Talk:String theory: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:52, 21 April 2005 editSteuard (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users537 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:31, 25 October 2024 edit undoHiguyswhatop (talk \| contribs)1 editNo edit summary
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	It seems likely that observable phenomena will be emergent ones from the complex interactions of strings in any real-world scenario. Presumably string theorists are using chaos theory and computer simulation to deduce these emergent phenomena? I can't imagine that anyone expects to find a nice analytical solution that manifests itself in the observable universe when, at quantum scales, virtually every observable thing is an incredibly complex system.
			{{Talk header}}
	----
			{{controversial}}
	Has anyone explored the relationship between string theory and the Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics? Both involve the representation of particles as standing waves in n-space (although I agree that the TI much simpler). The TI states that it is the interference of advance & retarded waves that creates these standing waves. This seems to elegantly resolve every quantum paradox, while at the same time making use of a previously disregarded solution to Maxwell's equations. Does string theory still disregard waves that propagate backwards in time...?
			{{Article history
	----
			\|action1=GAN
			\|action1date=17:15, 10 December 2005
			\|action1result=listed
			\|action1oldid=30834342

			\|action2=GAR
	The article says '..measure distance between two points.. rotate that observer'- are we talking about rotating the observer about its own central axis, or rotating it about some third axis? This is confusing ] 07:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
			\|action2date=June 8, 2009
			\|action2result=Delisted
			\|action2oldid=295108747
			\|action2link=Talk:String theory/GA1
			\|currentstatus=DGA
			\|topic=Natsci
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Physics\|importance=top}}
			{{WikiProject Astronomy\|cosmology=yes\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Mathematics\|priority=Mid}}
			}}
			{{annual readership\|scale=log}}
			{{Archive box\|search=yes \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=3 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 6
			\|minthreadsleft = 5
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\|archive = Talk:String theory/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
			}}

			== Explanations ==
	The article says that in string theory, spacetime has either 10, 11 or 26 dimensions. But http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic5a.html says:
			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" ==
	That sounds crazy -- because bosonic strings live in 26 dimensions but supersymmetric string theories live in 10 dimensions. But '''the extra 16 dimensions of the bosonic side of the theory aren't really spacetime dimensions'''. Heterotic string theories are supersymmetric string theories living in ten spacetime dimensions.
			It's more scientifically accurate ] (]) 20:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

			Agreed. Please rename. ] (]) 13:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
	:I believe that the quote you've given comes specifically from a discussion of "heterotic" string theories. They are called "heterotic" because left-moving and right-moving excitations (think of them as waves moving around the closed string) look very different. The left-movers look like excitations of the bosonic string and the right-movers look like excitations of the supersymmetric string. That's the context of the statement you quoted above. (For the record, the comment about 11 dimensions refers to ].) -- ] 02:21, 26 Mar 2004 (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. ] (]) 16:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
	----
			::Thanks for this explanation, as this is always a point of contention and contemplation..
	Shouldn't the title be ]? Or am I mistaken for something else? -- ]
			::Just to make this space more accessible to nubies, can you point to the source on this varried interpretation of "theory"?
			::thanks
			::] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

			== Any connection to matter waves? ==
	:Google would suggest not - 211,000 hits for "string theory" and 5,860 for "string field theory". I've never heard it called string field theory. ] 20:03, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
			I am curious whether in any sense there is a connection here to ]. That page is being reconstructed, so some link/connection (if it exists) could be added. Whether that is appropriate, or anything else in higher-level QM is far beyond my expertise. Please let me know, better with text to include. ] (]) 16:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

			:This is a late reply but I think it's a good question to be answered. The answer is, fundamentally, no; string theory most prominently affects physics at the string scale, which is the scale at which particles stop being zero-dimensional quantum objects and start being eleven-dimensional "strings". Matter waves technically still exist at the string scale but the string scale is so much smaller than even ordinary quantum mechanical scales that matter waves as we know them aren't significantly affected by the truth or falsity of string theory. ] (]) 13:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
	::String field theory is an alternative formalism for string theory. It's ultimately the same thing. ] Jan 29, 2004 (AEST)

