Talk:Supergravity

message: As this article has gotten long, it may be advisable to split the history part out into its own section, and put it under the cat :Category:History of physics. linas 04:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Really my hope is that, since Supergravity is such a big field, the article would eventually get split up into a category with each section as an article, in particular each SUGRA theory I think will eventually deserve it's own article.  Obviously this is a long way off, even the definitions of the various SUGRA theories have still yet to be included, and they are still each too small to become their own articles.  But I agree that the history section is already big enough to be split off.  But then since this article still has the all-encompassing title supergravity, I guess it should still have a few sentences about history, although I don't think that I'd be a good person to write them.--JarahE 07:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of physics 

message: This article is confusing. It uses terms that are unfamiliar to the average person.
Estridaldrea 10:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are right. Why don't you physicists make a "Supergravity for dummies" - after all, guys like Hawking keep simplifying the terminology rather well, so maybe that's a way? This is an encyclopedia, it wants to EXPLAIN the topic to people WHO DO NOT KNOW THE DETAILS already! --FlammingoHey 17:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  huh? 

message: Why is there so much detail on higher dimensional SUGRA (in 11, 10, and 9 dimensions) and none at all on 4D SUGRA? Hep thinker (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there nothing on 4D SUGRA? 

message: "Together, these imply that, in supergravity, the supersymmetry is a local symmetry (in contrast to non-gravitational supersymmetric theories, such as the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM))."
As opposed to what?  Does the MSSM predict a non-local symmetry, a global symmetry, no symmetry?  Is local supersymmetry a unique prediction?  Why is it important?  Did I mention that I can't stand most parenthetical statements?  If it's worth saying, say it!  If it's a distraction, don't bother bringing it up and confusing people unnecessarily.  70.247.169.197 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As opposed to global supersymmetry. One could get technical and mention that any theory that incorporates local supersymmetry necessarily incorporates gravity. A related statement that for any supersymmetric theory that includes gravity, the supersymmetry must be realized locally. 2A02:2C40:400:B000:0:0:1:8729 (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  As opposed to what? 

message: The following is moved here because it is a claim that has gone uncited for a very long time: 
Recommend it stay out of the article until a verifiable source can be found and included with it. – Paine (Climax!)  04:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from first section 

message: In its simplest terms... 3D s + 1D t = 4D st (Einstein's relativity), 3D rs + 1D t + 7D hs = 11D st (supergravity theory), 
3D rs + 7D hs + 7a rt + 4a ht = 21D/a st (Watson's Unified Strings [U21 S19] Theory)...(D: dimension, s: space, t: time, st: spacetime, rs: regular space, hs: hyperspace, a: aspects, rt: regular time, ht: hypertime). Note: 'hyperspace' is often referred to as "higher dimensions". - Ben Franklin 71.206.87.9 (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  3D rs + 1D t + 7D hs = 11D st 

message: The section 4D_N_=_1_SUGRA is written in the tone of a lecture, with frequent use of "We have" and "We will", etc.  This is in contrast to the rest of the article, and seems non-encyclopedic to me, and needs to be updated to remove the usage of the first-person pronoun ("we"). Harris7 (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  4D_N_=_1_SUGRA section written as a first-person lecture