![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Possibly is interesting to repeat as a background, to the community, the sequential reasoning done in the summaries, which gave origin to this talk:
Likely should be remembered to Polytope24 to be careful when mentioning living persons. Please keep civil, because your last summary can have been offensive to that author. Secondly as said before, your interpretations and opinions must remain out of the articles unless you have a RS to expose them (as Wikipedia's standpoint). And the fact is until here you didn't support your reversions with RS, you just did them based on your tendentious preferences. And at least once you didn't even write a summary to such radical edition.
That said, let us go to main point. It's sad see that Criticism section remains very poor and this in most part promoted by editor Polytope24, who openly and with obsession edits and barricades this theme (string theory and right correlated others). Polytope24 has refused even that modest paragraph added by this editor. Oh please, about the intelligibility anyone willing feel free to make any improvement about. Can you tell us Polytope24 why are you so defensive in these articles? What exactly is your relation with this subject? Sorry to ask, but this has been very discussed ultimately in Wikipedia: are you being commissioned? If not why that attitude? What is your real interest here?
Likely editor Longerboats5 did the best consideration until here about this precarious state of things. He very well highlighted as important criticisms by several eminent scientists has been kept away from that section. As matter of fact observing that section we notice that it was really constructed to avoid criticism. Notice how it starts restraining the possible criticism to a specific kind and to a limited number of items. Well, this is ridiculous. SacredLabyrinth ( talk) 20:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Those policies, improved through the years, are plausibly formulated and very useful as more a guidance than as rules. This is because from a certain point they necessarily have a limited application since in the end of their course they finish commonly interpreted by a troop of individuals who have their respective bias. That is, unless you have beforehand, for example, some kind of official black list, who is to decide what are the acceptable publishers? This obviously apart from the primary, 2nd, 3rd source feature, the thing is nobody owns this fair, unbiased capability, so usually what we have in Wikipedia is a group of editors arguing in favor of some publishers which have notable authors or at least publications either from universities or from mainstream trends. This movement seems to be a good idea, and looks like a good procedure. But if you analyse this behavior a little better, you will end realizing this is also a guillotine for criticism, for new articles, for new editors, for the development of new ideas, for the development of knowledge. See, I am not arguing against these policies, until certain point I do feel them necessary and reasonably conceived. The problem is your biased utilization, they should not be a guillotine of knowledge, they should not be a tool only for the season's mainstream using. As matter of fact they are good tools unless those troops decide to use them for theirs own interests, ... as usually happens. With such perspective in mind, now is easy to realize the unbalances perpetrated in this article. So reader, just do check the links provided by me in this talk, and you will figure out by yourself the fierce reality. SacredLabyrinth ( talk) 17:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Rather than just throwing terms at the reader, IMHO this article should be written with the multiple phenomena that it deals with and that it is supposed to solve. Tell us please, what physical occurrences have been observed, how they've been explained differently, and what are the incentives that call for this theory. Maybe those are all there in the article, but they are buried too deep. I'm not saying you have to explain everything from the ground up, to a first grader, but this is just way too high tech speech. And there's no reason for that. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 12:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
...then how does it have a "radius"? פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 12:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The lede as currently written says string theory naturally incorporates gravity and thus is a potential theory of everything, and then says that "besides this potential role", it has shed light on quantum gravity. Question: isn't that phrase redundant? Or does string theory incorporate gravity in ways that do not necessarily involve quantum gravity? -- Middle 8 ( contribs • COI) 07:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The statement "Some critics of string theory say that it is a failure as a theory of everything," is followed by 6 citations (after I removed one duplicate), but most of them do not make that particular claim, but rather only review some of the well-known points of contention – the large number of solutions and the high characteristic energy scale of quantum gravity. Few if any of them appear to go so far as to claim that string theory is a "failure" as a TOE. I do recall Peter Woit making this claim on his blog, so that reference is probably correct, but still lacking a precise citation. However the referenced John Baez blog post ( John Baez weblog. Math.ucr.edu, 2007-02-25; Retrieved on 2012-07-11) clearly doesn't make this claim, for example. Both of the other Peter Woit documents also don't seem to make this claim explicitly either (correct me if I'm wrong).
