String theory is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see String theory at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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.
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)
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.
Superstring Theory 10-Dimensions and Supergravity Theory 11-Dimensions
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)
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 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)