68
$\begingroup$

This is going to be a relatively broad/open-ended question, so I apologize before hand if it is the wrong place to ask this.

Anyways, I'm currently a 3rd year undergraduate starting to more seriously research possible grad schools. I find myself in somewhat of a weird spot as my primary interests lie in physics, but I usually can't stand the imprecision with which most physicists do physics. I eventually would like to do work relevant to the quest of finding a theory of everything, but because I do not like the lack of rigor in physics, I have decided not to go to graduate school in physics. However, when looking at the research interests of faculty members, I've found that most institutions have zero, one, or occasionally two (mathematics) faculty members working in this area. Am I just not looking in the right places? Where I am to go if I am looking to get into a field like String Theory from a mathematician's perspective?

As a separate but related question, I've found the prerequites for string theory to be quite daunting. At this point, I feel as if it will be at least another year or two before I can even start learning the fundamentals of the theory (I won't even be taking a course in QFT until next year). To be honest, I am starting to feel a little scared that I won't have enough time to do my thesis work in a field related to string theory. Compared to algebraic topology or something, which I took last year, this year and next I could be learning more advanced aspects of the field so that by the time I got to grad school I could immediately jump in and start tackling a problem, whereas with string theory I feel as if I won't be able to really do this until my third year of grad school or so. Is this something I should actually be worried about, or am I worrying about nothing?

Also, if any of you have studied string theory, I would be interested in knowing what subjects I should study to prepare myself and textboks that you recommend for studying from. I would prefer textbooks about physics written by a mathematician or at least a great deal of mathematical rigor, although I am willling to compromise.

Thanks before hand for all the help/suggestions. I am interested to hear mathematicians' take on this.

EDIT: A comment made me think that I should point out that I am ultimately interested in a theory of everything, not string theory per se. At this point, because I have so much to learn, I think that if I head in the direction of string theory (learn things like QFT, GR, Conformal Field Theory, Supersymmetry, etc.) I can't go wrong. It won't be for awhile until I have to really make a choice between candidates for a TOE.

  • 6
    I would suggest _mathematical physics_ for you. String theory isn't as mathematically well defined as is, say, Constructive Quantum Field Theory, which has numerous axiomatic foundations (Wightman Axioms, Osterwalder-Schrader Axioms, etc.).2011-05-05
  • 3
    There is this series "quantum field theory for mathematicians", Folland has also written a book about QFT.2011-05-05
  • 3
    One of the major predictions of string theory, at least in mathematics, is the phenomenon of mirror symmetry. The Clay mathematics institute has put out a book on the subject, intended to be read by grad students in physics and maths (available as a free dl at http://www.claymath.org/publications/Mirror_Symmetry/). Have a casual look at it and see if you can get a feel for what kind of subjects they talk about. For the maths, at least, it shows you'll need a good grounding in differential and algebraic geometry (so, complex geometry, probably).2011-05-05
  • 9
    Honestly, if you can't jump into research right when you get to grad school, this is not a problem. Some people don't even pick an area to go into until well into their second or maybe even third year. Using the first couple of years of grad school to get a foundation in your area is the norm rather than the exception.2011-05-05
  • 4
    Hi GleasSpty, as for the subjects you should study, there is a wonderful website created by Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft which contains a lot of helpful suggestions on the matter: http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html . It suggests a rough patway towards learning the deepest parts of theoretical physics, including Quantum Field Theory and Superstring Theory.2011-05-05
  • 0
    pathway* (more text)2011-05-05
  • 0
    @user02138: but isn't there more interesting math related to string theory (e.g. algebraic geometry, mirror symmetry) than qft? I know of mathematicians working in math related to string theory but don't know of any working in math related directly to qft.2011-05-05
  • 1
    Nearly every field you mentioned also shows up in QFT _and_ in a rigorous fashion. For example, the interplay between Chern-Simons Gauge (Field) Theory and the Jones Polynomial of Knots is a prime example of this nice interplay. Unfortunately, I know of no rigorous string theory per se, no axiomatic approach. However, mathematicians working on objects that appear in string theory is _very_ different. (They are working on formalizing the physics or determining its origin in well established mathematics.)2011-05-05
  • 1
    You seem to be hurried by something. Why don't you relax and enjoy thinking about the topics you like best?2011-05-05
  • 1
    @Bruno Stonek: Actually I do feel hurried. Even since high school, I have felt a huge pressure to do research, pressure from professors, peers, admissions committees, scholarships, graduate schools, etc. The truth is, I'm not interested in research at all unless it's something I have a real passion for, and because my passion is finding a theory of everything, I actually feel at a significant disadvantage to people who have already been doing research for a couple of years because their field requires much less prerequisites in comparison.2011-05-06
  • 0
    @ last comment by GleasSpty: yes exactly, that is why I answered how I did... I felt the same pressure and hurry as you and since I arrived at the conclusion that only very gifted students could be fast enough to pick up the prerequisites and contribute soon, I decided to switch to other fields more slowly paced. Besides, publishing in physics is really more rushed than in math. But as I commented below my answer, even mathematicians like A. Connes have made attempts to a Theory of Everything, pursuing very abstract pure maths like noncommutative geometries.2011-05-06
  • 8
    Well, I just hope you don't forget to have fun learning...2011-05-06
  • 0
    Maybe you also want to look at other fields. Although this stuff is called 'theory of everything' it is actually not (even if successful) what it sounds like. Its unlikely that any change in the perception of low energy physics (and even high energy physics) will emerge from that. You could argue that a 'real' theory of everything could be more related to 'non-equilibrium thermodynamics/dynamical systems/quantum chaos'.2017-02-27

4 Answers 4