Therefore I am moving these two Peter Woit references to after where his name appears in the listing of critics, because these documents are critical of string theory but do not claim it is a "failure". I will remove the reference to Baez's blog because it clearly does not support the claim in question. And I will add requests for page numbers to both the link to Woit's blog as well as Lee Smolin's book. I don't know if Lee's book makes this claim outright that string theory is a failure, (I don't think so, based on what I remember), but I will otherwise leave it in place in case somebody else can find the statements that support this claim. Otherwise this reference too should be listed after his name in the list of critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isocliff ( talk • contribs) 16:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I was pretty disappointed because I couldn't find any mathematical formula in this article. Bonaventura Radityo ( talk) 11:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The #11 looks better than 'eleven'; it adds an emphasis on "11-dimensional" - it sticks out. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:BD89:3619:82D7:61A8 ( talk) 18:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
This is probably not new but at one time or another we have all been given the thought experiment of a three-dimensional ball moving through a two-dimensional world. For argument's sake let's say what the scientists are observing of the three-dimensional ball they call an “atom”. They mark its position and move on (two- dimensionally) in a measurable way to the next “atom”. At this point they shift the relative position of the “atom” (two- dimensionally) and then returned to their original starting point finding the first “atom” has shifted its relative position the same way as the second “atom”. If you were taught like me you were told they would first see a dot as the ball started to pass through their word. The dot would get bigger and bigger until the diameter was reached then shrink back down to nothing. But a ball made up of matter as we currently know it is made of atoms; mostly space. So only the part of the atom intersecting their world could be observed. If the ball was stationary the “atom” would look like a fussy quivering object as the atom is vibrating. There could be many of these objects intersecting their world.
Would this be a reasonable simplistic description of quantum physics: a change in one atom can have an affect on a seemingly unconnected atom? James Brian MacDonald 12/20/2015James Brian MacDonald 11:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC) James Brian MacDonald 00:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by James B MacDonald ( talk • contribs)
Been watching a lot of shows on the universe and how it works. My question is, when they found that the galaxies are all connected by a web of "strings" that have gravitational forces, wasn't sting theory then proven? I'm no physicist but but I would think that these webs or strings would be the ultimate gravitational force in the universe. Even though the universe is still expanding all the galaxies are still linked through this network. I'm interested in what others think on this subject. Rhiannon61 ( talk) 14:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
String theory. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I have just deleted, for the third time, the quote from Lawrence Krauss stating that string theory is not known to have “anything to do with the real world”.
My main concern is that this is a fairly hyperbolic statement, and it’s not clear what Krauss is really talking about. String theory gives rise, in various limits, to quantum field theory, a formalism which is known to describe the physics of elementary particles. It also reproduces general relativity and various known results on the physics of black holes. Perhaps this is not what Krauss is talking about, but it would seem to me that these are relationships between string theory and the real world. Statements like “string theory has nothing to do with the real world” are fine for polemical popular books, but they are not appropriate for an article that purports to give a precise discussion of the issues based on reliable sources.
It’s important for this article to give sufficient weight to the various criticisms of string theory, but we have to focus on the specific technical and sociological issues that critics have raised. The criticism section is currently divided into subsections explaining the most common arguments by critics. If you read through this section, you will see that these are fairly specific arguments, and the Krauss quote is not representative of what the most prominent critics are saying. Polytope24 ( talk) 02:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The Phenomenology section has more information than the "main article" we are linking to. We could consider deleting the article stub, or move most of this section to it, only keeping a summary in this article. 76.10.128.192 ( talk) 22:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The god uni-field theory is axiomatic, thus metaphysical. String theory is functional as a sub- harmonic (sub-fundamental, sub-harmonics are created via reverberation of the room, our room here is the fundamental interactions) of higher thus secondary fields (the Fundamental interactions). Without interconnectivity of the field inputs we have the God field and metaphysics. Quantum field theory is analytical. One cannot rape (force) the Universe be fundamentally random and not simply a multilayered topological self-interconnected function. Other topological mechanisms create different Universes, but are theoretical to us, we aren't compatible to travel there neither it makes any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:9100:AD2B:B78B:209:8A48 ( talk) 16:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It's obvious that the prominent editors of this article are enthusiastic about the subject. That's good. But when someone tries to introduce formal mathematical concepts into the discussion, these contributions are removed. There is a sense of "math phobia" -- I have even seen mathematical contributions labeled as "vandalism". It is not enough to be interested in the subject of Sting Theory, the key editors must also understand the math behind it. The beauty of String Theory lies almost entirely in it's mathematical elegance; to be unaware of this is a big problem. The absolute goal of any TOE is comprehension, and a lack of it will always miss the mark.
