Revision as of 22:15, 2 July 2024 edit Guillaume Laporte (talk \| contribs) 26 edits Removed the word "real". The term seems to support a non-neutral opinion. Everybody agrees the world is real. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:18, 2 July 2024 edit undo Guillaume Laporte (talk \| contribs) 26 edits Removed the word "fundamental"; was too vague Next edit →
Line 32: ==Status== M-theory is not complete, but the mathematics of the approach has been explored in great detail. However, so far no experimental evidence for M-theory exists.<ref name=atlantic/> Some physicists are skeptical that this approach will lead to a physical theory describing our world, due to ~~fundamental~~its ~~issues~~lack of predictive power.<ref name="Smolin_Response">[[Lee Smolin]], April 2007:[https://web.archive.org/web/20130621085800/http://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/joep/links/on-some-criticisms-of-string-theory/lee-smolins-response Response to review of ''The Trouble with Physics''] by [[Joe Polchinski]].</ref> Nevertheless, some [[cosmologists]] are drawn to M-theory because of its mathematical [[elegance]] and relative simplicity, triggering the hope that the simplicity is a reason why it may describe our world.

Introduction to M-theory: Difference between revisions