled with. Then after that is I plan on studying: Algebra -> Geometry -> Algebra II -> Trigonometry -> Pre-Calculus -> Calculus. Is this a good path? Will I need to go beyond Calculus and at which level can I study Physics and Math concurrently? My physics knowledge is effectively none, except from general knowledge that I have heard from physicists on popular podcasts. Also, any resources where I can get my worked checked? Thanks for the encouragement, so far I am having fun relearning math.

Lets put it like this, as long as you are pre-calculus or anywhere near calculus, you can take whichever path that suits you, preferably the one that the authors suggest for you, or the path found on any college plan focusing on the natural sciences.

If you want to get a grasp of string theory, then you can study the courses offered by any standard university for a bachelor degree in physics without worrying to learn anything unnecessary, a pair of courses may be skipped (depending on the university), such as Solid State Physics, but also a course like that leads to phenomena that can be interesting in the end.

To put i short, follow the already working plans of institutions and come back when you know your linear algebra, multivariable calculus, fourier transform, abstract algebra and differential geometry, classical physics, quantum physics, relativity both special and general.

If you really want to understand Wittens work I would guess the math leading up to and including calculus is maybe 0.5 % of the math you need. Most of his work is _very_ mathematical.

 

[AndreasC]

Will I need to go beyond Calculus and at which level can I study Physics and Math concurrently?

If you get to the level where you learn what a vector, what a derivative and what an integral are and how to use them then you can start learning physics concurrently. You can even be just before that level and start learning physics concurrently, if you find some basic physics resources that also explain the math.

If you want to understand, say, a research paper by Witten, there is no way to do that unless you basically become a theoretical physicist. But you can get a very general idea with less resources. You're on a good path.

I also agree with people saying that you could look at the paths provided by the curricula of universities.

 

[mathwonk]

Witten is a Fields medalist, i.e. one of the very best mathematicians in the world, even through he is a first of all a physicist. I suggest you should not be depressed at having difficulty understanding his research. I am a senior citizen with a PhD in complex algebraic geometry and a 40 year research career, and I do not understand even all the mathematics used in string theory, much less the physics. I was even an invited speaker at a string theory conference at the International Center for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, to speak on my specialty of Riemann surfaces, a basic tool in string theory. I gather one needs in addition to calculus, also complex analysis, Riemann surfaces, algebraic topology, and differential topology. This takes years or decades to master.
The good news is that it is all fascinating, and you will enjoy any aspect of it you learn. As successful athletes say, take it one step at a time. Calculus is quite hard and powerful, and learning that is way past average. Algebra is perhaps even more useful, and that is the place to start if you are looking for a challenge.

I am told that string theory is a theory of reality that assumes the fundamental structure element is not a "particle" but a surface with a complex analytic structure, called a Riemann surface. You might enjoy pursuing some introductions to the concept of a Riemann surface, e.g. the little Dover book by Felix Klein.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36959

This already assumes a lot of math but does have some fun pictures. Enjoy your voyage.

 

[Meir Achuz]

What books/materials/subjects are needed to understand String Theory?​

If someone understood it, they could write such a book.

 

[haushofer]

The most accesible academic book is Zwiebach's.

 

[Dinda556]

If you want to learn string then you must have

• Quantum Mechanics
• Linear Aalgebra & Calculus.

 

[Frabjous]

Here’s a fun fact from Steven Weinberg
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9702027

In 1926, in one of the very first papers on quantum mechanics, Born, Heisenberg and Jordan presented the quantum theory of the electromagnetic field. For simplicity they left out the polarization of the photon, and took spacetime to have one space and one time dimension, but that didn’t affect the main results. (Response to comment from audience: Yes, they were really doing string theory, so in this sense string theory is earlier than quantum field theory.)

 

[vanhees71]

Another "fun fact" is that in the beginning many physicists thought that also "quantizing" the electromagnetic field is "too much". That's why this part of the "Dreimännerarbeit" has been forgotten very soon and that's why usually Dirac with his paper on the quantization of the em. field to explain, among other things, spontaneous emission of 1928 is usually quoted as the discovery of (relativistic) QFT.

 

[Vanadium 50]

In 1934 Born and Infeld proposed a very stringy model, where the electric field had a maximum value. Sometimes a paper doesn't have to be right to be important.

 

[dx]

I once asked Lubos Motl to recommend books to learn physics from. He said, "I won't be doing that but there are many good books like Landau's course on physics"

It is interesting that Landau mostly doesn't care about how the answer is obtained. He seems to be able to even if the intermediate steps are sometimes wrong. This is similar to the kind of arguments given in Goldstein, Poole and Safko's Classical Mechanics.

 

[elonoranorasoriva]

Hi,

I have heard all this hype about a Physicist named Ed Witten and how instrumental he is to something called “String Theory”. I tried listening to one of his lectures on YouTube and reading one of his papers and I couldn’t follow anything. I was hoping to figure out the prerequisite knowledge to understand it and see why he is so well regarded. I have never taken Physics and only got to pre-algebra level maths in secondary school. Maybe I am way too out of depths but it seemed like a very interesting topic and was hoping to learn more.

. Quantum field theory : a modern introduction Kaku, Michio.
. Strings, conformal fields, and M-theory Kaku, Michio.
. Principles of string theory Brink, Lars.
. String theory and M-theory : a modern introduction Becker, Katrin
. A first course in string theory Zwiebach, Barton
. Enumerative geometry and string theory Katz, Sheldon
. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory and Perturbative String Theory

 

[gmax137]

I have heard all this hype about a Physicist named Ed Witten and how instrumental he is to something called “String Theory”. I tried listening to one of his lectures on YouTube and reading one of his papers and I couldn’t follow anything.

Provide links for the lecture & the paper - ?