Superstring theory: 6D hyperspace + 4 common dimensions = 10D spacetime ... Supergravity theory: 7D hs + 4D = 11D st
2601:589:4705:C7C0:8004:71B0:7913:146A ( talk) 14:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
This article should note (at least in the criticism section, probably also in the intro) that there is criticism of the name implying that String Theory is a formal scientific theory, as opposed to a hypothesis Fig ( talk) 09:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I am a layman and this will be simplistic at best. There is a phenomenon while looking at matter one way it looks like matter but looking at it in other ways looks like a wave. I will speculate matter exist in more dimensions that we are not currently aware of. Detection systems that show the matter as a wave are picking up string vibration in other dimensions but reporting it back in our dimensions thus a wave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James B MacDonald ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I added to the section on extra dimensions... superstring theory is 10-dimensional and supergravity theory 11-dimensional. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:8004:71B0:7913:146A ( talk) 14:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Is string theory not 26 or 10 dimensional? The lack of evidence for the extra dimensions making it impossible to determine which (if either) number of dimensions represents reality? WikipediaUserCalledChris ( talk) 16:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
String theorists now focus on 11-dimensional supergravity/M-theory - google that. 73.204.120.223 ( talk) 15:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
MODERATOR - Although there is a section titled Extra Dimensions, it's not mentioned in the introduction or in the box to the right. Extra dimensions may be the primary aspect of string theory. Without extra dimensions, there is no string theory. Laymen get lost in other explanations of string theory, but they can accept a simple explanation of extra dimensions, e.g. 7D hyperspace + 4 common dimensions = 11D spacetime. 73.204.120.223 ( talk) 15:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
So far, string theory seems to be based more on mathematical reasoning than physical observations. However, it has been shown that Dirac equation can be used to show that quantum particles manifest as string-like objects whose cross-section vibrates as a membrane. This may clarify the concept of matter wave and provide a physical foundation for string theory. Please refer to a preprint entitled ON THE NATURE OF MATTER WAVE posted on ResearchGate by Vu B Ho for more details. 101.189.23.61 ( talk) 06:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
This claim is made at the bottom of the section titled Second superstring revolution
Through this relationship, string theory has been shown to be related to gauge theories like quantum chromodynamics and this has led to more quantitative understanding of the behavior of hadrons, bringing string theory back to its roots.[84]
source=[ [2]
The citation given for this is [84] which is some publication by Kovtun. Kovtun, P. K.; Son, Dam T.; Starinets, A. O. (2001). "Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole physics". Physical Review Letters. 94 (11): 111601
But that pub is about nothing but viscosity associated with an event horizon. The publication contains the word "hadron" zero times. If nobody is bothered, I am going to remove this citation and place a "citation needed" tag onto that claim.
Miloserdia (
talk)
22:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
String theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2405:204:F292:4791:0:0:1C08:D0B0 ( talk) 19:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Extra dimensions is the BIGGEST element of string theory and should be mentioned in the introduction and summary box. 6D or 7D hyperspace + common 4D = 10/11D spacetime 2601:580:100:5D52:D0BA:A3F8:2B1B:61D3 ( talk) 15:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"Instead of treating space like a general field with some simplistic "temperature," and matter as isolated particles, quantum strings are the description of the constitutent particles of both matter and spacetime itself." This is a basic idea of strings as an advance over standard model physics. "String theory describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other." This is incorrect, as strings don't propagate through space, rather they make up space.- Inowen ( nlfte) 11:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Someone suggested I listen to Michio Kaku. He's a bit like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, and other trained scientists who popularize science. He is mentioned in this article, but I think we might want to make him a little more prominent for lay people who might want to learn more who can't handle the highly technical reading. Maybe a "see also" section or "string theory for the public" or something like that? There might be others too. I don't really follow string theory or any of these popular scientist, but I think such references would be helpful for people interested in learning more who don't have an advanced degree in science. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 04:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello there! This article is already quite good by Wikipedia standards, could it be further improved with the help of feedback from academic experts? To find out, submit it to the WikiJournal of Science.
We are putting this notice on a few scientific Wikipedia articles. This article was chosen by one of our editors who is motivated to follow it through the process, and thinks it has good chances of being eventually accepted for publication. (Examples: an accepted article, a declined article.) Of course, spontaneous submissions are also welcome!
Sylvain Ribault ( talk) 19:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
String theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please include Jonathan Mboyo Esole in the list of theorists in the info box on the right hand side of the page.
Done, though you could have edited it yourself. Editing the infobox is done through
Template:String theory, which is not protected.
Roadguy2 (
talk)
14:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
String theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the String theory#Number of solutions subsection of the article, the section states that there are solutions, but more recent calculations have pushed this number up to . [1] If this information can be changed or added to the section it would be great. Ta. 128.174.44.48 ( talk) 13:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
For average Joe popularization could be important subsection, and it exists, only it refers only to written General/Critical. However, there are no included instances of popularization within electronic media (TV, radio, Internet), so I am wondering what would be the best way to squeeze subsection on TV programs featuring Green and others, say, his really popular book is made into (even more popular?) TV series, while BBC has very interesting feature documentary on theory's emergence.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 11:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The idea that spacetime itself is composed of quantum objects is validated by LIGO, the idea of quantum entanglement is also substantiated, and the idea of the of isolated particles in a field of form-less energies is crushed. So the article here should move from an article about a general theory to a title which reflects the description of the quantum object itself, advanced in theory from just particles to something like a string. And if using the plural form rather than the singular, then there is the benefit that its talking about not just the single string, but the whole field of quantum strings as a topic of study. - Inowen ( nlfte) 00:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
quantum strings makes it an exotic state of gaseous atom in the quantum level. Sasipanta ( talk) 10:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The mention, that ST is not a scientific theory (with regards to Popper's definition) has been removed twice from the article for dubious reasons. I suspect that it was removed just because some people do not like the conclusion.
