Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,082 questions , 2,232 unanswered
5,353 answers , 22,789 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
820 active unimported users
More ...

  Introduction to string theory

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
2652 views

I am in the last year of MSc. and would like to read string theory. I have the Zwiebach Book, but along with it what other advanced book can be followed, which can be a complimentary to Zwiebach. I would like a more mathematically rigorous book or lecture notes along with Zwiebach.

Specifically, mention whether the book discusses string theory

  • Rigorously?

  • Intuitively?

What's the scope of the book? Does it cover the advanced materials, e.g. Matrix string theory, F-theory, string field theory, etc. Maybe even String Phenomenology?


This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:40 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jaswin

asked May 26, 2012 in Resources and References by Jaswin (105 points) [ revision history ]
recategorized Apr 24, 2014 by dimension10
I`ve started the Demystified Book because I like the fine grained step by step derivations and calculations therein.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:40 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dilaton
See this list of textbooks on string theory: motls.blogspot.com/2006/11/string-theory-textbooks.html - A recent explosion of books on strings etc.: motls.blogspot.com/2012/04/…

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:40 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl

3 Answers

+ 6 like - 0 dislike

The canonical textbook is the two-volume set by Polchinski. David Tong has very nice notes up following this text.

You should be able to find various review articles on the arXiv as well, for instance:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0207249

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0207142

Hope that helps...

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:40 (UCT), posted by SE-user eherrtelle59
answered May 26, 2012 by eherrtelle59 (0 points) [ no revision ]
+ 6 like - 0 dislike

Mathematical rigor is not the most important thing when first learning strings, there are many things that are not possible to formulate rigorously, because the best language for doing this isn't known. In addition to Polchinsky (which is excellent), I recommend reading Green Schwarz and Witten, and also the original papers, since these have points of view which are not found in later articles, but are profound and important.

These are found in two very good reprint volumes: "Dual Models", and "Superstrings" (although much of vol II is well covered in Green Schwarz and Witten and Polchinsky). These are essential for properly understanding the subject, even today. The issue is the Regge ideas and the S-matrix ideas which are glossed over in later treatments.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:40 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon
answered May 26, 2012 by Ron Maimon (7,730 points) [ no revision ]
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

The Best Sources


Becker, Becker, Schwarz, String Theory and M-theory has a wide scope (from classical bosonic strings to BFSS Matrix theory (and a bit of Matrix string theory), and a bit about F-theory) and discusses the topics very intuitively. I've not read GSW, but I've heard that BBS is a modification to that (old) book. Can be downloaded from http://www.gen.lib.rus.ec (not a pirate).

McMahon String Theory Demystified has a rather wide scope but relatively less depth. Could once be downloaded from a pirate site, which no longer exists.

Mohaupt Introduction to String Theory has a limited scope and depth, but covers the gravitational implications of string theory rather deeply. Can be downloaded here: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0207249v1.pdf

Kaku Strings, Conformal fields, and M-theory is an extremely rigorous, rather unintuitive, rather wide and deep, source for learning string theory.

Two More Sources


http://math.berkeley.edu/~kwray/papers/string_theory.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0207142v1.pdf

For String Field Theory


I am planning to read this lecture notes with a supposedly better (PDF only, no abstract page) version here.

Also, these lectures by Shiraz Minwala were suggested by Larry Harson in the comments.


This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:40 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dimensio1n0

answered Aug 25, 2013 by dimension10 (1,985 points) [ revision history ]
@DIMension10 How about adding these video lectures by Shiraz Minwalla? The charisma of this guy is very infectious, and I hope these videos don't get lost

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:40 (UCT), posted by SE-user Larry Harson
@LarryHarson: Ok, I've added it in. Good to see how having stopped tr... : ) Don't worry about them getting lost; They'll probably be on the Wayback Machine, if they're not, I'll just add them in right now.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-03-07 16:40 (UCT), posted by SE-user Dimensio1n0

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\varnothing$ysicsOverflow
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
Please complete the anti-spam verification




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...