Talk:String theory/Archive 6

== Unbalanced Criticism section & possibly more==

Possibly is interesting to repeat as a background, to the community, the sequential reasoning done in the summaries, which gave origin to this talk:


 * 01:21, 3 April 2014? SacredLabyrinth: (+1,141)? . . (??Criticisms: lack of conventional formalism)
 * 02:38, 3 April 2014? Polytope24 (-1,136)? . . (material not supported by a reliable source) [reversion]
 * 19:40, 3 April 2014? SacredLabyrinth (+1,136)? . . (as suitably pointed out, content is supported by reliable source) [reversion]
 * 19:56, 3 April 2014? Polytope24 (-1,136)? . . (Undid revision 602624478 by SacredLabyrinth)
 * 20:35, 3 April 2014? SacredLabyrinth (+1,136)? . . (Undid revision 602626269 by Polytope24. please avoid unjustified reversions. regard the article's talk for any doubt)
 * 03:20, 4 April 2014? Bhny (-1,136)? . . (Undid revision 602631653 by SacredLabyrinth. sorry that author is not a recognized scientist)
 * 17:20, 4 April 2014? SacredLabyrinth (+1,136)? . . (sorry, author is scientist and notable (see google, etc). if you think differently, so supporting your claim (no acceptance, etc) with RSs you should include it in the article refuting his criticism (after that critique, of course) [reversion]
 * 1)  17:27, 4 April 2014? Polytope24 (-1,136)? . . (Undid revision 602749947 by SacredLabyrinth (talk) this paragraph is unintelligible, and a google search brings up lots of results denouncing the author as a crackpot) [reversion]

Likely should be remembered to Polytope24 to be careful when mentioning living persons. Please keep civil, because your last summary can have been offensive to that author. Secondly as said before, your interpretations and opinions must remain out of the articles unless you have a RS to expose them (as Wikipedia's standpoint). And the fact is until here you didn't support your reversions with RS, you just did them based on your tendentious preferences. And at least once you didn't even write a summary to such radical edition.

That said, let us go to main point. It's sad see that Criticism section remains very poor and this in most part promoted by editor Polytope24, who openly and with obsession edits and barricades this theme (string theory and right correlated others). Polytope24 has refused even that modest paragraph added by this editor. Oh please, about the intelligibility anyone willing feel free to make any improvement about. Can you tell us Polytope24 why are you so defensive in these articles? What exactly is your relation with this subject? Sorry to ask, but this has been very discussed ultimately in Wikipedia: are you being commissioned? If not why that attitude? What is your real interest here?

Likely editor Longerboats5 did the best consideration until here about this precarious state of things. He very well highlighted as important criticisms by several eminent scientists has been kept away from that section. As matter of fact observing that section we notice that it was really constructed to avoid criticism. Notice how it starts restraining the possible criticism to a specific kind and to a limited number of items. Well, this is ridiculous. SacredLabyrinth (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear SacredLabyrinth, I absolutely agree that the criticism section needs work, but I have some specific problems with the changes you've made.


 * The main problem is that you're citing a very questionable source in the paragraph that you added. According to WP:RS, questionable sources include "websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." If you Google the author of the book you cite, you will find many websites accusing the author of crackpottery (yes, this word is used several times even on the first page of results). The source you cite is also promotional in nature, with the author calling himself "the New Leonardo". This falls squarely within Wikipedia's definition of a questionable source and is not appropriate for use in this encyclopedia.


 * The second problem is that the paragraph makes no sense. I'm guessing that English is not your first language, and I completely respect that and would be happy to work with you on expressing these ideas more clearly. If you can point to a more reliable source that expresses the same criticism of string theory, I will gladly help you adapt it into a paragraph for this article.


