| Andy
Macintosh |
Hey hey, I'm doing my physics A2 coursework on string theory. The vast majority of maths I have seen on the subject is very advanced. Can anyone give me a hand either through explanation or through useful links on the net (I have tried- in vain) Cheers, Andy |
||
| James
Cranch |
The mathematics of string theory is advanced. I suspect there are few ways around this. This webpage looks fun though. |
||
| roko
mijic |
i think you've set yourself a difficult task there andy! what examination board are you doing the A2 with? would you be content with a project that is very descriptive? anyway, i've always been interested in theoretical physics, i've done a year and a bit of maths at cambridge and quite frankly i can't understand a word of string theory. i looked at some papers that james linked to here , and one or two of them are just about intelligable:- there's some good stuff in "An Introduction to Conformal Field Theory by Matthias R. Gabardiel" and "Black Holes : A General Introduction" by Jean-Pierre Luminet is very readable. a good descriptive book is "the elegant universe" by greene, see also "a brief history of time", "black holes and baby universes" by hawking. how much maths have you done? further maths? groups? complex numbers? if so i could tell you about some cool bits of mathematical physics that i know about. the bottom line is that using mathematics one can cut down the possibilities for what is allowed in a sensible universe. if you do enough of this you'll be quite surprised that the way the universe actually is is not quite so "random" - quite a lot of things are the way they are because that's the only way they can be. string theory is another step along this road. |
||
| Ryan Li |
You might be interested in this . Ryan |
||
| Michael Doré |
I watched the documentary the site refers to (The Elegant Universe) a couple of months ago. It is actually very good as documentaries go - i.e. not too many oversimplifications, and not too many gratuitous insults to the viewers' intelligence. (There were a couple of silly bits; for example the bit where they ran the "thought" experiment of making the sun vanish and asking how long it would take the resulting gravitational wave to reach the Earth according to GR. And also the bit where they said that Newton had an embarrasing secret of not knowing why gravity worked and that it was only when Einstein came along that we understood the origin of gravity.) If nothing else, it is worth watching it just to see the "big names" talk. These included physics Nobel prize winners Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow, fields medalist Ed Witten and other big names in the field - e.g. Michael Green (from Cambridge), John Schwarz, Jim Gates, Joseph Lykken and of course Brian Greene himself. I don't know much about the mathematics behind string theory. However there was one unbelievably cool piece of mathematics in one of our String Theory lectures, last week. You know that in String Theory (or some versions anyway) spacetime has 26 dimensions. Well to prove this, our lecturer derived an expression for the number of dimensions (D) of spacetime and ended up with: He then said that some of you may be surprised to know that is actually negative - in fact it's . If you substitute it in you get as required. I think this is amazingly beautiful! Not only is it nice that something like is evaluated as , but it is rather wonderful that you can derive a dimension (something discrete) by an infinite sum. Usually infinite sums give you continuous quantities (infinite sums are after all about analysis and limits) but here it gives the dimension. There is no reason even had to come out as an integer, but it does! (Note to anyone studying analysis: of course we're not claiming that is literally true. Under the standard definitions of analysis it is not true - the left hand side is infinity. However there is a strong intuitive sense in which it is true - and this is what's relevant to string theory. For example if you look at where then you get: for some constant . If you then subtract off the infinite part, , then take the limit you get the answer . This ''subtracting infinite parts off'' occurs all the time in quantum field theory, basically because the energy of the vacuum is infinite! An alternative way of getting is to look at the zeta function. The zeta function is defined by: for any complex number with (so that the right hand side converges). Now you can prove that there is a unique way of extending this function so that it is analytic on the whole complex plane (except ). If you do this you find that . Plugging this back into the original definition, we have the formal result: as above.) |
||
| roko
mijic |
that is pretty cool! is that what they call renormalization? what course are you doing michael? (you're at cambridge presumably???) do you think that the mathematics you have done has taken you any closer to understanding the world we live in, or is andy wasting his time doing a project into string theory because it is so abstract and perhaps esoteric? whatever happened to the good old physics experiments where one dropped balls down slopes and heated up water!!! |
||
| Alexander
Shannon |
Michael, You mentioned the fact that quantum field theory gives an infinite energy density for the vacuum - does this same problem exist in string theory? If so, then it would seem that any explanation of the recent supernova observations which suggest a small but non-zero cosmological constant in terms of the zero point energy of a quantum field would not be possible within string theory. This would seem to be quite a damaging admission for a candidate theory of everything. I'm very fond of Dirac's comments on renormalization; he referred to it as 'sweeping the infinities under the carpet', but on a more serious note suggested that 'the change required [to remove the need for renormalization] will be just about as dramatic as the passage from the Bohr theory (earliest proto-quantum theory of the atom) to quantum mechanics.' My thought is that perhaps rather than saying that quantum field theory gives an infinite energy density for the vacuum, we should say that we simply do not know how to calculate it. This might then encourage approaches from a different angle. Renormalisation also crops up in percolation theory and in phase transitions, both of which have links to fractals. Have the links of these kind of renormalization procedures with those in quantum field theory ever been explored? |