Let's have a look at the arguments supporting the removed statement:
1] String theory cannot make any predictions. Therefore it cannot give us any testable hypothesis. (This is even mentioned within the article. Let me quote:)
"The possible existence of, say, 10^500 consistent different vacuum states for superstring theory probably destroys the hope of using the theory to predict anything."
2] Karl Popper sais, that if a theory does not give any testable outcomes, it is not a science.
No matter how you look at it, ST does not meet Popper's standards for science. If pure logic (1+1=2) is not sufficient, there are several mentions of this issue on the internets, which can be quoted.
I understand, that some people do not like the conclusion, but it is perfectly justified, and fits into the section Criticism. Also, the removed sentence said, that ST is not a scientific theory with regards to the Popper's definition. That does not necessarily mean that it is not a science. Therefore I also have to disagree with the remarks, that such statement is undue.
Therefore, I'll put the statement back into the article, unless I see any arguments within a week. 88.208.126.70 ( talk) 23:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
References
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Yarn theory. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18#Yarn theory until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
02:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
There's a grammar error in this sentence, but I don't have editing privileges. Just pointing it out. It is still correct in a way "The AdS/CFT correspondence is example of a duality which relates string theory to a quantum field theory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:680:C401:55D0:41DA:470B:38F6:DC09 ( talk) 15:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
In response to the Popper argument being a valid point, and not to add to an already full house, a section thusly named may bridge the gap for nonspecialists and scientists alike as to the contemporary standing of string theory in the literature. Looking further to provability rather than the former, string theory not only lacks practical testable predictions; which arguably renders it unscientific, its mathematical footing is incontiguous and therefore unrigorous with respects to the overarching 'landscape' of solutions. The sheer amount of possible conflicting theories, fields, and geometries, let alone innumerable solutions at varying dimensionalities and energy levels, puts it into the uncomfortable position of 'the only thing we have at the moment'. Its widespread study, and therefore near abuse in misapplication, renders progress in mathematical physics nigh impossible. Many compare historic cases of theories that took centuries to fully prove (a la GR), yet every successful scientific theory, immediately presented some form of experimental exactification. Which string theory (and associated threads) never did, nor can. Because as yet, and possibly ever, they are an incomplete incoherent patchwork framework of a momentous mathematical effort to crack the Gordian physics knot. Digressing from personal critique, though as objective as permissible, this article should reflect such view which is known to specialists in theoretical physics; and perhaps therefor may diffuse much of the 'woo and over-hype' associated with this ambiguous theory. Speaking again, strictly from a mathematical viewpoint, rather than any scientifically irrelevant philosophical (yet at times valid) perspective. Further, this is not to discourage its research which produces some exceptional results, such as monstrous moonshine, but to frame its context correctly as to which direction should be aspired. String theory and its generalized M-theory, are indeed largely untestable and therefore mostly unscientific, furthermore they do not present an integrated mathematical framework of field equations or action principles (which are even further often conflicting), yet as any (semi) pure mathematics are valid for the sake of their own study. Now for a wiki entry this is a difficult thing to cite; that it is lacking citations... But this perspective is essential to understand where the leading theoretical framework of the universe is not leading. 13:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The name Witten is mentioned without further reference that I can see (e.g. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten) Ottho1943 ( talk) 07:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Do all versions of string theory require extra dimensions?
If so, can the sentence "One notable feature of string theories is that these theories require extra dimensions of spacetime for their mathematical consistency.” be changed to “String theories require extra dimensions of spacetime for their mathematical consistency.” Robertwhyteus ( talk) 07:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
String theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which" to "In physics, string theory is a hypothetical framework in which" 2600:1702:3200:7720:617B:1F46:3C6A:DCAA ( talk) 22:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
String theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
put "and pseudoscientific" after "theoretical" and before "framework" CrocoDIilios ( talk) 17:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I think the labeling of these two "Revolutions" is hyperbolic and not properly supported, except by some obscure paper by "Rickles". Is that Don? Very little in this article concretely supports any important contributions by string theory. Perhaps it is useful for some math, but that is because it is purely a mathematical theory, not based no physical evidence. I also find the "compaction" example here of the 1-D garden hose to be overly simplistic. The idea is that extra dimensions disappear and become unmeasurable. The x dimension doesn't disappear. I can see it clearly in the picture. The hose is just narrower in that dimension and perhaps our gauge to measure it (pixels) is not statistically capable. That doesn't make that dimension "go away" in space. I think that String Theory is dying out yet this article pretends it is still a very important line of research because it could "potentially" lead to a theory of everything. The use of that weasel word "potentially" is telling. Maybe it's just me that thinks this. 76.93.48.190 ( talk) 17:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Under the Websites section of External Links, the URL for "Why String Theory", whystringtheory.com, is no longer functional, it redirects to a spam site, navypilotsecrets.com. 24.128.41.222 ( talk) 20:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Possibly is interesting to repeat as a background, to the community, the sequential reasoning done in the summaries, which gave origin to this talk:
Likely should be remembered to Polytope24 to be careful when mentioning living persons. Please keep civil, because your last summary can have been offensive to that author. Secondly as said before, your interpretations and opinions must remain out of the articles unless you have a RS to expose them (as Wikipedia's standpoint). And the fact is until here you didn't support your reversions with RS, you just did them based on your tendentious preferences. And at least once you didn't even write a summary to such radical edition.
