Talk:String theory

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.

Title should be "String hypothesis"

It's more scientifically accurate 64.32.102.24 (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Please rename. 2001:9E8:460D:A500:55E7:84B9:AB8:4A71 (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah no. Theory in this context refers to "framework", not "scientific theory". This is pretty standard and the usage of "theory" to refer to a "framework" is also widespread across science. OpenScience709 (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this explanation, as this is always a point of contention and contemplation..

Just to make this space more accessible to nubies, can you point to the source on this varried interpretation of "theory"?

thanks

Kaveinthran (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

A varied interpretation of the word 'theory' does not help. Ambiguity in scientific language should be avoided, as this scenario would never have arisen. Theoretical knowledge is (by one definition) the explanation of other experiences, and in science this means rigorously tested hypotheses. "Framework" could also be called 'prediction', and is nearly always based on hypothesis. 38.134.123.209 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

add mention of criticism to summary paragraph

the summary/intro section should contain at least one sentence alluding to the fact that string theory has recieved criticism TomJB1 (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Why must everything be particle-based?

I don't understand any of the mathematics behind string theory, so I don't know the situation. So from my point of view, I don't get why people are trying to assign gravity to its own particle. Why can't gravity just be the curvature of spacetime around massive objects, and leave it at that? Particles follow spacetime. Said spacetime is being curved because of a massive object. Why must gravity be assigned its own particle? And, if it is, what is it doing with those particles to cause you to fall? Is it throwing them at you? I mean, I know any classical way I try to think of particles will be dead wrong, so probably not. But you get the point. I don't understand why people need the graviton there is an other concept called cosmic essence concept which includes sayoing there is no one dimension but there is a unknown undfineable existing matrix which makes up the one dimensional string. Tickbeat (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Wave–particle duality. The problem is that general relativity is not cosistent with quantum mechanics. This is why most physicists believe that a quantum theory of gravity is needed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

These are the words I hear all the time, and they provide next to no information on why we need the graviton. If you either don't know the technical details of why, or you don't think I can handle it, then I guess just read it and move on :P Tickbeat (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I had to do a little research and came across this article about such a theory and the technical problems encountered in combining quantum mechanics with classical gravity without invoking a graviton. [1] –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I have always found it intriguing (and somewhat irritating) that quantum mechanics was developed as a particle (excitation) and force (field) theory, while Einstein et al. used a space-time approach to explain gravity alone. Could the three other forces (electromagnetism, weak and strong forces) be explained by space-time properties? 38.134.123.209 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

String is not a dictionary; it has single language. We can separate it on life code, and frozen code to prove. 62.181.56.1 (talk) 10:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Dyson's view of String Theory.

I added paragraph on Dyson's view of String theory as arising to address issues in QFT. Is there any reason to think his view is incorrect? Or that I mis-paraphrased it? @OpenScience709 Johnjbarton (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! If that is Dyson's view then as far as I know its not an accurate view?

• "String theory arose as a response to mathematical limitations in standard quantum field theory.": That is not why string theory arose. It arose from work trying to understand dual resonance models with the work of Ramond, Schwartz and Neveu. They were not trying to tackle limitations of QFT, at least not in the sense that the sentence seems to imply (ie the rigorous mathematical formulation issues of QFT).
• "Field theory predicts physical phenomena with amazing accuracy but its mathematical underpinning are inconsistent and mysterious.": The sentence doesn't sound very Wikipedia-esque with the emotive language of "amazing" and the usage of mysterious is also a bit iffy in that regard. The content is ok tho, but a bit irrelevant without the proceeding or following sentences.
• "String theory has many successes in pure mathematics, but its physical predictions are identical to standard field theory.": First part true, second part false. String theory is more than just field theory, hence they fundamentally have different predictions. There is not full field theoretic formulation of string theory, and so no field theory that for example predicts the theory to be 10 dimensional. More to the point, one only gets a field theory from string theory (10d supergravity theories I wrote the articles of) in a particular limit (small Regge slope and string coupling). But these are approximations, and so differ in their predictions (if only slightly). So no, the predictions are not identical.

