Talk:M-theory/Archive 1

message: This talk page is quite old.  I have partially sorted out the somewhat garbled history and re-ordered some of the undated entries.  Please add new material to the bottom of the page. --Blainster 00:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

message: On the article it talks about 11-dimensional spacetime.  Shouldn't this be a 12-dimensional spacetime with an eleven dimensional space?  I don't know very much about M-theory, but I'm pretty sure that in string theory and Kaluza-Klein models in general, you need an even dimensional spacetime in order to allow left-handed and right-handed spins.
Read this article. http://www.2think.org/t000104284.shtml . I'm not certain this helps. Will review my notes again. Remember I don't fully understand this, and to explain it is worse ! BF
Hmm, that says 11-D spacetime, and some further searching confirms it.  How very odd that that permits chiral asymmetry, but maybe some property of the 'branes allows it.  Hmm.  Sorry for the unwarranted questioning, and feel free to delete this conversation.
There's no simple answer since the superstring theories are constructed on top of the bosonic string theory, which is 26 dimensional. So for all I know, chirality is related to dimensionality. I am curious where you got the idea though. -- ark
11-D M-theory is non-chiral, because it is odd-dimensional.  However, it is possible to intruce chirality in compactifications down to lower dimensions, so this is not a problem. -ps
I am not a physicist or mathematician, but I just finished watching a special on strings via pbs broadcast here in the US that distinctly said 12 dimensions.....just a note, not an arguement.
:Hi, I think I can clear this up.  M-theory lives in an eleven-dimensional spacetime (ten spatial dimensions, one time). This is sometimes written "10+1 dimensions" to avoid just this kind of confusion.  Superstring theories all live in 9+1 dimensions, and the bosonic string lives in 25+1.  There are also proposals for another "unifying theory" called F-theory that lives in 11+1 dimensions, with one more spatial dimension than M-theory. Wesino 10:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  11d vs 12d 

message: This article is still poorly written (see my comments below); however, the article at  M-theory (simplified explanation) is actually good. I suggest that this "simplified explanation" replace the current article. What little information is present in the current article and not in the other article could possibly be merged in. Stuff like the "Strominger and Vafa D-brane quantum microstates" Star Trek technobabble could possibly be merged or, even better, made nice like in the "simplified" article (really, not much simplified, just clearer.)
If it stays as is, I might have a "moment of lucidity" and move the current article to "M-theory (obfuscated)" and move the simplified one to the current article. Loisel 04:31, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: When I first read the merge proposal I was skeptical.  But after looking at the two articles I think it's an excellent idea.  Almost the entire M-theory article is taken up by "Basics" and a section on what the "M" stands for.  In other words, the current article is a simplified account of M-theory.  It takes more knowledge (mostly of vocabulary) to be able to read the M-theory article, but the reader learns less.  The content of the present article is just more jargony than the "simplified" account but the content is pretty much the same. Wesino 10:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please merge 

message: In "The Theory":
"So when one studies string theory at low energies, it becomes difficult to see that strings are extended objects—they become effectively one-dimensional (points)."
One-dimensional objects are lines - they can be measured in one dimension, like a string.
Points have zero dimensions - they can't be measured. I believe this sentence was supposed to say that they become effectively zero-dimensional, but since I'm a little out of my league I'll let someone else correct the mistake. --nunocordeiro 20:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! --Blainster 22:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies / mistakes 

message: I am suprised at how there a longer passage for the possibility of what the "M" stands for than the background of the theory! The background did not have any metion of Witten, which there should be. After all, M theory was the byproduct of the second superstring revolution. M-theory should deserve better than this. The pointer outer 03:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's probably because 'what the "M" does or doesn't stand for' is all most people can comprehend about the theory ;) This article is in poor shape and should probably be merged with its "layman's fork" M-theory (simplified). -- Fropuff 03:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  suprised 

message: Notwithstanding the legitimate scientific controversy of M-theory and/or string theory, is there any evidence that some poser was deliberately inserting plausible garbage in the article?  if not, the hoax template should be removed. r b-j 03:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there a hoax template at the top of the article? 

message: Yes, it's debated. I know that. The problem is that the M-Theory Article (this one) differs from the String Theory's explanation. Quoted from the first guess on the "Naming Conventions..." part says:  When Witten named M-theory, he did not specify what the "M" stood for, presumably because he did not feel he had the right to name a theory which he had not been able to fully describe. According to Witten himself, "'M' stands for 'magic,' 'mystery' or 'membrane,' depending on your taste." Also suggested, has been 'matrix' (see below) and 'mother of all theories'. 
The String Theory article has this to say about Witten believes the "M" stands for: According to Witten himself, as quoted in the PBS documentary based on Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe, the "M" in M-theory stands for "magic, mystery, or matrix according to taste."
And the M-theory (simplified) version has the same thing as the String Theory article. Should I just assume that whoever wrote this article wasn't thinking? 
Yeah, they conflict. My question is: which one is correct?
Xgamer4 02:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The normal practice would be to use whichever one has a good reference - David Gerard 18:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "M" in "M-Theory" 