That said, let us go to main point. It's sad see that Criticism section remains very poor and this in most part promoted by editor Polytope24, who openly and with obsession edits and barricades this theme (string theory and right correlated others). Polytope24 has refused even that modest paragraph added by this editor. Oh please, about the intelligibility anyone willing feel free to make any improvement about. Can you tell us Polytope24 why are you so defensive in these articles? What exactly is your relation with this subject? Sorry to ask, but this has been very discussed ultimately in Wikipedia: are you being commissioned? If not why that attitude? What is your real interest here?
Likely editor Longerboats5 did the best consideration until here about this precarious state of things. He very well highlighted as important criticisms by several eminent scientists has been kept away from that section. As matter of fact observing that section we notice that it was really constructed to avoid criticism. Notice how it starts restraining the possible criticism to a specific kind and to a limited number of items. Well, this is ridiculous. SacredLabyrinth ( talk) 20:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Those policies, improved through the years, are plausibly formulated and very useful as more a guidance than as rules. This is because from a certain point they necessarily have a limited application since in the end of their course they finish commonly interpreted by a troop of individuals who have their respective bias. That is, unless you have beforehand, for example, some kind of official black list, who is to decide what are the acceptable publishers? This obviously apart from the primary, 2nd, 3rd source feature, the thing is nobody owns this fair, unbiased capability, so usually what we have in Wikipedia is a group of editors arguing in favor of some publishers which have notable authors or at least publications either from universities or from mainstream trends. This movement seems to be a good idea, and looks like a good procedure. But if you analyse this behavior a little better, you will end realizing this is also a guillotine for criticism, for new articles, for new editors, for the development of new ideas, for the development of knowledge. See, I am not arguing against these policies, until certain point I do feel them necessary and reasonably conceived. The problem is your biased utilization, they should not be a guillotine of knowledge, they should not be a tool only for the season's mainstream using. As matter of fact they are good tools unless those troops decide to use them for theirs own interests, ... as usually happens. With such perspective in mind, now is easy to realize the unbalances perpetrated in this article. So reader, just do check the links provided by me in this talk, and you will figure out by yourself the fierce reality. SacredLabyrinth ( talk) 17:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Rather than just throwing terms at the reader, IMHO this article should be written with the multiple phenomena that it deals with and that it is supposed to solve. Tell us please, what physical occurrences have been observed, how they've been explained differently, and what are the incentives that call for this theory. Maybe those are all there in the article, but they are buried too deep. I'm not saying you have to explain everything from the ground up, to a first grader, but this is just way too high tech speech. And there's no reason for that. פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 12:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
...then how does it have a "radius"? פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 12:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The lede as currently written says string theory naturally incorporates gravity and thus is a potential theory of everything, and then says that "besides this potential role", it has shed light on quantum gravity. Question: isn't that phrase redundant? Or does string theory incorporate gravity in ways that do not necessarily involve quantum gravity? -- Middle 8 ( contribs • COI) 07:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The statement "Some critics of string theory say that it is a failure as a theory of everything," is followed by 6 citations (after I removed one duplicate), but most of them do not make that particular claim, but rather only review some of the well-known points of contention – the large number of solutions and the high characteristic energy scale of quantum gravity. Few if any of them appear to go so far as to claim that string theory is a "failure" as a TOE. I do recall Peter Woit making this claim on his blog, so that reference is probably correct, but still lacking a precise citation. However the referenced John Baez blog post ( John Baez weblog. Math.ucr.edu, 2007-02-25; Retrieved on 2012-07-11) clearly doesn't make this claim, for example. Both of the other Peter Woit documents also don't seem to make this claim explicitly either (correct me if I'm wrong).
