Talk:String theory

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)

No, not by spacetime, but they can be described geometrically too; instead of the curvature of spacetime, it’d be the curvature of gauge fields. All four forces can be described this way, but things still fail when you have to deal with how quantum mechanics works near/inside black holes. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03 97.85.68.104 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I can't figure out what you're pinging about. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Feynman diagrams don’t depict the paths on point-like particles.

”perturbative quantum field theory uses special diagrams called Feynman diagrams to organize computations. One imagines that these diagrams depict the paths of point-like particles and their interactions.”

This statement found in this page is false. One of the first things that students learn in their first introductory course in quantum field theory is to resist the temptation to interpret Feynman diagrams as depictions of the paths of particles in space / worldlines in spacetime. It needs to be removed / amended. See, for example, this discussion and countless others on stackexchange and standard physics textbooks Siupa (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

You need a more reliable source for this claim, and it belongs first at Feynman diagram, not here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I mean, if the statement is false and its being made in this article, then it is a discussion that does belong here... As for the matter at hand, it is technically false yes, although it is sometimes a useful fiction. Feynman diagrams are merely calculational tools rather than literal paths of particles; a good way to view it is from the path integral perspective where the physics is a weighted sum of all possible paths. Likewise the actual process is a weighted sum of all possible diagrams which also in a way represent the paths so its really the same thing, as it should be.

Hence, the statement should be amended to for example "perturbative quantum field theory uses special diagrams called Feynman diagrams to organize computations. These can to be viewed as describing paths of point-like particles and their interactions, although the actual physical process is a sum of all Feynman diagrams and so the diagrams themelves do not literally depict how the particles behave." Or something more eloquent. OpenScience709 (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Organic Chemistry I

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2025 and 19 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hhebah 13 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rboyer24.

— Assignment last updated by Rboyer24 (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

String theory is not an Organic Chemistry topic... and certainly doesnt fall into the category of introductions to "fundamental principles of organic chemistry"... OpenScience709 (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

What's happened since the '00s?

There is a quarter-century-wide chasm in the "History" section. Surely something worthy of mention has happened this millennium. 2603:8001:D300:342F:2B12:48A4:6D17:5FB5 (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll tell you what happened: the coupling of the three forces did not go as planned.

So, yes, string theory is falsifiable, and that actually happened. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Plenty of stuff happened. Continual work in holography, attempts at construction of dS vacua (KKLT, LVS), swampland program, etc, along with other stuff in other parts of string theory research I know far less about. Someone just has to sit down and write the update. OpenScience709 (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

For what I mean see Lincoln, Don (2009). The Quantum Frontier: The Large Hadron Collider. JHU Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-8018-9644-6. Retrieved 26 October 2025.

But this paper denies that SUSY has been debunked: Constantin, L.; Kraml, S.; Mahmoudi, F. (2025). "The LHC has ruled out supersymmetry – really?". Nuclear Physics B. 1018: 117012. doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2025.117012.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link) tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Supersymmetry has obviously not been ruled out (and string theory definitely hasn't). Only low scale supersymmetry (at scales accessable to the LHC). There is nothing ruling it out at higher energies. OpenScience709 (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Someone keep on deleting

someone keep on deleting the comments about compability of string theory and relativity. ~2025-31858-06 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that it is unsourced. You need a reliable source that backs your claims, and it belongs in the "Criticism" subsection under a new header. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, the assertion that extra dimensions are incompatible with relativity is false. Higher-dimensional Einstein gravity is consistent in principle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

All the assertations in that comment are false. Higher dimensions are perfectly compatible with relativity. The unobservation of superpartners at current LHC scales has still no bearing on the viability of string theory. And finally string theory isn't "deeply doubted" by the scientific community. Its a perfectly valid field with thousands of researches across the world at top research institutions. So you're simply wrong. If you disagree, start by providing a citation. OpenScience709 (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)