 * Finally, let me say that my main interest here on Wikipedia is improving the string theory articles by making them informative, technically accurate, and accessible. So far, I've mostly focused on minor subpages, but eventually I intend to work on the main string theory article. I am happy to discuss these articles with you, but I ask that you please refrain from speculating about my motivations for contributing to Wikipedia. Polytope24 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Your reply just makes a minimum difference. The source used to the criticism erased repeatedly by you was a published book, not a website (just remembering, though obviously some websites are also RS). Your observations about the author and his view remain only as your personal opinions. Your reply changes nothing in that; by the way when a subject, a site, a blog, or whatever is offending somebody else, you really shouldn’t repeat that offenses here or anywhere; it is not civil. You have been consistently disrespectful to that author. Concluding you didn't present yet a valid reason to any reversion, in fact your attitude was frankly possessive. However if you have some RS claiming that such author is ineligible, then I'm willing to reach an agreement. Please show us reliable sources supporting your bias. Furthermore I would strongly suggest you, again, a complete change in Criticism section (as mentioned above) which allows any editor to add any new criticism ... easily. SacredLabyrinth (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * A self-published "AuthorHouse" book is not a reliable source. The author seems unknown outside of blogs. Provide a link to prove otherwise. Bhny (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that said by whom? By you? Not enough. I mean, can you prove that that book is self-published? Please, again, provide us a RS for what you claim. SacredLabyrinth (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are the one adding things. You need to provide a RS. You haven't yet provided one. Do you understand this? (Google AuthorHouse, it does self-publishing.) Bhny (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry again, but that said by whom? By you? Not enough. You are the one claiming that a source is supposedly invalid. You need to prove your point. A RS was already plenty provided, show us a valid link proving your allegation about the publisher. Do you understand this? SacredLabyrinth (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No the onus is on you to establish that the source you provide is reliable. Beyond issues of reliability of the source, I see major concerns in the area of due weight. I see very little reason to include the criticism of a single person, if it is not shared by others. You can probably fill a small library with all criticisms of string theory (and their rebutals) published. This means we do not have space to treat every individual criticism. Instead the article should focus on the main lines of criticism (and any counter arguments) shared by many authors.TR 23:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting your reasoning. However using this criterion said by you, i.e. a claim made up by an editor(s), then would be impossible to add any contribution to an article if other editor(s) doesn't want it. The onus of a contribution is to present a RS to it, and this was done. The source used is from, at least, an okay publisher. Thus, if there is something claiming otherwise then is your onus show us it in an official black list, for example. What at this point seems very unlikely, otherwise someone would have already showed it. SacredLabyrinth (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Given your trolly discussion style I won't further engage with you. I'll just leave you with a list of policy links that are relevant here:
 * WP:PRIMARY
 * WP:DUE
 * WP:RS
 * There is probably more that could be added to that list, but I'll leave it at that.TR 13:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Given my best replies in this talk infuse more politeness and concern about civility than those used by some string theorists here, and given as well my worst replies use the same tone used by you and your friends, then you and the other anti-criticism string theorists here are in no position to make such or any complaint. In fact when an editor tries to intimidate other editors calling names, usually he is the real troll. About the policy links provided by you, they do not cancel this discussion or the stressed issues brought up in this page. Verily the article remains completely unbalanced and even worst since you, by your bias, again removed the tag (unbalanced) during this discussion. See, trying to enforce your bias, like when you and editor Bhny repeatedly did remove the tag, which was inviting the whole community for a fair discussion, it is just not very wise. On the other hand, it is not only up to me to work these issues brought up here by myself and others. And I very likely don't have the necessary skills anyway. So, let us listen the community. SacredLabyrinth (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to discuss one way or another regarding civility. I do believe that the editors pointing out concerns with your proposed references are correct, especially WP:DUE and WP:RS.  There is a lot of valid criticism of string theory which is well referenced in this article though.  The references are, and should continue to be, of sufficient rigor to provide valid criticism.  People like Lee Smolin, Peter Woit, or many of the others cited in the article provide valid criticism and there are many critical references included.  Saying the article is unbalanced completely ignores the those references/criticisms.  Criticism should be, if not from peer-reviewed journals, at least should be from reputable sources (and not self-published, primary sources).Caidh (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh well, undoubtedly is your choice to ignore a high topic, as civility, which in depth affects not only this page and this talk, but also does affect in the article's bones, as well as the whole Wikipedia. To tell the truth I understand your choice as a big mistake, but I respect your option for ignoring this opportunity. Concerning the policies cited by you I believe I already reasoned around them into my previous replies. Nevertheless I will repeat my rationalization trying this time to be more extensive:

Those policies, improved through the years, are plausibly formulated and very useful as more a guidance than as rules. This is because from a certain point they necessarily have a limited application since in the end of their course they finish commonly interpreted by a troop of individuals who have their respective bias. That is, unless you have beforehand, for example, some kind of official black list, who is to decide what are the acceptable publishers? This obviously apart from the primary, 2nd, 3rd source feature, the thing is nobody owns this fair, unbiased capability, so usually what we have in Wikipedia is a group of editors arguing in favor of some publishers which have notable authors or at least publications either from universities or from mainstream trends. This movement seems to be a good idea, and looks like a good procedure. But if you analyse this behavior a little better, you will end realizing this is also a guillotine for criticism, for new articles, for new editors, for the development of new ideas, for the development of knowledge. See, I am not arguing against these policies, until certain point I do feel them necessary and reasonably conceived. The problem is your biased utilization, they should not be a guillotine of knowledge, they should not be a tool only for the season's mainstream using. As matter of fact they are good tools unless those troops decide to use them for theirs own interests, ... as usually happens. With such perspective in mind, now is easy to realize the unbalances perpetrated in this article. So reader, just do check the links provided by me in this talk, and you will figure out by yourself the fierce reality. SacredLabyrinth (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just love how in your logic everybody that doesn't agree with you is obviously hopelessly biased. (Also, to be clear: the "development of knowledge" and the "development of new ideas" are explicitly NOT the goal of Wikipedia.)TR 20:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, at this juncture, we have few commentaries here, but in fact everybody in the world, including me, has a bias. On the other hand please refrain from making up words for me, since your statement is misleading. If anyone has the time to read this talk page, or following the links imparted in this discussion, he, or she will realize that here is not only my perception but also that of other editors who as well point out the article's unbalance. Regarding the other stuff pointed out, though I already knew the matter we have appreciate anyway your recall with respect to "knowledge versus Wikipedia". See, I don't think anybody should take this nonsensical anti-goal seriously. Even if not considered a goal, at the lowest Wikipedia is inevitably an adjuvant tool which helps to produce, or should do, consequences such as the expansion of knowledge. And this new information in turn, should be incorporated into it, ... evidently. SacredLabyrinth (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * this is really off-topic, and someone you quote (who strangely resembles you) has already written about it here- [] Bhny (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Question What are the sources, and what is the proposed text relating to them? 94.193.139.22 (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * diffTR 15:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A clear explanation of the problems it solves is needed
Rather than just throwing terms at the reader, IMHO this article should be written with the multiple phenomena that it deals with and that it is supposed to solve. Tell us please, what physical occurrences have been observed, how they've been explained differently, and what are the incentives that call for this theory. Maybe those are all there in the article, but they are buried too deep. I'm not saying you have to explain everything from the ground up, to a first grader, but this is just way too high tech speech. And there's no reason for that. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

