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

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

146 submissions , 123 unreviewed
3,961 questions , 1,408 unanswered
4,889 answers , 20,762 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
507 active unimported users
More ...

Algebraic Geometry in String Theory?

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
51 views

I'm currently studying String Theory and hope to do research in this area. I have now reached a point where even with a background in Mathematics instead of Physics, I have no clue what's going on mathematically.

So I've (re-)started reading up on more mathematics. This gave rise to the following question:

Is it "worth" studying Algebraic Geometry at this time? By "worth" it, I mean, will I benefit from this no matter what research direction in String Theory I will persue? Or is it rather specific?

(For clarification, "at this time" means I've worked my way through the book by Becker/Becker/Schwarz)

This post imported from StackExchange Mathematics at 2014-05-11 11:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Mike
asked Aug 25, 2011 in Mathematics by Mike (115 points) [ no revision ]
You should consider asking the same question on physics.stackexchange.com , as most people here are pure mathematicians.

This post imported from StackExchange Mathematics at 2014-05-11 11:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Fredrik Meyer
Michael: I just saw that you removed the previously added soft-question tag. That is fine. Just for your information: It is primarily intended for marking questions that don't admit a definite answer and are more of a subjective nature than of an objective (read: strictly mathematical) one. I don't think it was added in order to imply that your question is easy to answer or about easy and soft stuff. If you were surprised that someone else edited your question, see this part of the FAQ

This post imported from StackExchange Mathematics at 2014-05-11 11:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user t.b.
Ahh I see, thanks for the heads up!

This post imported from StackExchange Mathematics at 2014-05-11 11:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Mike

1 Answer

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

I only know about string theory from a (rather great) distance, and with the perspective of a pure mathematician who has colleagues in mathematical physics who think about the theory (some of whom were trained as physicists).

With this warning given, let me say that it seems to me that it would be near impossible to understand string theory without some understanding of algebraic geometry. I would adopt an analytic point of view, such as in the book by Griffiths and Harris (Principles of algebraic geometry), since this is going to be closer to the language that physicists use than a more algebraic treatment. You could also look at the books Quantum fields and strings: a course for mathematicians, by Deligne, Witten, et. al., which is based on a year long series of courses given at the IAS in 96-97, by Witten among others. I don't know how comprehensible these will be (since they are written from the point of view of leading those with rather strong mathematical training into some kind of understanding of the physics), but they may give an idea of what kind of geometry you should learn, and what kind of perspectives on that geometry would be useful.

This post imported from StackExchange Mathematics at 2014-05-11 11:21 (UCT), posted by SE-user Matt E
answered Aug 25, 2011 by Matt E (70 points) [ no revision ]

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$\hbar$ysi$\varnothing$sOverflow
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).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




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

Your rights
...