||
| Michael Doré |
Roko - yes, I'm doing Part III maths at Cambridge (see here for the courses). The thing I mentioned is certainly related to renormalization - however I think I'd better not say too much about this, since I'm currently rather confused about renormalization in general. (There is usually always one major concept I'm confused about midterm...) If you remind me in a month or two I may know a bit more. Alexander - sorry I really can't help you here. I don't know nearly enough about the things you're asking about. Personally I've never understood Dirac's comment (if it agrees with experiment then who cares - and personally I think any theory involving cancelling infinities is way cool!) but then I'm not really knowledgable enough to have a credible opinion on this. Sorry not to be of more help. Michael |
||
| Steve
Richichi |
I am also interested in superstring theory, though I have actually had the opportunity to do my research. The topics that students should have in their arsenal to take on the gauntlet of string theory are Linear Algebra Euclidean Geometry Trigonometry Single Variable Calculus Multivariable Calculus Ordinay Differential Equations Partial Differential Equations Numerical Methods and Approximations Probability and Statistics Real Analysis Complex Analysis Group Theory Differential Geometry Lie Groups Differential Forms Homology Cohomology Homotopy Fiber Bundles Characteristic Classes Index Theorems Supersymmetry and Supergravity K-theory Noncommutative Geometry Everything up until about Homotopy is covered in most undergraduate programs - though some only touch the surface of the more advanced topics. I have a plethora of websites relating to material consistent with this list so if there are any questions feel free to write and I'll do my best to help. Don't expect to grasp the mathematics easily or quickly - K-theory in particular is quite advanced and very new. Most math majors will acknowledge that they don't touch on 20th century topics until upper years in their degrees so understand that this is not an easy or pretty road to traverse. Steve |
||
| Michael
McLoughlin |
Sorry to resurrect this topic, but I was reading through and came to that statement that the number of dimensions, , is given by . Why do we then use the result that to determine that there are 26 dimensions? It seems to me that the idea that the sum of the natural numbers is both negative and fractional is an interesting one, but ultimately it is untrue! It I were faced with that equation for I would write which is 2. Why is it legitimate to use the result that ? |
||
| roko
mijic |
i think that when michael writes sum he doesn't mean "ordinary summation", i think he means "some other more complicated operator which is a bit like summation so we'll give it the same symbol" (Borel summation?). basically we're in out of our depth! |
||
| Michael
McLoughlin |
Well, I suspected that I was out of my depth in terms of the mathematics of string theory; however, I thought that I understood the formula . Also, I think that he does mean an ordinary summation: ''of course we're not claiming that is literally true. Under the standard definitions of analysis it is not true - the left hand side is infinity.'' I probably am out of my depth, but I am sure you can understand why I am sceptical about accepting that there are 26 dimensions when I am told that it is based upon the result that since it is actually the case that . As far as I am concerned the result is , why is this wrong? |
||
| Kerwin
Hui |
It is just the physicists abusing . You can dismiss this as total nonsense as far as the mathematics is concerned. Kerwin |
||
| Michael
McLoughlin |
Surely that means the physics is also nonsense. |
||
| David
Loeffler |
Some of us unenlightened pure mathmos might take that view. However, the physics seems to work - it agrees with experimental results - so who are we to complain? |
||
| Raymond
Liu |
Hi, I'm a first year A-level student. Please don't feel intruded by my presence...I've already finnished studying my 12 modules, although I haven't finnished taking the exams yet. Most of the time when I look in the "Higher Dimension" section, I find to my shame that I don't understand a single word you guys write. For about a year, I always wanted to understand you fine people. I'm very interested in Steve Richichi's list. Could any one please, please tell me how I can start self-studying everything starting from 'real analysis'? Please! It's a pain every time I try to look for resources on the internet, because I don't even know what everything is! Thank you so much! |
||
| Francis
Woodhouse |
For a good introduction to analysis, I can highly recommend "Yet Another Introduction to Analysis" by Victor Bryant. It goes through things clearly and has lots of exercises (some of them quite tricky!) to test what you've learnt. |
||
| Raymond
Liu |
Thanks! |
||
| roko
mijic |
just a small dampener on your admirable enthusiasm, raymond: the list of topics given by Steve is fairly substantial. that is to say, it takes most people about 4 years at university (minimum) to get through it! i've been at cambridge for 1 year, and i'm about halfway through the "list", and all i can tell you is that the topics start getting really difficult from "differential geometry" onwards. i suppose in a way i'm trying to do the same thing as you, raymond, that is learn enough maths/physics to make progress at the current cutting edge, and i wish you the best of luck. it's not easy; i think that there is a definate law of diminishing returns, i.e. you learn 10 times more mathematics and only understand twice as much physics. personally i think that string theory is very misguided. i think that most of the theoretical physics that we do understand well we understand because we can do experiments. i think that theoreticians have only just stepped out of the domain of experimental evidence and they're well out of their depth! |