Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
May 8, 2020 at 10:50 comment added Hollis Williams String theory is not basic physics, most physicists don't learn string theory (or supersymmetry).
Oct 11, 2011 at 14:37 vote accept Minhyong Kim
Oct 11, 2011 at 2:26 history edited Jeff Harvey CC BY-SA 3.0
Added a final paragraph in response to an edit of the original question.
Oct 11, 2011 at 2:09 comment added Minhyong Kim By the way, I've updated the question a bit. If you have time, I would very much appreciate further clarification. Thanks again.
Oct 11, 2011 at 0:09 comment added Minhyong Kim Heh. What I meant was that it's probably very basic deficiencies that keep me from understanding the advanced stuff.
Oct 10, 2011 at 18:54 comment added Jeff Harvey Jose, I certainly agree there are subtleties that I didn't try to address. At least for open string theory my limited understanding is that one can construct Witten's OSFT from an abstract CFT in such a way that the classical equations of motion are trivially satisfied. p.s. I apologize for my Tex incompetence in not being able to figure out how to put the correct accent on your name.
Oct 10, 2011 at 18:28 comment added José Figueroa-O'Farrill Jeff: but in the context of "strings without strings" that I mentioned, how do you get a classical solution of the spacetime fields from an abstract CFT?
Oct 10, 2011 at 17:23 comment added Jeff Harvey If string theory is basic physics then arithmetic algebraic geometry is basic math. ;)
Oct 10, 2011 at 15:49 comment added Minhyong Kim Thank you very much for your nice answer, which I do not doubt is the correct one. Sadly (for me), it confirms the original fear that my grasp of basic physics is woefully inadequate.
Oct 10, 2011 at 15:34 history answered Jeff Harvey CC BY-SA 3.0