Talk:String theory

Explanations

It may be beneficial to readers to provide a brief explanation of other concepts that are used to describe string theory, including pointlike particles, rather than relying on the reader to obtain information from its respective link or an alternate source.

Title should be "String hypothesis"

It's more scientifically accurate 64.32.102.24 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Please rename. 2001:9E8:460D:A500:55E7:84B9:AB8:4A71 (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah no. Theory in this context refers to "framework", not "scientific theory". This is pretty standard and the usage of "theory" to refer to a "framework" is also widespread across science. OpenScience709 (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation, as this is always a point of contention and contemplation..

Just to make this space more accessible to nubies, can you point to the source on this varried interpretation of "theory"?

thanks

Kaveinthran (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

A varied interpretation of the word 'theory' does not help. Ambiguity in scientific language should be avoided, as this scenario would never have arisen. Theoretical knowledge is (by one definition) the explanation of other experiences, and in science this means rigorously tested hypotheses. "Framework" could also be called 'prediction', and is nearly always based on hypothesis. 38.134.123.209 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Any connection to matter waves?

I am curious whether in any sense there is a connection here to matter waves. That page is being reconstructed, so some link/connection (if it exists) could be added. Whether that is appropriate, or anything else in higher-level QM is far beyond my expertise. Please let me know, better with text to include. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a late reply but I think it's a good question to be answered. The answer is, fundamentally, no; string theory most prominently affects physics at the string scale, which is the scale at which particles stop being zero-dimensional quantum objects and start being eleven-dimensional "strings". Matter waves technically still exist at the string scale but the string scale is so much smaller than even ordinary quantum mechanical scales that matter waves as we know them aren't significantly affected by the truth or falsity of string theory. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This article unrealistically hides string theory weakness

String theory is not a theory but a theory that a theory could exit. There is no string theory. That is what Voit means by "Not even wrong." There are 10^500 string theories. 40 years of work have gotten physics no closer to finding the right one.

Five different string theories can be combined in any ratio to each other to form the resulting string theory. This allows for 10^500 or an infinite number of string theories. After 40 years of trying, they have no possible way of telling which one is correct. It is often remarked that string theory gives no testable results. String theory is not testable because there is no theory but 10^500 candidate theories and no one can do that many calculations or that many experiments.

Leonard Susskind illustrates string theory failure in his own creative way. An avid string theory supporter, Susskind introduces the landscape, multiple universes and the anthropic principle. The landscape is the collection of 10^500 possible string theories. Each of the 10^500 theories is true in its own universe. The anthropic principle uses human existence as the only way to tell which theory is true in our universe. Nothing proves string theory wrong more than Susskind's abandonment of the scientific method.

Physics get null results all the time. Nothing is catastrophic about theory failure. But string theory completely dominates theoretical physics. Edward Witten, the god of physics, and 20 of the 22 top Princeton's top theoretical physics are string theorists (Voit). Mikio Kaku says it took 2000 years to prove Democratus right. String theory is firmly on track to be proven correct in 2000 years. String theory steadily goes on despite its clear failure.

This wikipedia string theory article is highly misleading by obscuring string theory weaknesses. 108.51.46.105 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

So what? Wikipedia cannot reform major universities. It's not our business telling them they're wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There is an entire section on "Criticism". The title is String Theory because that's what the framework is called. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the points made, and would even argue that mention of this should be included in the lead section of the article. JackTheSecond (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

add mention of criticism to summary paragraph

the summary/intro section should contain at least one sentence alluding to the fact that string theory has recieved criticism TomJB1 (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Why must everything be particle-based?

I don't understand any of the mathematics behind string theory, so I don't know the situation. So from my point of view, I don't get why people are trying to assign gravity to its own particle. Why can't gravity just be the curvature of spacetime around massive objects, and leave it at that? Particles follow spacetime. Said spacetime is being curved because of a massive object. Why must gravity be assigned its own particle? And, if it is, what is it doing with those particles to cause you to fall? Is it throwing them at you? I mean, I know any classical way I try to think of particles will be dead wrong, so probably not. But you get the point. I don't understand why people need the graviton there is an other concept called cosmic essence concept which includes sayoing there is no one dimension but there is a unknown undfineable existing matrix which makes up the one dimensional string. Tickbeat (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Wave–particle duality. The problem is that general relativity is not cosistent with quantum mechanics. This is why most physicists believe that a quantum theory of gravity is needed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

These are the words I hear all the time, and they provide next to no information on why we need the graviton. If you either don't know the technical details of why, or you don't think I can handle it, then I guess just read it and move on :P Tickbeat (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I had to do a little research and came across this article about such a theory and the technical problems encountered in combining quantum mechanics with classical gravity without invoking a graviton. [1] –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have always found it intriguing (and somewhat irritating) that quantum mechanics was developed as a particle (excitation) and force (field) theory, while Einstein et al. used a space-time approach to explain gravity alone. Could the three other forces (electromagnetism, weak and strong forces) be explained by space-time properties? 38.134.123.209 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)