Content deleted Content added
Removed the word "fundamental"; was too vague |
Removed "cosmologists"; which puts too much emphasis on a specific aspect of the theory |
||
Line 34:
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 its 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
One feature of M-theory that has drawn great interest is that it naturally predicts the existence of the [[graviton]], a [[Spin (physics)|spin-2]] particle hypothesized to mediate the gravitational force. Furthermore, M-theory naturally predicts a phenomenon that resembles [[black hole evaporation]]. Competing unification theories such as [[asymptotically safe gravity]], [[An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything|E8 theory]], [[noncommutative geometry]], and [[causal fermion systems]] have not demonstrated any level of mathematical consistency. Another approach to quantum gravity is [[loop quantum gravity]], a non-unifying theory; many physicists consider loop quantum gravity to be less elegant than M-theory because it posits gravity to be completely different from the other fundamental forces.<ref name=atlantic/><ref name=quanta/>
| |||