Even from a perspective of trying to understand the mathematical shortcomings of QFT, string theory doesnt solve those... Both are based on a path integral formulation which suffers from mathematical ill-definedness. OpenScience709 (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Let me start by pointing out that I used two sources for the paragraph, which is 2 more than the entire section of the Early history in the article :-(.

• Why do you say Ramond, Schwartz and Neveu started it?
• Yeah, I agree about "amazing". Dyson says "brilliantly". No modifier would be better.
• "physical predictions are identical" is wrongish; I was trying to say that string theory makes no additional predictions that could verify it.

Here are Dyson words:

String theory is a new version of quantum field theory, exploring the mathematical foundations more deeply and entering a new world of multidimensional geometry. String theory also brings gravitation into the picture, and thereby unifies quantum field theory with general relativity. String theory has already led to important advances in pure mathematics. It has not yet led to any physical predictions that can be tested by experiment. We do not know whether string theory is a true description of nature.

The article claims in the Overview that string theory arose for unification. I think we agree that this not correct. I'm fine with other sourced ways to correct this point of view. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I read a bit of the intros for several histories of string theory and the story is quite complex. So I think adopting a historical point of view for the Overview unwise. But the current overview is off base in treating string theory as a solely an attack on the unification problem. That is a newsy myth, not an encyclopedic overview. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

So yeah, Dyson is not making the point you seemed to be making. It is not doing anything to try to fix the mathematical issues with QFT (unification of gravity is not an issues of the rigor of QFT, its a physics problem). And the statement that string theory hasn't made predictions that have been successfully tested is different from it having identical predictions. It predicts different stuff, just at very high energy scales that we have not yet probed. So my points still stand.

As to your question concerning the foundation; see RNS formalism. That is, they came up with the first string theory in 1971. Hence why they started it. Their work was only a few years later reinterpreted as a possible theory of nature in 1974 although again that was not the initial motivation, but was the driving motivation afterwards. So the overview is accurate in what string theory has been for the vast majority of its existence. The history section of the article delves into the actual origins so I think that that's fine. In the overview for example, the section starting with "The starting point of string theory..." is fine in the sense that its the conceptual starting point, not historical, which is clear from the context and is sufficient for an overview.

Like look, this article needs to be rewritten, like the vast majority of articles imo. But maybe not in the sense you think; it needs to be rewritten in a more comprehensive way to illustrate what string theory is today and what physicists do with it. Basically a more technical article, with an additional article being written for a more lay audience of the form "An introduction to string theory" in the same vain as there are similar introduction articles on GR, QFT, etc. But that is a completely different discussion. OpenScience709 (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I removed my addition as it does not solve the core issue of the section.

If your glass of strings is half full, then the predictions have not been tested. If not, then the predictions have no experimental consequences, making them moot. Maybe I did not phrase it well, but we have no evidence to support string theory at this time.

It's clear from the sources that the history is complex. The RNS work is just part of the story.

I agree that the section that starts "The starting point of string theory..." if fine and sufficient for an overview. What I think is off-base are the three paragraphs that preceded it.

The third of those paragraphs is

"String theory is a theoretical framework that attempts to address these questions."

IMO this should be more like

"String theory is the primary theoretical framework that attempts to address these questions."

I think these paragraphs should integrated with the content after the "starting point" paragraph. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Overview section is pop-science, not encyclopedic.

The current Overview section retreads the unification of forces story (like I think every Wikipedia article that mentions forces or gravity). An encyclopedic overview of string theory would outline its basic character first, its position within mathematical physics, its relationship to other tools, and its applications. The unification would be a dominant part of the last category. String theory is not equal to unification and vice versa. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

a string will look just like an ordinary particle

This unsourced claim is of course nonsense on several levels. What is an "ordinary particle"? What do particles "look like"? The overwhelming evidence in QM is that no local realism model is correct: particles are an effect that appears during interaction, not a cause. Even simpler, to "look" means to respond to light in a way that can visually perceived, which does not happen. Since the stringiness aspects are a level tinier, this phrase is even sillier.

Unfortunately fixing these kinds of statements is difficult because the mathematical concept of particles is central to models of QM. So presumably strings as the wiggly thing. It is difficult to explain in a sentence or two how particles can be both critical to models and not a concept of reality. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)