User talk:Marpauly

Please restore dilaton material to Quantum Gravity
I don't wish to start a tug-of-war not start an argument. I see you transferred the dilaton material to the dilaton web-page because you thought the material was too specialized. I do agree that the dilaton section was perhaps too focussed on a particular though promising development - a development still in progress. If you just look at the wiki site for the Logarithmic Schrödinger equation, you find there is much in the world of superfluids and its possibilities. Given so many efforts by various people, your move might have been a bit cavalier. It's just that amongst other things, dilatons are common to String Theory, Loop Quantum gravity and various gravity theories. Whenever you hop up or down in n-dimensional theories and/or consider F(R) gravitation theories, you often need a dilaton. That makes it ubiquitous and thus as fundamental as the graviton. At the very least, if you even mention the graviton, you also need to mention the dilaton because the latter has a more likely possibility of being discovered. Given the dilaton's uncanny resemblance with the Higgs' boson, there are a number of papers trying to determine the energy range of the dilaton, some of which have ranges detectable by LHC. By comparison, experimental determination of the graviton case is hopeless. Finally, the dilaton material was actually the most optimistic part in the quantum gravity section. Given the negative LHC outcome ie. NO superpartners found for the whole considerable energy range they combed, supersymmetry is a bust and string theory is, after so many decades, finally declared a failure. Loop quantum gravity is the youngest and thus less criticized and its initial starting point: classical GRT with ADM is indeed vindicated, its spin-foam theory has a long way to go in computational development before you even can begin any kind of experimental vindication. If you refuse to restore the dilaton material, perhaps, we can reach a compromise? You leave the dilaton gravity stuff where you put it but you have a short "dilaton" section in the quantum gravity section point to a main article in the dilaton site. Would you agree to that?Kakorn8 (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would argue that while the Graviton already is part of general relativity, the dilaton is not, and hence I see the two on a separate footing. This is why I would prefer to only keep the Graviton section, not the Dilaton one, despite ongoing research efforts in this area. While I am not the biggest fan myself, I think calling string theory a failure also is a bit of a strong statement. For now I added a link to the Dilaton page in the See Also Section. In the mid-term I plan to extend the section regarding (possible) experimental tests a bit and might add a link to the dilaton there. Apart from that I would propose to shift this discussion to Talk:Quantum_gravity? Marpauly (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)