One dimentional?
...then how does it have a "radius"? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Lede, re gravity: Is "Besides this potential role..." redundant?
The lede as currently written says string theory naturally incorporates gravity and thus is a potential theory of everything, and then says that "besides this potential role", it has shed light on quantum gravity. Question: isn't that phrase redundant? Or does string theory incorporate gravity in ways that do not necessarily involve quantum gravity? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 07:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"Failure" claim appears unsupported
The statement "Some critics of string theory say that it is a failure as a theory of everything," is followed by 6 citations (after I removed one duplicate), but most of them do not make that particular claim, but rather only review some of the well-known points of contention – the large number of solutions and the high characteristic energy scale of quantum gravity. Few if any of them appear to go so far as to claim that string theory is a "failure" as a TOE. I do recall Peter Woit making this claim on his blog, so that reference is probably correct, but still lacking a precise citation. However the referenced John Baez blog post clearly doesn't make this claim, for example. Both of the other Peter Woit documents also don't seem to make this claim explicitly either (correct me if I'm wrong).

Therefore I am moving these two Peter Woit references to after where his name appears in the listing of critics, because these documents are critical of string theory but do not claim it is a "failure". I will remove the reference to Baez's blog because it clearly does not support the claim in question. And I will add requests for page numbers to both the link to Woit's blog as well as Lee Smolin's book. I don't know if Lee's book makes this claim outright that string theory is a failure, (I don't think so, based on what I remember), but I will otherwise leave it in place in case somebody else can find the statements that support this claim. Otherwise this reference too should be listed after his name in the list of critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isocliff (talk • contribs) 16:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, Isocliff. I just wanted to let you know that I will soon be making some major revisions to the article. I'm going to import material from the three featured string theory articles (AdS/CFT correspondence, mirror symmetry, and M-theory), and I'm going to completely rewrite the criticism section, adding more precise citations. So don't worry too much about the current issues -- soon this article should look much better! Polytope24 (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's good to hear Polytope24, the article certainly looks like it could benefit from something like that. I'm looking forward to seeing these additions, and I'll hold off on any further edits until then. Isocliff (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A lack of mathematical language
I was pretty disappointed because I couldn't find any mathematical formula in this article. Bonaventura Radityo (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ [Like wise] פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I thought Wikipedia articles were supposed to have all the facts. Mypal125 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

11 dimensions (11-dimensional)
The #11 looks better than 'eleven'; it adds an emphasis on "11-dimensional" - it sticks out. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:BD89:3619:82D7:61A8 (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

String Theory/Quantum Physics
This is probably not new but at one time or another we have all been given the thought experiment of a three-dimensional ball moving through a two-dimensional world. For argument's sake let's say what the scientists are observing of the three-dimensional ball they call an “atom”. They mark its position and move on (two- dimensionally) in a measurable way to the next “atom”. At this point they shift the relative position of the “atom” (two- dimensionally) and then returned to their original starting point finding the first “atom” has shifted its relative position the same way as the second “atom”. If you were taught like me you were told they would first see a dot as the ball started to pass through their word. The dot would get bigger and bigger until the diameter was reached then shrink back down to nothing. But a ball made up of matter as we currently know it is made of atoms; mostly space. So only the part of the atom intersecting their world could be observed. If the ball was stationary the “atom” would look like a fussy quivering object as the atom is vibrating. There could be many of these objects intersecting their world. Would this be a reasonable simplistic description of quantum physics: a change in one atom can have an affect on a seemingly unconnected atom? James Brian MacDonald 12/20/2015James Brian MacDonald 11:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC) James Brian MacDonald 00:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by James B MacDonald (talk • contribs)

