 | Physics Template‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | This template (Template:String-theory) was considered for deletionon2 December 2005. The result of the discussion was "keep and prune". |
This template needs a total revamping, and since I know nothing of physics, someone that does should better organize it. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2
30 June 2005 00:02 (UTC)
Dimension 10,
The edit that you reverted was not vandalism but a serious attempt to simplify the template. You've done a good job reorganizing the template, but I think there are some problems with what you've done.
1. The quote that you included in the header is cute, but most readers are not going to understand who said it, why it's there, or what it means. Unless you have a good reason for including it, I would recommend simplifying the template by removing this quote.
2. The links in the template are more complicated than they need to be. When you refer to theories as "non-GSO-truncated superstring theories", you're just obfuscating.
3. The mathematics list is full of redundancy and unhelpful links. You provide separate links to Lie algebra and Kac-Moody algebra even though one is a special case of the other. Similarly, you provide separate links to differential geometry and exterior algebra. You act as if "matrix algebra" and "matrix calculus" are branches of mathematics when each of them is obviously just part of linear algebra. Most readers are going to want to see a list of broad areas that are prerequisites for learning string theory. It's not helpful to include links to very specific constructions like Clifford algebrasorLie-* algebras.
4. The list of theorists should be a concise list of the most prominant theorists. What you've given is a strange mixture of prominant and less prominant string theorists. You apparently think that Sylvester James Gates, Stanley Mandelstam, Lubos Motl, Ferdinando Gliozzi, Ryan Rohm are more prominant individuals than Andrew Strominger, Nathan Seiberg, and Gerard 't Hooft.
I welcome any suggestions you have. 208.46.240.4 (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How does string theory explain Maxwell's_Equations? and.. (If I can ask) ..When are we going to consider the change in the change of accelerations as a multiple three part differential, each with unique lines of "force" or then what was considered force? Besides that when are we going to understand the fact that dualities, respectfully, resolve nothing but our two dimensional experience of the maps that topologically are simple binary equations in the end? Bill Newbold (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
terms and all the "extra" terms, then you get the standard model. If you get rid of strong nuclear forces and the Higgs from there, you get electroweak theory. If you get rid of E - W unifiicationm, and then, get rid of the weak force, you get Quantum Electrodynamics. If you take that to the classical limit, you get the conservation law of the EM - tensor... If you expand that out, you get some long, long equations with a lot of coordinates and having something to do with electromagnetis,m. If you make it a bit coordinate - free - like, then, you get Maxwell's 4 equations. Dimension10 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
