Talk:Dilaton: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Hep thinker (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{physics|class=start|importance=low}} |
{{physics|class=start|importance=low}} |
||
== Holy Crap! Layman's Explanations PLEASE == |
|||
You cannot write an article for an encyclopaedia and expect it to resemble something out of a graduate level text-book. Come on! The detail is good for those who understand it, but you have to explain it so people who never took a quantum mechanics course (I suspect a fairly LARGE percentage of the world) can get something from it, or remove it altogether. |
|||
== radion <math>\neq</math> dilaton == |
== radion <math>\neq</math> dilaton == |
||
Revision as of 13:42, 1 July 2009
.jpg){kind=small} | Physics Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Holy Crap! Layman's Explanations PLEASE
You cannot write an article for an encyclopaedia and expect it to resemble something out of a graduate level text-book. Come on! The detail is good for those who understand it, but you have to explain it so people who never took a quantum mechanics course (I suspect a fairly LARGE percentage of the world) can get something from it, or remove it altogether.
radion dilaton
The Kaluza-Klein section is incorrect. g55 describes the radion, not the dilaton. The dilaton is something else entirely. A dilaton is more like the Brans-Dicke scalar. Hep thinker (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have to admit in some cases, the dilaton can be the same as the radion in a dual theory. For instance, in heterotic string theory, the dilaton corresponds to the radion of the dual Hořava-Witten M-theory. Hep thinker (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