String theory proven?
Been watching a lot of shows on the universe and how it works. My question is, when they found that the galaxies are all connected by a web of "strings" that have gravitational forces, wasn't sting theory then proven? I'm no physicist but but I would think that these webs or strings would be the ultimate gravitational force in the universe. Even though the universe is still expanding all the galaxies are still linked through this network. I'm interested in what others think on this subject. Rhiannon61 (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a general forum board. Do you have a specific suggestion to improve the article? If you do not, you should probably ask your question at the sciences reference desk. --Izno (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on String theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151105234427/http://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/joep/links/on-some-criticisms-of-string-theory/lee-smolins-response to http://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/joep/links/on-some-criticisms-of-string-theory/lee-smolins-response
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130702011201/http://www.sns.ias.edu:80/~malda/Published.pdf to http://www.sns.ias.edu/~malda/Published.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141101181409/http://www.sns.ias.edu/~malda/sciam-maldacena-3a.pdf to http://www.sns.ias.edu/~malda/sciam-maldacena-3a.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Krauss quote
I have just deleted, for the third time, the quote from Lawrence Krauss stating that string theory is not known to have “anything to do with the real world”.

My main concern is that this is a fairly hyperbolic statement, and it’s not clear what Krauss is really talking about. String theory gives rise, in various limits, to quantum field theory, a formalism which is known to describe the physics of elementary particles. It also reproduces general relativity and various known results on the physics of black holes. Perhaps this is not what Krauss is talking about, but it would seem to me that these are relationships between string theory and the real world. Statements like “string theory has nothing to do with the real world” are fine for polemical popular books, but they are not appropriate for an article that purports to give a precise discussion of the issues based on reliable sources.

It’s important for this article to give sufficient weight to the various criticisms of string theory, but we have to focus on the specific technical and sociological issues that critics have raised. The criticism section is currently divided into subsections explaining the most common arguments by critics. If you read through this section, you will see that these are fairly specific arguments, and the Krauss quote is not representative of what the most prominent critics are saying. Polytope24 (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Phenomenology
The Phenomenology section has more information than the "main article" we are linking to. We could consider deleting the article stub, or move most of this section to it, only keeping a summary in this article. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The phenomenology section is a crucial part of this article since it's the part of the subject that attempts to make experimental predictions. If anything, I think the current section is underdeveloped. If you are concerned about the status of the phenomenology article, we could copy the text from the string theory article to that one, but I wouldn't delete anything from the phenomenology section of this article. Polytope24 (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm perhaps that the separate article could then be a redirection to this article's phenomenology section, instead of a separate article... 76.10.128.192 (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Eventually the separate article should be developed. Someone will come along and do it. Turning it into a redirect discourages such a development. Wikipedia is not a finished product.TR 11:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

non causal and axiomatic if not evolved
The god uni-field theory is axiomatic, thus metaphysical. String theory is functional as a sub-harmonic (sub-fundamental, sub-harmonics are created via reverberation of the room, our room here is the fundamental interactions) of higher thus secondary fields (the Fundamental interactions). Without interconnectivity of the field inputs we have the God field and metaphysics. Quantum field theory is analytical. One cannot rape (force) the Universe be fundamentally random and not simply a multilayered topological self-interconnected function. Other topological mechanisms create different Universes, but are theoretical to us, we aren't compatible to travel there neither it makes any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:9100:AD2B:B78B:209:8A48 (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nima Arkani-Hamed also makes sometimes a mistake, by telling that you can create a point-like black hole by providing humongous energy, but it spontaneously explodes in the actual world. Extreme degeneracy never is ideal especially at black hole pressure levels, thus either the system has to become bigger in mass AND volume, or to spontaneously explode, that's why CERN will never find enough energy to create a stable black hole (it is the so-called "Christian bigot's energy failure"). In nature black holes exist, but 1. we don't know if they are particle like at the core or quark-gluon plasmas, 2. black holes are extremely small but that doesn't mean they are spots (absolute spots aren't neither topological objects, nor objects, nor have a range or existence). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4114:4E00:AD2B:B78B:209:8A48 (talk) 20:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This article has a conspicuous lack of mathematical language

 * Original title: This article has a conspicuous lack of mathematical language, which is at the crux of String Theory . . . Many of the individuals who make edits seem ignorant of basic math concepts.

It's obvious that the prominent editors of this article are enthusiastic about the subject. That's good. But when someone tries to introduce formal mathematical concepts into the discussion, these contributions are removed. There is a sense of "math phobia" -- I have even seen mathematical contributions labeled as "vandalism". It is not enough to be interested in the subject of Sting Theory, the key editors must also understand the math behind it. The beauty of String Theory lies almost entirely in it's mathematical elegance; to be unaware of this is a big problem. The absolute goal of any TOE is comprehension, and a lack of it will always miss the mark.

