Hi, I really like your videos. What do you think about the little green book: A First Course in String Theory by Zwiebach? Also, are you planning to continue your live streams? I missed all of them, but watched them after, it was interesting))
@@wp_wpPrime hi there! I am happy that you’re enjoying the content! I know about Zwiebach’s book (and MIT course) and heard great things about it. I never had the time unfortunately to dive too much into the book myself. I’ve only skimmed through it superficially. It seemed very approachable for someone with even just an undergraduate knowledge of general relativity (the level of the book Gravity by Hartle) and quantum mechanics. It doesn’t seem like you need full blown quantum field theory for it either. So if you want to get a taste for string theory early on, it does seem like a good way to go. I do want to do more live streams and announce them far in advance! As those were pretty nice and handy for my studying (as well as interacting with you guys). So we will see!
@@thecaribbeanbookworm5066 I read Zwiebach’s book, not really deep, without solving all exercises, but almost all chapters) and I have mixed feelings, so just wanted to check how other people feel about it) looking forward for future streams!
Hey man, I really like your videos wanted to tell you up close, but folks are awlays around and I didn't want to make you fell weird. So I guess this is as good as chance as any. I would say that classical mechanics is an emergent case from the path integral approach where you send h(bar) -> 0 ( or keep the first order term ). Also I think I think I agree that Swartz is better. It is more modern although it likes particle physics way too much and has some index issues
@@BillOrb thank you for the kind words! You are right as well. There is actually a wonderful derivation of this, and I think there’s a youtuber that covered it as well. I do agree that Schwartz is sloppy at times with his indices, and that it’s very particle physics oriented (though it has paragraphs here and there for condensed matter or string theory). But where it shines is in clarity and detailed calculations.
Super cool content, congrats! About pedagogical QFT, have you checked already Student Friendly QFT from Robert Klauber? Unbeatable!!
Hi, I really like your videos. What do you think about the little green book: A First Course in String Theory by Zwiebach?
Also, are you planning to continue your live streams? I missed all of them, but watched them after, it was interesting))
@@wp_wpPrime hi there! I am happy that you’re enjoying the content! I know about Zwiebach’s book (and MIT course) and heard great things about it. I never had the time unfortunately to dive too much into the book myself. I’ve only skimmed through it superficially. It seemed very approachable for someone with even just an undergraduate knowledge of general relativity (the level of the book Gravity by Hartle) and quantum mechanics. It doesn’t seem like you need full blown quantum field theory for it either. So if you want to get a taste for string theory early on, it does seem like a good way to go. I do want to do more live streams and announce them far in advance! As those were pretty nice and handy for my studying (as well as interacting with you guys). So we will see!
@@thecaribbeanbookworm5066 I read Zwiebach’s book, not really deep, without solving all exercises, but almost all chapters) and I have mixed feelings, so just wanted to check how other people feel about it) looking forward for future streams!
Hey man, I really like your videos wanted to tell you up close, but folks are awlays around and I didn't want to make you fell weird. So I guess this is as good as chance as any. I would say that classical mechanics is an emergent case from the path integral approach where you send h(bar) -> 0 ( or keep the first order term ).
Also I think I think I agree that Swartz is better. It is more modern although it likes particle physics way too much and has some index issues
@@BillOrb thank you for the kind words! You are right as well. There is actually a wonderful derivation of this, and I think there’s a youtuber that covered it as well. I do agree that Schwartz is sloppy at times with his indices, and that it’s very particle physics oriented (though it has paragraphs here and there for condensed matter or string theory). But where it shines is in clarity and detailed calculations.