Talk:String theory/Archive 4: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:51, 9 April 2012

Revision as of 21:51, 9 April 2012

Line 1:

{{aan}}

{{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}

== I don't really get how strings work. ==

Anything that is infinitely thin like a string and has mass seems strange, because the smaller the volume of it that you look at, the more dense it appears. The smallest point of it would be so dense its escape speed would exceed the speed of light and it would become a black hole, losing its material properties since black holes only have gravity and rotation. [[Special:Contributions/154.20.194.233|154.20.194.233]] ([[User talk:154.20.194.233|talk]]) 06:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC) ...

:It is possible on subatomal levels to go faster than speed of light. Mass is the string property which depends of the wave level. <br>

:Basecaly, string is a fast moving source (which can even be in more than one place at the same time) which is a source of the wave-particle field. All the properties of the coresponding particle depend on the oscilations on that source string.[[User:Ceha|Čeha]] <small>([[User talk:Ceha|razgovor]])</small> 09:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

== I don´t like the first picture ==

It puts me off reading. I would remove the picture or change it with another one. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/190.188.3.11|190.188.3.11]] ([[User talk:190.188.3.11|talk]]) 01:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== What's new ? ==

Anything new in string theory in the last 10 years? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Alphachapmtl|Alphachapmtl]] ([[User talk:Alphachapmtl|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alphachapmtl|contribs]]) 20:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Critical dimension and consistency ==

The article currently states that the critical dimension of string theory is not fixed by any consistency condition. This is pretty much orthogonal to what I know about string theory. My understanding is that the critical dimension follows from the requirement that the [[conformal anomaly]] present in string theory is absent, and that this only happens if there are 26 (or 10 for superstrings) spacetime dimensions. Of course, my info on this may be dated, but my gut feeling is that the work on super-/subcritical string theories is getting [[WP:UNDUE]] weight.[[User:TimothyRias|TimothyRias]] ([[User talk:TimothyRias|talk]]) 15:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

== What? ==

This needs to be simplified greatly. I'm an university student who is used to tackling complex academic texts (granted, mostly humanities related), but this makes no sense to me. Layman's terms simplified explanation would be useful. The way I see it encyclopedia is aimed at general public, it is not reference tool for theoretical physicists. [[Special:Contributions/203.206.49.48|203.206.49.48]] ([[User talk:203.206.49.48|talk]]) 15:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

:only amenable to a mathematical explanation. --[[User:Dc987|Dc987]] ([[User talk:Dc987|talk]]) 05:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

::I agree with the OP, its not like its impossible to explain string theory in "layman's terms"; there's plenty of sources where such explanations can be found. We shouldn't force users to research the theory off-site to understand it. What's the point of putting an article in language that only a person who already knows about the subject can understand? Deliberately phrasing the description of a theory to make it seem complicated and advanced should violate some Wikipedia standards about giving undue weight. You don't see the evolution or gravity theory pages expressed in such complicated terms, at least not within their respective headers. --[[User:IronMaidenRocks|IronMaidenRocks]] ([[User talk:IronMaidenRocks|talk]]) 03:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

:::I agree as well. I can read msot of it fine, but it sometimes requires me to re-read sentences. I think that has to do with the terrible word placements rather than "difficult words." [[Special:Contributions/64.234.0.101|64.234.0.101]] ([[User talk:64.234.0.101|talk]]) 17:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Definition of 'science' - theoretical physicists have to realise that experiment is not the criterion for science. In geohysicsa, astronomy and in many fields of human sciences (history, political sciences) events occur only once and cannot be repeated: you cannot experiment of various possible leads of Sarajevo shots that started the WW I. You cannot experiment with Tungusta impact. You cannot experiment with WTC attack. You can only observe them. That's why I modified the end of the first chapter. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Martti Muukkonen|Martti Muukkonen]] ([[User talk:Martti Muukkonen|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Martti Muukkonen|contribs]]) 19:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->÷

: Testable does not mean just laboratory experiments, it includes observations of events such as astronomical ones and historical ones. So if someone came up with a new theory of comets, which could be confirmed by examining past impact records including the Tungusta impact. The text you added seemed to confuse this somewhat: yes, repeatable laboratory experiments are better from the point of view of proving something, but that's not always possible. Often science has to be done after the event, for a whole number of reasons. Nor is this a particular property of physics, it's a property of all science.

: The weakness of string theory is it makes no predictions at all, or at least none that are different from existing theories such as QM and relativity at energies we can measure. But this well understood b←y all scientists, and as this article is intended for quite an advanced readership I don't think it needs elaborating further. It is explained further down at some length, as it's an important aspect of the theory, but much of that is too advanced for the introduction.--<small>[[User:JohnBlackburne|JohnBlackburne]]</small>^{[[User_talk:JohnBlackburne|words]]}<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/JohnBlackburne|deeds]]</sub> 20:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

there is no reference to other sources that can help the reader clarify the concepts,

linear algebra works with multiple dimensions, but it is not even mentioned as a starting point for clarification. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/130.76.64.117|130.76.64.117]] ([[User talk:130.76.64.117|talk]]) 02:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Cutting the lead ==

Line 46 ⟶ 13:

:That sounds more BS than string theory. But perhaps only slightly. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/121.209.152.190|121.209.152.190]] ([[User talk:121.209.152.190|talk]]) 19:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== History ==

What has happend since late 1990s? I don't see any more in the history section. Is it still thought of as a viable theory? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.180.160.27|74.180.160.27]] ([[User talk:74.180.160.27|talk]]) 14:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Exaggeration regarding testability and science ==

Line 133 ⟶ 97:

Bhny, your comment reminds me of those that attacked Galileo's, Newton's, and Einstein's theories. - Brad Watson, Miami [[Special:Contributions/66.229.56.118|66.229.56.118]] ([[User talk:66.229.56.118|talk]]) 14:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

== How is the string theory scientific? ==

Line 205 ⟶ 170:

::::: Again, Im not going to sort through all of your misconceptions and resolve them all for you, but what you say is wrong and ''demonstrably'' so. You can quote Smolin all day long, but these are quantitative questions that have been decided in ''papers'', not in popular-level books. The AdS/CFT is not in any way critical to these arguments and I didn't bring it up. The key point was that string theory possesses the same diffeomorphism symmetry as general relativity, and implies Einstein's equations as a low energy limit. Those are two unambiguous facts that are true of string theory as it exists today, not some dreamed about completion of it. They are pretty important things to know about it, and I cant guarantee I will continue conversing with someone who wont acknowledge these basic characteristics of the topic in question. Again, your wrong statements include your assertion that de Sitter space and moduli are "major unsolved problems". Does the actual literature written on these topics matter at all? I will leave a few recommended selections here. [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0701034v3] [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610102] [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503124v2] [http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0505160] – [[User:Isocliff|Isocliff]] ([[User talk:Isocliff|talk]]) 05:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

== Popper and testability ==