Superstring theory: 6D hyperspace + 4 common dimensions = 10D spacetime ... Supergravity theory: 7D hs + 4D = 11D st 2601:589:4705:C7C0:8004:71B0:7913:146A (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If we can accomplish explanation without getting into math, then isn't that good? Brian Greene certainly makes a valiant effort in that direction. Having said that, when it is necessary, yes, use math. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps creating a page dealing with the mathematical underpinnings of string theory would be useful then, to satisfy people like the above and myself? Personally I would be very interested in reading a crowd sourced summary of the key concepts (whether they be from (Higher) Category Theory, extensions of ideas such as Noether / Gauge Invariance, Quantum Field Theory, etc).  I am very very ignorant here; a page (or sketch) with even dot point linkage to key papers in the field would be very useful. For instance, I have found this expository paper from Berkeley (Quote from abstract: "This set of notes is based on the course “Introduction to String Theory” which was taught by Prof. Kostas Skenderis in the spring of 2009 at the University of Amsterdam."), but I am not sure how typical it is of the state of the art or accepted wisdom as of present. RogueTeddy (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it a theory?
This article should note (at least in the criticism section, probably also in the intro) that there is criticism of the name implying that String Theory is a formal scientific theory, as opposed to a hypothesis Fig (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is theory in the same sense that quantum field theory or group theory is theory. This type of criticism is only voiced by idiots who do not understand how the word "theory" is generally used in theortical fields.TR 10:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Ad hominem from the very start, eh? Nice. But actually this type of criticism is voiced by many serious scientists, for good reasons. Your comment shows that actually it is you who doesn't understand the difference between a mathematical theory (like Group Theory) and a scientific theory (a falsifiable theory that makes predictions - like Quantum Field Theory). String theory is much closer to a mathematical theory and for that reason should not be called a scientific theory; in science is it only a hypothesis. This is actually important in any article wanting to be authoritative. Fig (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * But quantum field theory (on its own) does not make any falsifiable predictions. In order for QFT to make testable predictions it needs a "physical model" (usually in the form of a Lagrangian). Coincidentally, since a robust prediction of string theory is that the low-energy limit can be described by an effective QFT, any low energy result that would falsify QFT would falsify string theory. Is your position that any "authorative" article on QFT should mention that it should not be called a 'scientific theory'?TR 15:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

proof of string theory or multidimensional universe?
I am a layman and this will be simplistic at best. There is a phenomenon while looking at matter one way it looks like matter but looking at it in other ways looks like a wave. I will speculate matter exist in more dimensions that we are not currently aware of. Detection systems that show the matter as a wave are picking up string vibration in other dimensions but reporting it back in our dimensions thus a wave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James B MacDonald (talk • contribs) 16:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Superstring Theory 10-Dimensions and Supergravity Theory 11-Dimensions
I added to the section on extra dimensions... superstring theory is 10-dimensional and supergravity theory 11-dimensional. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:8004:71B0:7913:146A (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Is string theory not 26 or 10 dimensional? The lack of evidence for the extra dimensions making it impossible to determine which (if either) number of dimensions represents reality? WikipediaUserCalledChris (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

String theorists now focus on 11-dimensional supergravity/M-theory - google that. 73.204.120.223 (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Extra Dimensions
MODERATOR - Although there is a section titled Extra Dimensions, it's not mentioned in the introduction or in the box to the right. Extra dimensions may be the primary aspect of string theory. Without extra dimensions, there is no string theory. Laymen get lost in other explanations of string theory, but they can accept a simple explanation of extra dimensions, e.g. 7D hyperspace + 4 common dimensions = 11D spacetime. 73.204.120.223 (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

THERE IS A PHYSICAL FOUNDATION FOR STRING THEORY
So far, string theory seems to be based more on mathematical reasoning than physical observations. However, it has been shown that Dirac equation can be used to show that quantum particles manifest as string-like objects whose cross-section vibrates as a membrane. This may clarify the concept of matter wave and provide a physical foundation for string theory. Please refer to a preprint entitled ON THE NATURE OF MATTER WAVE posted on ResearchGate by Vu B Ho for more details.101.189.23.61 (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Source 84 versus claim
This claim is made at the bottom of the section titled Second superstring revolution

The citation given for this is [84] which is some publication by Kovtun. Kovtun, P. K.; Son, Dam T.; Starinets, A. O. (2001). "Viscosity in strongly interacting quantum field theories from black hole physics". Physical Review Letters. 94 (11): 111601

But that pub is about nothing but viscosity associated with an event horizon. The publication contains the word "hadron" zero times. If nobody is bothered, I am going to remove this citation and place a "citation needed" tag onto that claim.

