Talk:String theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"String theory does not make predictions that can be tested by scientists."

Well, that's not quite true. You can take the 10 or 11 dimensional abstractions of string theory and use them to generate nice 3d-over-time predictions. But this does not prove that the string theory has actually predicted anything that some simpler theory would not also predict.

Ok, I'll leave someone else to explain that in the article. Physics isn't really my thing. A

"It can not be proven or disproven. Some people say this makes it unscientific, like psychology."

That's not quite true either. There are many branches of psychology which make testable predictions, notably cognitive psychology and perceptual psychology. Evolutionary psychology, combining the two with a lot of physical anthropology, also makes predictions that can be tested. One notable one is that abuse by step-parents will be greater than abuse by biological parents (both are rare). This was predicted by psychologists based on Hamilton's Rule and only afterwards was the data compiled.

I meant people say that about psychology as well, not that's it is true of psychology. It was a bit of a bit of a pointless comparision anyway so I took it out. A

Cosmology and Simple English Reading in Cosmology should both link to this string theory article, at least when it's ready.

Ummm...[change source]

" so many scientists are excited by the ideas that String Theory has to offer."

I know we have to assume our audience is stupid, but do we have to make scientists look stupid too? 13:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes-- (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)-- (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Making sense[change source]

Is it my imagination, or does this version from April make a lot more sense than the current version? 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I think I have improved it a bit. 16:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Violates basic guidelines[change source]

This article violates more guidelines more thoroughly than an other I have seen on seWP. It is far too long; far too complex; has taken far too much from enWP; has far too much red-lining (which means readers can't get explanations for terms); and is dreadfully written, in prose which the target audience will certainly not understand. The article is a disgrace. It will put people off physical sciences, instead of attracting them. We need to decide whether of not we believe in our goals. It would be a drastic step, but admins might consider dumping the whole article and restarting under the guidance of someone who would look after the interests of the target audience. The problems faced by science articles are certainly not easy to solve, as I know myself. But this is the worst I have ever seen, from the point of view of a reader. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to help science articles myself, but this takes the proverbial biscuit. Whats worse is, search for 'Simple Wikipedia' in Google and the first autocomplete option is 'simple wikipedia string theory' which means a lot of people are looking at this pretty poor article. I might try to fix it a bit but this physics is, if I'm being honest, at bit beyond me... 12:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

String Theory[change source]

I've always thought about the idea of looking for this small particles, but what I think it would be even more interesting is to look for something inside those particles. Scientists could try cutting them in two, with some special machines, and instead of using an electrical microscope, try to invent a digital vectors camara.

ok so u might think im crazy[change source]

u might think im crazy but im pritty sure theres like a weird portal thing in my house that brings in another form froma differnt demension... if any scienst wants to come check it out respond on here. its in my hall way it gives the feeling of being followd and now odd things have been happening in the hallway. things that ARE weird. so someone please comment.

I'd like to see your weird portal thing. Did you by chance see a mute lady in an orange jumpsuit wearing strange boots before the portal appeared?
Or a man from Black Mesa? How about a Starfleet Cadet?

Superstrings Theory: 6 higher dimensions in addition to the 4 common dimensions (3D + time)[change source]

Superstrings theory: 6 higher dimensions in addition to the 4 common dimensions (3D + time) - Silly Wabbit (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Supergravity Theory: 7D hyperspace + 4D = 11D spacetime[change source]

Supergravity Theory: 7 higher dimensions + the 4 common dimensions. - Silly Wabbit (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Simple Wikipedia?[change source]

I thought this was 2001:630:206:FFFF:0:0:3128:A (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Language issues[change source]

There are some language issues in this article... The following sounds more like what Master Yoda would say...

...By the 1920s, to probe the operating of the electromagnetic field at miniscule scales of space and time, developed was quantum mechanics (QM).

...He revised the theory add a cosmological constant to arbitrarily balance the universe.

...a definite probability in relation to whether it was had been at the adjacent location.