Talk:Type I string theory

I'm not sure how to do this, otherwise I would try myself. But these articles on Type I, Type IIA, Type IIB etc. Superstring Theory should really be called "Superstring" Theory, and should redirect from "Superstring" Theory in the search. It's a little sloppy calling them XXX "String" Theory, since they are "Superstring" theories, and there is a great difference between the two classes (When people say "String Theory" they mean it as a general term for all classes of theories of dynamical objects greater that 0-branes, but this article is about a specific model). Saying "Type IIB Superstring Theory" for example doesn't really make sense, since the theory is built using supersymmetry and superstrings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.23.131.209 (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

the only open strings, really?
"...the only one which contains not only closed strings, but also open strings."

Then what are those things that attach to the D-branes in Type II theories??? 24.56.247.67 (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It is indeed true that type II string theories have open strings in a non-perturbative sense, but for type I they also appear perturbatively in flat 10d Lorentzian spacetime. This is because D-branes are non-perturbative objects so if we consider them in type II theory we are already in a nonperturbative regime. But for type I we can have open strings propagate on space-filling D9 branes in a perfectly perturbative way. OpenScience709 (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)