Miloserdia (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2018
2405:204:F292:4791:0:0:1C08:D0B0 (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Extra Dimensions: 6D or 7D hyperspace + common 4D = 10/11D spacetime
Extra dimensions is the BIGGEST element of string theory and should be mentioned in the introduction and summary box. 6D or 7D hyperspace + common 4D = 10/11D spacetime 2601:580:100:5D52:D0BA:A3F8:2B1B:61D3 (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Intro
"Instead of treating space like a general field with some simplistic "temperature," and matter as isolated particles, quantum strings are the description of the constitutent particles of both matter and spacetime itself." This is a basic idea of strings as an advance over standard model physics. "String theory describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other." This is incorrect, as strings don't propagate through space, rather they make up space.-Inowen (nlfte) 11:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not incorrect. String theory as it is now at least is formulated perturbatively around a fixed background. As for "treating space like a general field with some simplistic "temperature"", that just reads as gibberish.   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 13:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Is spacetime a field that is without any structure, or is it like matter also composed of strings? -Inowen (nlfte) 03:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Inowen, article talk pages are for discussion of the article, not discussions of the subject of the article. Do you have a specific proposal for how to improve the article?   Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 13:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Michio Kaku
Someone suggested I listen to Michio Kaku. He's a bit like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, and other trained scientists who popularize science. He is mentioned in this article, but I think we might want to make him a little more prominent for lay people who might want to learn more who can't handle the highly technical reading. Maybe a "see also" section or "string theory for the public" or something like that? There might be others too. I don't really follow string theory or any of these popular scientist, but I think such references would be helpful for people interested in learning more who don't have an advanced degree in science. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Sylvain Ribault (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2019
Please include Jonathan Mboyo Esole in the list of theorists in the info box on the right hand side of the page.
 * 1) REDIRECT Jonathan Mboyo Esole Akhila.jdm (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Done, though you could have edited it yourself. Editing the infobox is done through Template:String theory, which is not protected. Roadguy2 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2019
In the String theory subsection of the article, the section states that there are $$10^{500}$$ solutions, but more recent calculations have pushed this number up to $$10^{272,000}$$. If this information can be changed or added to the section it would be great. Ta. 128.174.44.48 (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reading the abstract of the source you provided, it does indeed include $$10^{272,000}$$, however I have no idea what that number is in reference to. I'ma drop a note at WT:MATH to have someone else review this request. NiciVampireHeart 22:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Lean against inclusion, although it's not precisely my field. In the body of the paper, it's included in a double- or triple-perhaps, it's an estimate of the number of possible sets of state parameters, without evidence that they produce actual states.  However, I'm not sure the $$10^{500}$$ source is any better.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: per Arthur Rubin, it's not definite. Nici<b style="color:purple">Vampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 08:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Popularization
For average Joe popularization could be important subsection, and it exists, only it refers only to written General/Critical. However, there are no included instances of popularization within electronic media (TV, radio, Internet), so I am wondering what would be the best way to squeeze subsection on TV programs featuring Green and others, say, his really popular book is made into (even more popular?) TV series, while BBC has very interesting feature documentary on theory's emergence.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  11:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Move to quantum strings
The idea that spacetime itself is composed of quantum objects is validated by LIGO, the idea of quantum entanglement is also substantiated, and the idea of the of isolated particles in a field of form-less energies is crushed. So the article here should move from an article about a general theory to a title which reflects the description of the quantum object itself, advanced in theory from just particles to something like a string. And if using the plural form rather than the singular, then there is the benefit that its talking about not just the single string, but the whole field of quantum strings as a topic of study. -Inowen (nlfte) 00:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * LIGO observed classical gravity waves. It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics.  As for "quantum strings", reliable sources do not refer to string theory in general that way, so we cannot use it.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 13:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What you've said "LIGO observed classical gravity waves. It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics" does'nt compute. -Inowen (nlfte) 03:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It very much does "Compute". Odd choice of words though. Elitematterman (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

quantum strings makes it an exotic state of gaseous atom in the quantum level. Sasipanta (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

String Theory is not a Scientific Theory with regards to Popper
The mention, that ST is not a scientific theory (with regards to Popper's definition) has been removed twice from the article for dubious reasons. I suspect that it was removed just because some people do not like the conclusion.

Let's have a look at the arguments supporting the removed statement:

1] String theory cannot make any predictions. Therefore it cannot give us any testable hypothesis. (This is even mentioned within the article. Let me quote:)

"The possible existence of, say, 10^500 consistent different vacuum states for superstring theory probably destroys the hope of using the theory to predict anything."

2] Karl Popper sais, that if a theory does not give any testable outcomes, it is not a science.

No matter how you look at it, ST does not meet Popper's standards for science. If pure logic (1+1=2) is not sufficient, there are several mentions of this issue on the internets, which can be quoted.

I understand, that some people do not like the conclusion, but it is perfectly justified, and fits into the section Criticism. Also, the removed sentence said, that ST is not a scientific theory with regards to the Popper's definition. That does not necessarily mean that it is not a science. Therefore I also have to disagree with the remarks, that such statement is undue.

