Talk:String theory

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)

Explanations

It may be beneficial to readers to provide a brief explanation of other concepts that are used to describe string theory, including pointlike particles, rather than relying on the reader to obtain information from its respective link or an alternate source.

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)

@Tgeorgescu and Polytope24: 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 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)

 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)