message: Some of the grammar struck me as clumsy and it was peppered with typos. As such, I did a copyedit for clarity. Since I know nothing about the theory itself, could someone please check I haven't inadvertently made it inaccurate? - David Gerard 18:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit, please check 

message: I think these would do:
Introduction (done)
Overview of Unification (some of this has already been done)
M-Theory and Extra Dimensions (needs work)
M-Theory and Membranes (needs work)
Cyclic Cosmology (Brief)
Gagueci 19:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: please help those are watching this article to do just that, by reverting your HUGE edit and using 5 different edits including summaries, so we can help make this article better. thnak you. --Procrastinating@talk2me 10:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub Sections 

message: There should be some inclusion of the concept of supersymmetry. Supersymmetry is a major compenent of M-Theory and explains sparticles, dark matter, etc. Even though this excluded the article is pretty good at introducing M-Theory.
:::Well...most of these sare of still spculative nature, even the whole the theory is dubbed by some to be unscientific...the dark matter supersymetry subject can and should be added with  great caution...there are still some contradictions in this theory..--Procrastinating@talk2me 10:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supersymmetry 

message: It's hard to tell where one error ends and another begins.
1. The discussion of "Spiritual speculations and analogies" has NO place in this article.
2. Many concepts are left unexplained, described only in vague terms or actually incorrect.
3. The analogy with electromagnetism in the opening paragraph is very poor.
The article is beyond repair.  Recommendation:  Delete it.  Let "M-theory (simplified)" stand in its place.
Albertod4 18:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a joke 

message: I've looked through the article a few times, and I'm getting increasingly disturbed by the fact that it's rife with factual errors and false statements, which are obscured by jargon which gives them a kind of false appearance of truth.  
A few samples,
* The business about building any space from circles (spoken about elsewhere on the talk page).  A ref would be nice here, but I'm not sure you could find a professional mathematician who would make that statement.  If you can, reference a textbook or journal article where they do.
* The heterotic SO(32) and heterotic E8×E8 string theories also reduce to Type IIA and Type IIB supergravity in the low-energy limit.  No, they don't.  They reduce to N=1 supergravity coupled to a super-Yang-Mills gauge theory.  IIA/B are N=2 supergravities without gauge fields.  This is made clear in any reasonable textbook on string theory -- such as Polchinski's String Theory, or Superstring Theory by Green, Schwarz, and Witten.
*  dimensional reduction [of M-theory] to a line segment yields the heterotic SO(32) string theory. Dimensional reduction on a line segment (known technically as a S1/Z2 orbifold) yields the E8 x E8 heterotic theory in ten dimensions, not the SO(32) one. A reference would be the Polchinski's textbook, or "Eleven Dimensional Supergravity on a Manifold with Boundary," by Petr Horava and Edward Witten (which can be found by searching the arXiv ) or even the figure in the M-theory (simplified) article (!!).
* The beginning of the "M-Theory and Membranes" section, the article suggests that the low-energy effective supergravity equations are "too weak" to reveal p-branes.  But they do!  The p-branes were discovered as black hole-type solutions to these supergravities.  Polchinski's insight was that these black hole solutions corresponded to an extended object in string theory -- the D-brane.  Again, this should be in Polchinski's book.  
This is in addition to a whole lot of garbled explanations of things, which many others on this talk page have noted.  
What worries me much more seriously though is that some of the statements made in the article don't sound garbled and have the appearance of truth, but are wrong.
Elsewhere on this page, there is a discussion going on regarding a merge proposal with M-theory (simplified).  I've noted that I'm in favor of the merge, but given these factual issues I'm not so sure what the content of this article has to contribute to the M-theory (simplified) one.  To the extent that M-theory (simplified) touches on these issues, it actually gets them right -- for example, regarding my third point above, the diagram at the top of the  M-theory (simplified) article actually has the right relationship. I think the 'what M stands for' section is more extensive in this article than the other one, so it could be moved over without too much trouble.  A lot of the factual information is either duplicated or wrong, so should be checked carefully (citing sources) before being merged over.  
...but a more efficient use of time would probably be to nuke a lot of the content in this page and replace it with a stub (with technical references left intact for the interested reader), or a redirect to the simplified page.  Wesino 11:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I opt you gradually upgrade this page, trim out any factual inaccurcies and replace them with cited and well worded truths. Be Bold. thank you. Procrastinating@talk2me 16:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive factual inaccuracies 

message: Through interest in string theory and M theory I have been exposed to the term "multidimensional mathematics".  I believe it should be noted that "multidimensional" does not refer to actual spacial dimensions but are levels of complexity in the equations.  The three spatial dimensions and time are reduced to variables in order to be manipulated in the equations.  The added "dimensions" are other variables that are added in order to maintain the integrity of the equations and do not represent actual spatial dimensions.  I believe this should be noted somewhere in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.168.161 (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multidimensional Mathematics 