Therefore I am moving these two Peter Woit references to after where his name appears in the listing of critics, because these documents are critical of string theory but do not claim it is a "failure". I will remove the reference to Baez's blog because it clearly does not support the claim in question. And I will add requests for page numbers to both the link to Woit's blog as well as Lee Smolin's book. I don't know if Lee's book makes this claim outright that string theory is a failure, (I don't think so, based on what I remember), but I will otherwise leave it in place in case somebody else can find the statements that support this claim. Otherwise this reference too should be listed after his name in the list of critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isocliff ( talk • contribs) 16:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I was pretty disappointed because I couldn't find any mathematical formula in this article. Bonaventura Radityo ( talk) 11:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The #11 looks better than 'eleven'; it adds an emphasis on "11-dimensional" - it sticks out. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:BD89:3619:82D7:61A8 ( talk) 18:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
This is probably not new but at one time or another we have all been given the thought experiment of a three-dimensional ball moving through a two-dimensional world. For argument's sake let's say what the scientists are observing of the three-dimensional ball they call an “atom”. They mark its position and move on (two- dimensionally) in a measurable way to the next “atom”. At this point they shift the relative position of the “atom” (two- dimensionally) and then returned to their original starting point finding the first “atom” has shifted its relative position the same way as the second “atom”. If you were taught like me you were told they would first see a dot as the ball started to pass through their word. The dot would get bigger and bigger until the diameter was reached then shrink back down to nothing. But a ball made up of matter as we currently know it is made of atoms; mostly space. So only the part of the atom intersecting their world could be observed. If the ball was stationary the “atom” would look like a fussy quivering object as the atom is vibrating. There could be many of these objects intersecting their world.
Would this be a reasonable simplistic description of quantum physics: a change in one atom can have an affect on a seemingly unconnected atom? James Brian MacDonald 12/20/2015James Brian MacDonald 11:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC) James Brian MacDonald 00:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by James B MacDonald ( talk • contribs)
Been watching a lot of shows on the universe and how it works. My question is, when they found that the galaxies are all connected by a web of "strings" that have gravitational forces, wasn't sting theory then proven? I'm no physicist but but I would think that these webs or strings would be the ultimate gravitational force in the universe. Even though the universe is still expanding all the galaxies are still linked through this network. I'm interested in what others think on this subject. Rhiannon61 ( talk) 14:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
String theory. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I have just deleted, for the third time, the quote from Lawrence Krauss stating that string theory is not known to have “anything to do with the real world”.
My main concern is that this is a fairly hyperbolic statement, and it’s not clear what Krauss is really talking about. String theory gives rise, in various limits, to quantum field theory, a formalism which is known to describe the physics of elementary particles. It also reproduces general relativity and various known results on the physics of black holes. Perhaps this is not what Krauss is talking about, but it would seem to me that these are relationships between string theory and the real world. Statements like “string theory has nothing to do with the real world” are fine for polemical popular books, but they are not appropriate for an article that purports to give a precise discussion of the issues based on reliable sources.
It’s important for this article to give sufficient weight to the various criticisms of string theory, but we have to focus on the specific technical and sociological issues that critics have raised. The criticism section is currently divided into subsections explaining the most common arguments by critics. If you read through this section, you will see that these are fairly specific arguments, and the Krauss quote is not representative of what the most prominent critics are saying. Polytope24 ( talk) 02:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The Phenomenology section has more information than the "main article" we are linking to. We could consider deleting the article stub, or move most of this section to it, only keeping a summary in this article. 76.10.128.192 ( talk) 22:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
The god uni-field theory is axiomatic, thus metaphysical. String theory is functional as a sub- harmonic (sub-fundamental, sub-harmonics are created via reverberation of the room, our room here is the fundamental interactions) of higher thus secondary fields (the Fundamental interactions). Without interconnectivity of the field inputs we have the God field and metaphysics. Quantum field theory is analytical. One cannot rape (force) the Universe be fundamentally random and not simply a multilayered topological self-interconnected function. Other topological mechanisms create different Universes, but are theoretical to us, we aren't compatible to travel there neither it makes any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:9100:AD2B:B78B:209:8A48 ( talk) 16:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It's obvious that the prominent editors of this article are enthusiastic about the subject. That's good. But when someone tries to introduce formal mathematical concepts into the discussion, these contributions are removed. There is a sense of "math phobia" -- I have even seen mathematical contributions labeled as "vandalism". It is not enough to be interested in the subject of Sting Theory, the key editors must also understand the math behind it. The beauty of String Theory lies almost entirely in it's mathematical elegance; to be unaware of this is a big problem. The absolute goal of any TOE is comprehension, and a lack of it will always miss the mark.