			== This article unrealistically hides string theory weakness ==
	----
			String theory is not a theory but a theory that a theory could exit. There is no string theory. That is what Voit means by "Not even wrong." There are 10^500 string theories. 40 years of work have gotten physics no closer to finding the right one.
	I have a question concerning this theory. The idea of 10, 11 or 26 dimensions, or evens strings themselves, doesn't seem very elegant. So, can we say there are no strings or 11 etc. dimensions, but it is our only way to describe the world as it is? (Because the mind is unable to understand it in another way than "string" or "dimension"?) E.g. there are no Calabi-Yau-Spaces, but we can describe the thing that is as if there where Calabi-Yau-Spaces? So: reality stays beautiful, because it is our mind that is not capable enough to think of a real elegant theory. I like this more than saying "there are 11 dimensions". ] 14:19, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

			Five different string theories can be combined in any ratio to each other to form the resulting string theory. This allows for 10^500 or an infinite number of string theories. After 40 years of trying, they have no possible way of telling which one is correct. It is often remarked that string theory gives no testable results. String theory is not testable because there is no theory but 10^500 candidate theories and no one can do that many calculations or that many experiments.
	:On the one hand, one way of doing physics is not to bother asking wether Nature ''really'' behaves the way your model says as long as it gives the right answer to experiments. This is mainly due to Quantum Mechanics where people stopped asking wether particles ''really'' travelled along two different paths at the same time as long as the probabilities they got where the good ones. Your position is thus perfectly acceptable form this point of view. But on the other hand you should accept the idea that Nature is not reducible to what our senses tell us. For example can you find an absolute reason why spacetime should be 4 dimensional ? All you can say is that at your (low-energy) scale, Nature ''seems'' to be 4 dimensional, right. But you cannot infer the answer, say, just after the Big Bang. There's no reason why the dimensionality of spacetime should be an absolute concept. So you can distinguish between Nature and our different representations of it but Nature still could change considerably with the scale. Stating the contrary would be a bit anthropocentristic :) LeYaYa 8 Feb 2004

			Leonard Susskind illustrates string theory failure in his own creative way. An avid string theory supporter, Susskind introduces the landscape, multiple universes and the anthropic principle. The landscape is the collection of 10^500 possible string theories. Each of the 10^500 theories is true in its own universe. The anthropic principle uses human existence as the only way to tell which theory is true in our universe. Nothing proves string theory wrong more than Susskind's abandonment of the scientific method.
	:: I am glad that - after some months - somebody has answered my question! I would like to point out that my intention was not to reduce nature / the reality to a level that I can understand it. That indeed would be anthropocentric. I wanted to express the regrettable status of my mind, which ist not able to think at the same time in 11 dimensions and call it beautiful or elegant.
	::Reading the popular articles on string theory, I have the impression that they talk about strings as existing objects, that the average reader must come to the conclusion that the universe consists of some sort of very small spaghetti, only to small to see them. hhc2 6. march 04

			Physics get null results all the time. Nothing is catastrophic about theory failure. But string theory completely dominates theoretical physics. Edward Witten, the god of physics, and 20 of the 22 top Princeton's top theoretical physics are string theorists (Voit). Mikio Kaku says it took 2000 years to prove Democratus right. String theory is firmly on track to be proven correct in 2000 years. String theory steadily goes on despite its clear failure.
	== Fixed article a bit ==

			This wikipedia string theory article is highly misleading by obscuring string theory weaknesses. ] (]) 15:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
	I don't have the time nor the energy to write a long essay, but I fixed a lot misconceptions and ouright errors in the original page.

