The Hilbert space of the Wess-Zumino-Witten model is a representation not only of the the Kac-Moody group but of the group of conformal transformations (actually, this is a serious over-simplification )' 'The Wess-Zumino-Witten two-dimensional quantum field theory turns out to be closely related to the representation theory of Kac-Moody groups.
![not even wrong book not even wrong book](https://www.verywellmind.com/thmb/8BrRwXPi8e7cdB0Ul3OgH7ZSkpI=/1500x1000/filters:fill(ABEAC3,1)/what-is-wrong-with-me-5094673_final1-d465fec6204b4624966b7cc3e4952a81.png)
Is it really necessary for an introduction into quantum mechanics to elaborate on the relations between 'a very specific representation of the group U(1), the representation as transformations of the complex plane' and Fourier analysis (p.48)?Ĭhapter 10 about 'New Insights in Quantum Field Theory and Mathematics' then provides you with detailed explanations on topics like However, on the other hand this means, these introductions will be very hard to read without at least basic knowledge in first semester physics. I do appreciate this because I had to read an enormous amount of pop science books in high school before I found the relevant words 'tensor calculus' and 'differential geometry'. In this regard, the references given at the end of each chapter are also very useful. Unfortunately ( since it defies the intention of Peter's book) I'd also say Brian Greene's 'Elegant Universe'is a much more elegant introduction into the basic concepts.įurthermore, I myself do appreciate the use of technical terms and mentioning of mathematical abstractions, because an interested reader will have it much easier to build up on it. If you like it brief, try Lee Smolin's 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity' if you like it fast and furious, try Joao Magueijo's 'Faster Then the Speed of Light '. recommend Lisa Randall's 'Warped Passages'which is indeed a very readable, and also entertaining. Even though I personally like the briefness of the introduction (having read about one thousand popular introductions to quantum mechanics), there are definitely better ways to do it. So far, the book could have been an average popular science book, but imo not an especially well written one. Then, problems of the Standard Model (8) are discussed, after which follows a chapter about the need to go beyond the Standard Model, and about some attempts to do so (9). The first half is an introduction into the main concepts:Ī short history of experimental particle physics (2), quantum mechanics (3), quantum field theory (4), gauge symmetries (5) and the Standard Model (6 + 7).
![not even wrong book not even wrong book](https://www.basicbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/BasicBooks-CoverImage-The-Millennium-Problems.jpg)
Unfortunately, the whole purpose of the book - to point out the 'Failure of String Theory and the continuing challenge to unify the laws of physics' (subtitle) - makes the second part of the book a rather depressing read. So, I am not entirely comfortable with this review either. Criticism is always uncomfortable, for both sides. If Lee Smolin hadn't already said it (back flap) I'd have said the book is courageous, cause it provides all the necessary criticism that was - and is - omitted in most introductions into the subject. Chapter 10 I don't really know what to do with. The second part, chapter 11-18 are a survey on the achievements of String Theory, or rather the absence thereof. The first part, chapter 1-9, are an introduction into the Standard Model and its problems. The book can be divided roughly in two parts.
![not even wrong book not even wrong book](https://www.basicbooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/basicbooks-coverimage-natures-numbers.jpg)
Maybe the two Never's make all the difference. It remains up to you though, on which side you place yourself.
![not even wrong book not even wrong book](https://www.gpb.org/sites/default/files/styles/flexheight/public/npr_story_images/2021/10/01/915zeveob-l-03790aadf90d2616431ecedb1d1afa6b035015b9.jpg)
I'd say the intention of Peter Woit's book is to draw the line for the case of String Theory. My grandma taught me there is a thin line between stubbornness and stupidity. These are the opening lines of chapter I of 'Not Even Wrong', though in this version the quotation has five Never's. Until I read Peter Woit's book I did not know this quotation was used by David Gross at the end of his closing talk on the Strings 2003 conference. I bought this some years ago after receiving a particularly nonsensical referee report, and it's been moving with me since. Above my desk there is a postcard with a quotation by Winston Churchill.