Therefore, I'll put the statement back into the article, unless I see any arguments within a week. 88.208.126.70 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Additions to Wikipedia are not based on arguments, but on reliable sources. Anyway, string theory does produce plenty falsifiable hypotheses in Popper's sense (e.g. super heavy addition particles due to string overtones). Unfortunately, testing these typically requires experiments that case access physics at the Planck scale, which is practically (very much) out of reach. However, from Popper's perspective that is not an issue, the theory can in principle be falsified.TR 19:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 1] There are sources for this. I even linked one in edit. 2) Wikipedia needs sources for results, but not necessarily for every single sentence which is a logical consequence of sourced information. In this case, we see a pure, logical sylogism of type 'A and "A=>B" implies B'. "A" is ST's unability to predict, which is stated in this article and sourced, "A=>B" is "unable to predict => not a science according to Popper", which is supported by article about Popper. How could you not draw the consequence, that "ST is not a science according to Popper" from those two statements? 3) Here we have to dig deeper into the Popper's motivation to define it like that.. The falsifiability means, that the theory actually tells us something. If it does not give us falsifiable outcomes, it means, that it cannot predict, and therefore it is useless. On the other hand, if it does gives us predictions which we are only able to test "in principle", but not actually (such as in this case), it means the theory speaks about behavior of universe, which we will never observe. Therefore, even if it's predictions were right (which we cannot test), they would be irrelevant to us. 88.208.126.70 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * What you are describing is a classic case of WP:SYNTH. TR 15:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with having something about this in it, but I don't like Wikipedia making the statement that it doesn't fulfil Popper's definition. I'd be happy with "According to Dr Ethan Seigel, ....." Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, well, S.J. Gates in his superstrings course from The Teaching Company came out of the closet saying that superstrings ain't physics yet, it is just applied maths. He said people at LHC were working to make it falsifiable and offered several easy (amenable) ways to falsify string theory.


 * Many physicists strongly oppose the idea that string theory is not falsifiable, among them Sylvester James Gates: "... has allowed us to calculate a physically interesting property, namely the running of the coupling constant. So, the next time someone tells you that string theory is not testable, remind them of the AdS/CFT connection ..."
 * Many physicists strongly oppose the idea that string theory is not falsifiable, among them Sylvester James Gates: "... has allowed us to calculate a physically interesting property, namely the running of the coupling constant. So, the next time someone tells you that string theory is not testable, remind them of the AdS/CFT connection ..."


 * Course is here: https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/superstring-theory-the-dna-of-reality.html Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You just added some text to the criticism section rebutting the idea that string theory is not falsifiable. The purpose of the criticism section is to explain legitimate critiques of the subject, not to rebut ones that don't make sense. If we don't have reliable source that argues against string theory being falsifiable, do we really need to rebut this idea in the article? Polytope24 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't now know WP:RS about that, but yes, in the media is a popular meme that string theory is unfalsifiable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I recognize that it is a popular meme promoted by the media, and I understand the desire to address it in this article. My concern is that the discussion of falsifiability in the current article might be read as one-sided. Rather than present the view that string theory may not be falsifiable, it presents only the counterargument.


 * When I wrote the earlier version of the criticism section, I tried to focus on the main arguments of prominent critics. In general, I think the critics of string theory recognize that the argument based on falsifiability is problematic, for the reasons that others have mentioned above.