			:So what? Misplaced Pages cannot reform major universities. It's not our business telling them they're wrong. ] (]) 16:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
	----------
			:There is an entire section on "Criticism". The title is String Theory because that's what the framework is called. ] (]) 10:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
			:I agree with the points made, and would even argue that mention of this should be included in the lead section of the article. ] (]) 13:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

			== add mention of criticism to summary paragraph ==
	A link or quick defininition for the term "perturbative" in this context would be helpful for the layman.
			the summary/intro section should contain at least one sentence alluding to the fact that string theory has recieved criticism ] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
	Although the general structure of this article is quite good, I think we should word it more carefully. All the arguments given are mathematical (and valid), but in physics it is important to tie them in with '''experiments'''. Or at least clearly show their "speculative character." Here, it sounds like string theory is already a given fact... ] 01:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

			:]. The problem is that ] is not cosistent with ]. This is why most physicists believe that a quantum theory of gravity is needed. –] (]]) 21:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
	I like that added "hint" about missing tests. Much better now ], right? ] 19:04, 8 Apr 2004 (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 ] (]) 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. –] (]]) 15:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
	== Two questions and clarifications ==
			::::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? ] (]) 18:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

	I'm new at this, and a little confused, but intrigued. The article says, "string theories are able to avoid problems associated with the presence of pointlike particles in a physical theory. Detailed study of string theories has revealed that they contain not just strings but other objects, variously including points, membranes, and higher-dimensional objects."

	Can anyone explain to me what sort of problems string theories are able to avoid?

	Also, how is it possible that each string "contains" other objects? I thought the whole point of a string theory is that the strings are the smallest, indivisible building blocks (as opposed to conventional physical models, which hold that the smallest building blocks are three-dimensional)?

	I'd love to understand this better.

	--] 03:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

	:One of the most obvious (to physicists) problems has to do with the infinities that show up when you try to describe a point charge. With a finite amount of electric charge concentrated at a single infinitely small point, the electric field at that point is infinitely large. If the same charge is instead distributed continuously along a string, no infinitely small point along the string has a non-zero charge, so the problem goes away. (The actual calculations used in string theory are rarely this straightforward, but I think the principle is pretty much the same.)

	:As for your second question, that's just an unclear phrase in the article (embarassingly, I think I wrote it). The strings don't contain other objects, the theories do. I've just changed the word "contain" to "describe", which should make the meaning much clearer.--] 22:21, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)


	----
	I don't know about other people's hoses, but my garden hose has 3 dimensions, one more than this article seems to indicate. Is it some kind of gateway to another universe perhaps? Is it leaking into another brane like gravitons supposedly do? ] 04:46, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

	== Image ==

	Is anyone able either to obtain royalty-free string images like those cool ones on that nova documentary, or render something? That'd add to the article.
	]] 04:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

	== "String theory, as with any current theory of quantum gravity, is unverifiable, and therefore it is also unfalsifiable." ==

	GAHHH!!! I just had a two hour argument with my agnostic friend (I am an atheist) about this.

	Just because an idea is created does not make it unfalsifiable! Theists always use this argument and it is flawed. It is the exact point of the ]--that becuase it is created, you can not disprove it, even though we all know she is a falsehood (blessed be her holy hooves). It's because the moment an idea is created, and you vehemently defend it, people say it can not be disproven.

	By this token, ] exists, because I say so, and therefore, it is unfalsifiable.

	] 20:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

	By Rob: JUST because the grasp of the human mind cannot process a consept and theory so complicated, doesn't make it untrue!, But what we perceve is what we belive.

	==Superstring theory==
	Shouldn't this article be titled "Superstring theory"? The phrase "string theory" is a popular shortening of the original term. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 02:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

	== what about the philosophy of a sphere? ==

	we know , a mathematical back ground concerning the origin of any sphere is a bit complex too ,a sphere is that it has no start and no end ,. absolutely we can find the end of a sphere it is a preety simple question ; but are our minds are ready enough to find the origin of any sphere.
	if we say a point matter then also that same is too a sphere , if we say a differential of a space then the ouestion is redirected to the constant k of our space time concept.
	here word sphere ,i mean to say any originating ball or a body , a potential field, uniform lump matter of same constituent originating in space time co-ordinates .
	what ever we do , how hard we try , my above question is a question to all explorers of fundamental science, including me.
	:i think , as per mathematics says, we can only talk about matter formation or the meta physics, if and only if the above puzzle is cracked through mathematics , hence getting nearer and nearer to the truth . this will certainly risk free the possibility of any wrong truth/ model of any prediction what ever we make towards universe.


	further questions; connect: e2t_solar@rediffmail.com


	do you have a problem : i too is having a part of problem

	let us solve together (unsigned I prabhat)

	----
	I say improving the article will make masses happier. --] ] ] 15:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

	== Trouble with this article ==

	I think this article is very biased.