Superstring theory: 6D hyperspace + 4 common dimensions = 10D spacetime ... Supergravity theory: 7D hs + 4D = 11D st
2601:589:4705:C7C0:8004:71B0:7913:146A ( talk) 14:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
This article should note (at least in the criticism section, probably also in the intro) that there is criticism of the name implying that String Theory is a formal scientific theory, as opposed to a hypothesis Fig ( talk) 09:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I am a layman and this will be simplistic at best. There is a phenomenon while looking at matter one way it looks like matter but looking at it in other ways looks like a wave. I will speculate matter exist in more dimensions that we are not currently aware of. Detection systems that show the matter as a wave are picking up string vibration in other dimensions but reporting it back in our dimensions thus a wave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James B MacDonald ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I added to the section on extra dimensions... superstring theory is 10-dimensional and supergravity theory 11-dimensional. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:8004:71B0:7913:146A ( talk) 14:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Is string theory not 26 or 10 dimensional? The lack of evidence for the extra dimensions making it impossible to determine which (if either) number of dimensions represents reality? WikipediaUserCalledChris ( talk) 16:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
String theorists now focus on 11-dimensional supergravity/M-theory - google that. 73.204.120.223 ( talk) 15:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
MODERATOR - Although there is a section titled Extra Dimensions, it's not mentioned in the introduction or in the box to the right. Extra dimensions may be the primary aspect of string theory. Without extra dimensions, there is no string theory. Laymen get lost in other explanations of string theory, but they can accept a simple explanation of extra dimensions, e.g. 7D hyperspace + 4 common dimensions = 11D spacetime. 73.204.120.223 ( talk) 15:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
So far, string theory seems to be based more on mathematical reasoning than physical observations. However, it has been shown that Dirac equation can be used to show that quantum particles manifest as string-like objects whose cross-section vibrates as a membrane. This may clarify the concept of matter wave and provide a physical foundation for string theory. Please refer to a preprint entitled ON THE NATURE OF MATTER WAVE posted on ResearchGate by Vu B Ho for more details. 101.189.23.61 ( talk) 06:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
This claim is made at the bottom of the section titled Second superstring revolution
Through this relationship, string theory has been shown to be related to gauge theories like quantum chromodynamics and this has led to more quantitative understanding of the behavior of hadrons, bringing string theory back to its roots.[84]
source=[ [2]
The citation given for this is [84] which is some publication by Kovtun. Kovtun, P. K.; Son, Dam T.; Starinets, A. O. (2001). "Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole physics". Physical Review Letters. 94 (11): 111601
But that pub is about nothing but viscosity associated with an event horizon. The publication contains the word "hadron" zero times. If nobody is bothered, I am going to remove this citation and place a "citation needed" tag onto that claim.
Miloserdia (
talk)
22:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
String theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2405:204:F292:4791:0:0:1C08:D0B0 ( talk) 19:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Extra dimensions is the BIGGEST element of string theory and should be mentioned in the introduction and summary box. 6D or 7D hyperspace + common 4D = 10/11D spacetime 2601:580:100:5D52:D0BA:A3F8:2B1B:61D3 ( talk) 15:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"Instead of treating space like a general field with some simplistic "temperature," and matter as isolated particles, quantum strings are the description of the constitutent particles of both matter and spacetime itself." This is a basic idea of strings as an advance over standard model physics. "String theory describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other." This is incorrect, as strings don't propagate through space, rather they make up space.- Inowen ( nlfte) 11:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Someone suggested I listen to Michio Kaku. He's a bit like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, and other trained scientists who popularize science. He is mentioned in this article, but I think we might want to make him a little more prominent for lay people who might want to learn more who can't handle the highly technical reading. Maybe a "see also" section or "string theory for the public" or something like that? There might be others too. I don't really follow string theory or any of these popular scientist, but I think such references would be helpful for people interested in learning more who don't have an advanced degree in science. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 04:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello there! This article is already quite good by Wikipedia standards, could it be further improved with the help of feedback from academic experts? To find out, submit it to the WikiJournal of Science.
We are putting this notice on a few scientific Wikipedia articles. This article was chosen by one of our editors who is motivated to follow it through the process, and thinks it has good chances of being eventually accepted for publication. (Examples: an accepted article, a declined article.) Of course, spontaneous submissions are also welcome!
Sylvain Ribault ( talk) 19:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
String theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please include Jonathan Mboyo Esole in the list of theorists in the info box on the right hand side of the page.
Done, though you could have edited it yourself. Editing the infobox is done through
Template:String theory, which is not protected.
Roadguy2 (
talk)
14:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
String theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the String theory#Number of solutions subsection of the article, the section states that there are solutions, but more recent calculations have pushed this number up to . [1] If this information can be changed or added to the section it would be great. Ta. 128.174.44.48 ( talk) 13:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
For average Joe popularization could be important subsection, and it exists, only it refers only to written General/Critical. However, there are no included instances of popularization within electronic media (TV, radio, Internet), so I am wondering what would be the best way to squeeze subsection on TV programs featuring Green and others, say, his really popular book is made into (even more popular?) TV series, while BBC has very interesting feature documentary on theory's emergence.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 11:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The idea that spacetime itself is composed of quantum objects is validated by LIGO, the idea of quantum entanglement is also substantiated, and the idea of the of isolated particles in a field of form-less energies is crushed. So the article here should move from an article about a general theory to a title which reflects the description of the quantum object itself, advanced in theory from just particles to something like a string. And if using the plural form rather than the singular, then there is the benefit that its talking about not just the single string, but the whole field of quantum strings as a topic of study. - Inowen ( nlfte) 00:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
quantum strings makes it an exotic state of gaseous atom in the quantum level. Sasipanta ( talk) 10:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The mention, that ST is not a scientific theory (with regards to Popper's definition) has been removed twice from the article for dubious reasons. I suspect that it was removed just because some people do not like the conclusion.
