Talk:History of string theory

message: 2003 is (at the time of writing) 20 years ago, and there's hardly any narrative there at all. Is this field something mostly relegated to the 20th century now, in terms of historical landmarks? Significant 21st century developments should also be a legitimate topic for this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.226.169 (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the rest of the history?

message: The origin tells only why string theory was created. What where the methods drawn from to do so? Hyacinth 05:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: String theory: built from

message: what should that be????? --Philtime (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  has an exponentially large number 

message: When was it realised that string theory was finite?  Did this predate the first string theory revolution? --Michael C. Price talk 19:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Finite at all orders

message: This article needs a fuller introduction of the context, such as early 20th-century work by Einstein and Theodor Kaluza, as presented in the History section of the main string theory article.  See also this TED talk by Brian Greene. I'm not up to the task. Earthlyreason (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs strengthening early on

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku#Academic_career
Considering that, should he maybe be mentioned in the block spanning 1974?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.99.150.34 (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, I always wondered what Kaku's credentials were.  While he's clearly published a lot, nothing there jumps out at me as the same level of notability as what is being presented in the article.  Was there something in particular you felt was notable and missing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.254.117 (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Michio Kaku

message: Shouldn't this page include at least some mention of the controversy surrounding certain aspects of string theory?
If it's notable, and relevant to the history.  If it has no historical component, then it would be more appropriate for the string theory article itself.
:Physics is always controversial, always has been, hundreds of years. The "string controversy" is, from what I can tell, a modern creation that is the result of newspaper journalists looking for something juicy to report on, plus social media/ algorithmic amplification, kind of like arguing about sports teams. That, plus funding for any kind of theoretical academic study has gotten difficult over the last 3 decades, plus the web now gives voice to anyone unhappy about anything. Young men in the Victorian era turned down for university teaching appointments knew better than to spread their bile into letters to the editor. Dying of consumption seemed easier. See, for example, the life of Georg Cantor. If someone has written a book on "string controversy", then OK, sure. But I doubt there is such a book. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Article isn't really clear on when extra dimensions were added and why.  Was it part of the original string formulation? Was it added with SUSY or before?  Yeah.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.254.117 (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Naive strings are not relativisticly covariant in 4D, i.e. don't transform correctly under the Poincare group. Need d=26 for this to work out, and d=10 for the fermionic strings.it's not so much that it was "added because we need it", but rather, "the desirable property of relativistic invariance under the Poincare group is absent in 4D" Supersymmetry came from a different direction and was already a fully developed theory that had nothing at all to do with strings (at first). 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra dimensions

message: Should that not be mentioned ?  cheers, Michael C. Price talk 01:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-theory 

message: So did string theory just get more or less dropped after 2003? Is that it? - David Gerard (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Its says "2003-present". It is alive and well. The current focus is on something called the (string) swampland. Too new to have an article, I guess. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  2003