 * If there are no objections, I propose that we remove the material on falsifiability and return the article to its earlier version. By focusing on the critiques that make sense, we can avoid perpetuating common misunderstandings of this subject. Polytope24 (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"Yarn theory" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Yarn theory. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 02:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Grammar Error
There's a grammar error in this sentence, but I don't have editing privileges. Just pointing it out. It is still correct in a way "The AdS/CFT correspondence is example of a duality which relates string theory to a quantum field theory." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:680:C401:55D0:41DA:470B:38F6:DC09 (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Experimental Evidence and Falsifiability Criterion
In response to the Popper argument being a valid point, and not to add to an already full house, a section thusly named may bridge the gap for nonspecialists and scientists alike as to the contemporary standing of string theory in the literature. Looking further to provability rather than the former, string theory not only lacks practical testable predictions; which arguably renders it unscientific, its mathematical footing is incontiguous and therefore unrigorous with respects to the overarching 'landscape' of solutions. The sheer amount of possible conflicting theories, fields, and geometries, let alone innumerable solutions at varying dimensionalities and energy levels, puts it into the uncomfortable position of 'the only thing we have at the moment'. Its widespread study, and therefore near abuse in misapplication, renders progress in mathematical physics nigh impossible. Many compare historic cases of theories that took centuries to fully prove (a la GR), yet every successful scientific theory, immediately presented some form of experimental exactification. Which string theory (and associated threads) never did, nor can. Because as yet, and possibly ever, they are an incomplete incoherent patchwork framework of a momentous mathematical effort to crack the Gordian physics knot. Digressing from personal critique, though as objective as permissible, this article should reflect such view which is known to specialists in theoretical physics; and perhaps therefor may diffuse much of the 'woo and over-hype' associated with this ambiguous theory. Speaking again, strictly from a mathematical viewpoint, rather than any scientifically irrelevant philosophical (yet at times valid) perspective. Further, this is not to discourage its research which produces some exceptional results, such as monstrous moonshine, but to frame its context correctly as to which direction should be aspired. String theory and its generalized M-theory, are indeed largely untestable and therefore mostly unscientific, furthermore they do not present an integrated mathematical framework of field equations or action principles (which are even further often conflicting), yet as any (semi) pure mathematics are valid for the sake of their own study. Now for a wiki entry this is a difficult thing to cite; that it is lacking citations... But this perspective is essential to understand where the leading theoretical framework of the universe is not leading. 13:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * About this point, which is not meant as a devaluation or even critique of string theory, but simply a statement of its facts. A subsection of 'criticism' so named seems essential to exhibit this perspective to both specialist and lay readers. To be put briefly (outside of falsifiability and pseudoscience arguments): string theory as yet provides no experimentally practicable methods of exact testing, which do not require nigh-impossible energy regimes; neither to exemplify proof nor disproof of its results. furthermore its mathematical framework is thus far not provable, and does not present contiguous field equations, equations of motion, or action principles, applicable for each of its many theories. Here appropriate citations can be added from professionals stating as much; of which there is indeed a small amount. Although, its mathematical value as a pure theoretical research is invaluable; in constructing tools and abstractions for physical principles. The landscape of this formalism seems not yet constructible in reality; thusly unscientific insofar as the scientific method is experimentation. Yet most scientific, in regard to its exact and analytical mathematics. 12:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Witten
The name Witten is mentioned without further reference that I can see (e.g. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten) Ottho1943 (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Brevity and clarity
Do all versions of string theory require extra dimensions?

If so, can the sentence "One notable feature of string theories is that these theories require extra dimensions of spacetime for their mathematical consistency.” be changed to “String theories require extra dimensions of spacetime for their mathematical consistency.” Robertwhyteus (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes — they need 6 or 7 of them to ensure that impossible interactions have zero probability. I have changed the sentence as suggested for brevity and smooth transition. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 05:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2022
Change "In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which" to "In physics, string theory is a hypothetical framework in which" 2600:1702:3200:7720:617B:1F46:3C6A:DCAA (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No reason to change, esp. when linked article is mathematical theory. —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2022
put "and pseudoscientific" after "theoretical" and before "framework" CrocoDIilios (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. You'd have to find multiple reliable sources for that idea, and then create content about it in the body of the article. Only then could such mention in the lead be considered. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

First and Second Revolution? What was overthrown? Who was anointed to coin these exaggerations?
I think the labeling of these two "Revolutions" is hyperbolic and not properly supported, except by some obscure paper by "Rickles". Is that Don? Very little in this article concretely supports any important contributions by string theory. Perhaps it is useful for some math, but that is because it is purely a mathematical theory, not based no physical evidence. I also find the "compaction" example here of the 1-D garden hose to be overly simplistic. The idea is that extra dimensions disappear and become unmeasurable. The x dimension doesn't disappear. I can see it clearly in the picture. The hose is just narrower in that dimension and perhaps our gauge to measure it (pixels) is not statistically capable. That doesn't make that dimension "go away" in space. I think that String Theory is dying out yet this article pretends it is still a very important line of research because it could "potentially" lead to a theory of everything. The use of that weasel word "potentially" is telling. Maybe it's just me that thinks this. 76.93.48.190 (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This article lends credibility to a theory that has exactly zero empirical or experimental evidence to support it. It should at least mention that fact, that it is purely theoretical, with no physical scientific evidence whatsoever behind it. 67.4.71.16 (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The usage of "revolutions" is a pretty standard term utilized in the history of string theory to refer to the two developments. Dean Rickles is a well established historian of modern physics, so he is a very reputable source. For more work by him, see his book "A Brief History of String Theory".
 * The article literally goes into some details on the important contributions that string theory made. Just one example, AdS/CFT correspondance has had a massive impact on research in theoretical physics over the last two decades; the original paper by Maldacena has had almost 20,000 citations. It is also pretty much the only theory of quantum gravity we have, so is an invaluable theory for the study of this. You also clearly do not understand the concept of compactification.
 * String theory is a very active area of research, so it is not dying out. Just a cursory glance at papers published in theoretical physics every day (say on arXiv [hep-th]) shows this.
 * As for the second reply; string theory does not claim to have acquired any experimental evidence. Hence why literally the first line refers to it as a "theoretical framework". OpenScience709 (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Dead Link
Under the Websites section of External Links, the URL for "Why String Theory", whystringtheory.com, is no longer functional, it redirects to a spam site, navypilotsecrets.com. 24.128.41.222 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * “whystringtheory.com” appears to have been active at least in August 2023 but it has apparently been hacked. Looks like a good non-technical introduction to string theory; hopefully it will be restored. Tachyon (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)