Let's have a look at the arguments supporting the removed statement:
1] String theory cannot make any predictions. Therefore it cannot give us any testable hypothesis. (This is even mentioned within the article. Let me quote:)
"The possible existence of, say, 10^500 consistent different vacuum states for superstring theory probably destroys the hope of using the theory to predict anything."
2] Karl Popper sais, that if a theory does not give any testable outcomes, it is not a science.
No matter how you look at it, ST does not meet Popper's standards for science. If pure logic (1+1=2) is not sufficient, there are several mentions of this issue on the internets, which can be quoted.
I understand, that some people do not like the conclusion, but it is perfectly justified, and fits into the section Criticism. Also, the removed sentence said, that ST is not a scientific theory with regards to the Popper's definition. That does not necessarily mean that it is not a science. Therefore I also have to disagree with the remarks, that such statement is undue.
Therefore, I'll put the statement back into the article, unless I see any arguments within a week. 88.208.126.70 ( talk) 23:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
References
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Yarn theory. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18#Yarn theory until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
02:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
There's a grammar error in this sentence, but I don't have editing privileges. Just pointing it out. It is still correct in a way "The AdS/CFT correspondence is example of a duality which relates string theory to a quantum field theory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:680:C401:55D0:41DA:470B:38F6:DC09 ( talk) 15:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
In response to the Popper argument being a valid point, and not to add to an already full house, a section thusly named may bridge the gap for nonspecialists and scientists alike as to the contemporary standing of string theory in the literature. Looking further to provability rather than the former, string theory not only lacks practical testable predictions; which arguably renders it unscientific, its mathematical footing is incontiguous and therefore unrigorous with respects to the overarching 'landscape' of solutions. The sheer amount of possible conflicting theories, fields, and geometries, let alone innumerable solutions at varying dimensionalities and energy levels, puts it into the uncomfortable position of 'the only thing we have at the moment'. Its widespread study, and therefore near abuse in misapplication, renders progress in mathematical physics nigh impossible. Many compare historic cases of theories that took centuries to fully prove (a la GR), yet every successful scientific theory, immediately presented some form of experimental exactification. Which string theory (and associated threads) never did, nor can. Because as yet, and possibly ever, they are an incomplete incoherent patchwork framework of a momentous mathematical effort to crack the Gordian physics knot. Digressing from personal critique, though as objective as permissible, this article should reflect such view which is known to specialists in theoretical physics; and perhaps therefor may diffuse much of the 'woo and over-hype' associated with this ambiguous theory. Speaking again, strictly from a mathematical viewpoint, rather than any scientifically irrelevant philosophical (yet at times valid) perspective. Further, this is not to discourage its research which produces some exceptional results, such as monstrous moonshine, but to frame its context correctly as to which direction should be aspired. String theory and its generalized M-theory, are indeed largely untestable and therefore mostly unscientific, furthermore they do not present an integrated mathematical framework of field equations or action principles (which are even further often conflicting), yet as any (semi) pure mathematics are valid for the sake of their own study. Now for a wiki entry this is a difficult thing to cite; that it is lacking citations... But this perspective is essential to understand where the leading theoretical framework of the universe is not leading. 13:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
The name Witten is mentioned without further reference that I can see (e.g. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten) Ottho1943 ( talk) 07:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Do all versions of string theory require extra dimensions?
If so, can the sentence "One notable feature of string theories is that these theories require extra dimensions of spacetime for their mathematical consistency.” be changed to “String theories require extra dimensions of spacetime for their mathematical consistency.” Robertwhyteus ( talk) 07:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
String theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which" to "In physics, string theory is a hypothetical framework in which" 2600:1702:3200:7720:617B:1F46:3C6A:DCAA ( talk) 22:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
String theory has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
put "and pseudoscientific" after "theoretical" and before "framework" CrocoDIilios ( talk) 17:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I think the labeling of these two "Revolutions" is hyperbolic and not properly supported, except by some obscure paper by "Rickles". Is that Don? Very little in this article concretely supports any important contributions by string theory. Perhaps it is useful for some math, but that is because it is purely a mathematical theory, not based no physical evidence. I also find the "compaction" example here of the 1-D garden hose to be overly simplistic. The idea is that extra dimensions disappear and become unmeasurable. The x dimension doesn't disappear. I can see it clearly in the picture. The hose is just narrower in that dimension and perhaps our gauge to measure it (pixels) is not statistically capable. That doesn't make that dimension "go away" in space. I think that String Theory is dying out yet this article pretends it is still a very important line of research because it could "potentially" lead to a theory of everything. The use of that weasel word "potentially" is telling. Maybe it's just me that thinks this. 76.93.48.190 ( talk) 17:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Under the Websites section of External Links, the URL for "Why String Theory", whystringtheory.com, is no longer functional, it redirects to a spam site, navypilotsecrets.com. 24.128.41.222 ( talk) 20:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)