Talk:Second Temporal Dimension

IMHO the article is somewhat confusing and lacks essential information. As I'm only tangentially informed on this topic, perhaps the problem is only with me. But let's enumarate: Pjacobi 22:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is imaginary time axis really easily confused with second time axis?
 * Imaginary time was common in QFT long before Hawking, see Osterwalder/Schrader etc (e.g. Wick rotation).
 * There are severe conceptual problems with more than one time dimension, see Tegmark's paper


 * My gut impulse is to nominate this article for AfD. The only substantive content seems to be that some string theories have them, and that it occurs w.r.t. twistors. Now, some string thoeries have just about everything under the sun, so that alone doesn't really merit much of an article. linas 17:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. Nimur 20:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll attempt a rewrite
As Lumidek votes "non-bogus" I reluctantly volunteer to start a re-write and have started gathering some input. Nice exercise in in mental flexibility. But I'll mention all this stringy 10+2 and 26+2 stuff only in passing, someone more competent should enlarge that topic.

So far I've isolated those other inputs: Pjacobi 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dirac's (Ann. Math. 37 (1936) 429) In 1936 Dirac invented a field theory approach for rewriting conformal field theory in four dimensions in a manifestly SO(4, 2) covariant form in six dimensions
 * Penrose's Twistor theory
 * Itzhak Bars (embedding (d-1)+1 space time in d+2 space time)
 * Yakir Aharonov
 * And for the fringe end: Heim Theory in 3+3 dimensions. Sort of.

Disputed
Highly theoretical, at best; this article should make clear that this is a mathematical framework and has no experimental physical evidence; the theory does not even make any suggestions as to how a test could be performed. This is a fringe theory - hardly mainstream even amongst physicists; I have no qualms classifying it as pseudoscience. Nimur 20:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ben Standeven has performed major article edits. After these edits, the article is in much better shape than previously.  I am still wondering if a better solution would be a merge or redirect to the F-theory article; we can salvage all of these new edits and create a sub-section there. Nimur 13:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have merged the newly rewritten content to F-theory Nimur 16:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)