	"As of 2005, string theory is unverifiable. It is by no means the only theory currently being developed which suffers from this difficulty; any new development can pass through a stage of unverifiability before it becomes conclusively accepted or rejected. As Richard Feynman noted in The Character of Physical Law, the key test of a scientific theory is whether its consequences agree with the measurements we take in experiments. It does not matter who invented the theory, "what his name is", or even how aesthetically appealing the theory may be—"if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."

	String theory's perdiction of cosmological constant is wrong. (55 orders of magnitude)

	In fact, some would argue string theory is not even a theory given that even if the amazing particle accelerators which would supposedly show evidence of the smaller dimensions could be built, string theorists still don't predictions on what exactly would be seen.

	Please see http://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Ewoit/strings.pdf

	==Question about time==

	Time is not a dimension, right? Right?
	Can somebody please explain, when I search information some sites tell me that time is the fourth dimension and some tell that it's not a dimension. Is it a matter of opinion until we understand a little more about how the world works?

	:It is the perspective of essentially all theoretical physics since Einstein that time <em>is</em> a dimension. However, you should probably find an actual discussion forum if you want a more complete explanation (perhaps you could try the ] group "sci.physics", which you can access through ); this page is only intended for discussion of how to improve the content of the article on ].--] 20:52, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:31, 25 October 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the String theory article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

String theory was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 10, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
June 8, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics Top‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Astronomy: Cosmology Mid‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Cosmology task force.

Mathematics Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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)

Any connection to matter waves?

I am curious whether in any sense there is a connection here to matter waves. That page is being reconstructed, so some link/connection (if it exists) could be added. Whether that is appropriate, or anything else in higher-level QM is far beyond my expertise. Please let me know, better with text to include. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a late reply but I think it's a good question to be answered. The answer is, fundamentally, no; string theory most prominently affects physics at the string scale, which is the scale at which particles stop being zero-dimensional quantum objects and start being eleven-dimensional "strings". Matter waves technically still exist at the string scale but the string scale is so much smaller than even ordinary quantum mechanical scales that matter waves as we know them aren't significantly affected by the truth or falsity of string theory. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This article unrealistically hides string theory weakness

String theory is not a theory but a theory that a theory could exit. There is no string theory. That is what Voit means by "Not even wrong." There are 10^500 string theories. 40 years of work have gotten physics no closer to finding the right one.

Five different string theories can be combined in any ratio to each other to form the resulting string theory. This allows for 10^500 or an infinite number of string theories. After 40 years of trying, they have no possible way of telling which one is correct. It is often remarked that string theory gives no testable results. String theory is not testable because there is no theory but 10^500 candidate theories and no one can do that many calculations or that many experiments.

Leonard Susskind illustrates string theory failure in his own creative way. An avid string theory supporter, Susskind introduces the landscape, multiple universes and the anthropic principle. The landscape is the collection of 10^500 possible string theories. Each of the 10^500 theories is true in its own universe. The anthropic principle uses human existence as the only way to tell which theory is true in our universe. Nothing proves string theory wrong more than Susskind's abandonment of the scientific method.

Physics get null results all the time. Nothing is catastrophic about theory failure. But string theory completely dominates theoretical physics. Edward Witten, the god of physics, and 20 of the 22 top Princeton's top theoretical physics are string theorists (Voit). Mikio Kaku says it took 2000 years to prove Democratus right. String theory is firmly on track to be proven correct in 2000 years. String theory steadily goes on despite its clear failure.

This wikipedia string theory article is highly misleading by obscuring string theory weaknesses. 108.51.46.105 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

So what? Misplaced Pages cannot reform major universities. It's not our business telling them they're wrong. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There is an entire section on "Criticism". The title is String Theory because that's what the framework is called. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the points made, and would even argue that mention of this should be included in the lead section of the article. JackTheSecond (talk) 13:09, 9 February 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 (d c̄) 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. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 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)

Categories: