Talk:M-theory simplified

message: I don't think getting in to the practice of writing simplified entries for other articles is the right way to go. The original article should start with the basics clear enough so that people from non-science backgrounds should at least be able get the gist of it. Links to other pages with more detail should provide sufficient background for proper understanding. A lot of the text in here *has* been covered in other articles in just as basic language (eg. the description of the atom and subatomic particles in the second paragraph). Some of the text is written in basic lagnuage but does not seem to mean very much ("Equations for the higher dimensions... include the folding of space at sub-light and normal light speeds through time itself"). -- sodium
I did that and they chopped it out on the other article ! I wrote M-theory too. So this page is for people who may need to learn yet not have the background to understand. This is a wonderful writeup for me here because it shows I understand the subject enough to explain to a non-scientific person or even a child. BF
I agree that the original M-theory article is not easy enough to understand for non-scientists (including for a lot of it me). A lot of the terms, eg parity, are not explained (though this could be done through links). The article also needs a summary in laymans terms. But this should all be done *in* the entry, I can't think why they (who?) would chop an introduction for the unscientrific person. -- sodium
I was one of the people responsible for chopping BF's simplified introduction to the M-theory article. The reason was that explaining basic physics concepts such as the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics does not belong in an article about M-theory. The basics belong in other articles, about those concepts, and the M-theory article should link to them, but not attempt to explain those concepts itself. Otherwise, we'd be beginning every single article on physics with pages of rehash of basic physics, rather than dealing with the article's real content.
Also, while I agree with trying to simplify things for people, I do not think we should do so at the cost of accuracy. That is exactly what BF's current simplification does. -- SJK
We already have articles about quantum theory/relativity, even if someone was coming to M-theory for the first time they would be able to read these off-page so yes they shouldn't be on the M-theory page. However the non-technical basics of M-theory *should* be on the M-theory page. 
My point is just that any attempt at a basic explanation should be on the its topic page. If this text is not suitable for explaining M-theory on the M-theory page, why should it be any more suitable wherever you move it. Another reason for the text to be on its topic page is so that people who understand it and wrote the original text don't forget about trying to expain it to people who don't have the background. -- sodium
-----
I've added a non-technical introduction to M-theory on the main article.
In non-technical terms, M-theory represents an idea about how matter is constructed. String theory, superstring theory, and quantum mechanics explain things we cannot see, yet their existence can be inferred. Gravity is an invisible measurable force that we can sense. 
In school we may have learned about the atom having a proton(s) and neutron(s) in the center, called the nucleus, with electron(s) spinning about the nucleus. This is much like our solar system where the Sun is the nucleus and the Planets revolve around it at different distances. There are also smaller particles in and around the atomic nucleus called subatomic particles. These may exist for an extremely small moment in time, and then transmute into another subatomic particle, or other energy form. Examples are quarks, baryons, tachyons, neutrinos, and many others. 
One-dimensional strings, which are smaller than any subatomic particle are believed to exist inside atoms. Strings are lines that can be straight, curled and circular. Note well that these strings do not extend beyond their 1st dimension, and using advanced physics mathematics equations to explain all matter seen and unseeen scientists have proven existence of the 4th dimension and upwards to 26 !  Three dimensions explain mass or objects. But now we must step outside our world when we study Einstein's theories of Special Relativity and General Relativity and go to other dimensions , to 12 dimensions, or even more. 
The velocity of light in a vacuum  c = 3 x 108 meters per second  is assumed to be a constant in the Einsteinian equations. Equations for the higher dimensions involve imaginary numbers, and include the folding of space at sub-light and normal light speeds through time itself, known as space-time. 
The electrons and the subatomic particles travel at close to c , the speed of light. As we think "smaller" and travel inside the atom we could imagine a dot, or point, containing these invisible imaginary strings. They vibrate, in one sense of the word, to form all the other particles, subatomic particles and  co-exist with energies which make up atoms. M-theory sews the five superstring theory threads into one fabric. 
-----
I have huge difficulties with the simplified article since its very inaccurate in some places (i.e. electrons are NOT
planets around a nucleus, they do NOT travel close to c, talking about folding of space gives people the wrong mental model).  I think it's also has a bit condescending tone, and it has a lot of jargon which it doesn't quite explain.
----
Several people above have complained about this article, for good reasons. It is unintelligible at times, and simply wrong at others. I vote for merging with M-theory. AxelBoldt 22:28 Dec 15, 2002 (UTC)
----
I agree about this. Also, why are the elementary particles of atoms described here, when the simple link (that's already in place!) already points to the Atom article that describes it all perfectly fine. It seems like even if this article is designed to describe the M-theory, it ends up describing atoms unecessesarily much. Can't *any* chemical knowledge be assumed if we are to discuss subjects such as the M-theory? Couldn't this part:
In school we may have learned about the atom having a proton(s) and neutron(s) in the center, called the nucleus, with electron(s) spinning about the nucleus. This is much like our solar system where the Sun is the nucleus and the Planets revolve around it at different distances. There are also smaller particles in and around the atomic nucleus called subatomic particles. These may exist for an extremely small moment in time, and then transmute into another subatomic particle, or other energy form. Examples are quarks, baryons, tachyons, neutrinos, and many others.
One-dimensional strings, which are smaller than any subatomic particle, are believed to exist inside atoms.
... be changed to:
One-dimensional "strings", smaller than any subatomic particles, are believed to exist inside atoms.
I mean.. we already have lots of info in the subatomic particle article, and if you follow that one, more "easy to grasp" info in the atom article. If info about subatomic particles should be added, it should be added in the subatomic article IMHO. Also, this article currently gives tachyons as an example of a subatomic particle, even if I'm not sure it has been proven to exist...
To summarize: I'd like this article to be merged with the original one, and maybe also fixed to make better use of info in existing articles, instead of reinventing the wheel. Jugalator 14:31, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)