message: On the internet I found this:
Real numbers are one-dimensional, they exist on an axis. Imaginary numbers exist in two dimensions, as explained above. What about three-dimensional numbers? As it happens these do not obey laws that are consistent. If you combine "ordinary" 2-D complex numbers you end up with 2-D complex numbers, the results exist in the same plane as the initial numbers. Three-dimensional numbers are not well behaved like that. However Four-dimensional numbers (quarternions) are consistent. The next set of well behaved numbers are the eight dimensional numbers (octonions). So we have real, complex, quarternion and the octonion numbers: 1-D, 2-D, 4-D and 8-D numbers. The next in the sequence are the 16-D numbers. But by some strange property of mathematics, the algebraic rules become more dilute as the dimensions of the numbers increases. No algebra can be found for 16-D numbers, so it is as though they do not exist. (If a number can be said not to exist, or conversely, to exist for that matter).
Complex numbers made from quarternions consist of one real number and three different numbers that, when multiplied by themselves, make -1. Octonion complex numbers consist of one real and seven octonion numbers that all equal -1 when multiplied by themselves. (But they are distinct numbers: any two octonions multiplied together produces a third, different octonion).
It turns out that octonion numbers crop up in the Theory Of Everything that physicists are searching for: in particular M-Theory, which is physics on steroids. According to M-Theory, we are made of minute particles that are really strings of energy, or membranes or multi-dimensional shapes. These vibrate in up to ten space dimensions, but most of the dimensions are so tiny we don't see them. Strange how we can only see one type of number, when the universe may be made up of eight of them.
Wikisquared 17:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may wish to look at Wikipedia articles about quaternions and octonions, which give good and accessible introductions to these fascinating subjects. -- 131.111.8.102 20:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverifiable source 

message: have been lifted from Smolin's book "The Trouble With Physics."  207.237.10.120 05:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some paragraphs of this article 

message: In the following sentence,
"Unlike more conventional views of creation in modern physics, that are ex nihilo, the M-Theory vision, although not yet complete, is of the whole observable universe being one of many extended 4 dimensional branes in an 11 dimensional spacetime.",
I believe it is incorrect to say that modern physics has any "ex nihilo" views, as physics only addresses the early physical universe, but not the "physical pre-universe", if you can use such a term, i.e. a state in which physical existence does not yet exist. "Creatio ex nihilo" is a theological term, which implies the existence of a supernatural creator (or creators), who created the physical universe out of nothing. While I personally believe in a supernatural creator/creators, I think this lies beyond the realm of physics as it is currently formulated. Also, to say that modern physics has views of "creation" I believe is also inaccurate, again, as physics does not address the "physical pre-universe", but only the early physical universe, a "post-creation" state of affairs. Am I wrong? 68.46.96.38 15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In need of correction 

message: I am deleting this section for what I believe to be good reason. It is poorly written and improving on the style of writing would hardly justify this section, anyways. These "speculations" seem to be a disguised opinion of some user as well. Master Shake 9 19:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculations Section 

message: I need help making this article more technical, for as of now it stands not much different from the simplified version. Master Shake 9 20:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Technical 

message: I have tagged this article for potential rewriting, as the article needs:
- To be made more technical (reasons suggested above by Master Shake 9)
- To be re-worded/ punctuated differently (i.e. First Sentence a little clumsy: ... proposed "master theory" (or "mother theory", "mistery", "magic" or the W of Witten up side down from the creator, Ed Witten)
Krowe  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krowe (talk • contribs) 10:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup: Rewrite 

message: Simply put, "M" stands for "MECHANISM". A subatomic particle basically is a very, very small device. These devices operate within a set instructions that are fractal in their nature.140.211.8.7 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Universe For Dummies 

message: I do not know how to message the editors of this page, but i believe that the below description of the M-theory is better put in narrative form, as it is highly technical information, and it is easier put this way.  I am a student writing a paper on the string theories, and found this section very helpful. 04:52, 25 February 2008, 71.176.229.16 (Cut from the article by 90.230.54.138 (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrative form 

message: In section on IIA and IIB: "Second, because it is possible to build up any space by gluing circles together in various ways," ... We know this how? Knotwork (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed? 

message: I deleted the Big Bang section, which was full of inaccuracy in both its details and its premise.  M-theory inspired the ekpyrotic scenario, which led to New York Times articles, but has otherwise gone nowhere.  M-theory simply does not lead to predictions about the Big Bang, and which the section misleadingly implies.PhysPhD (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Bang Section 

message: This article is in need of a major re-write.  There ought to be much higher quality for such an important subject.PhysPhD (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Re-Write? 

message: Invoking James Clerk Maxwell was a helluva stretch! 
As someone famous once said: "Not all mathematics is science, and not all science is mathematics".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalton h (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  M-Theory is pure speculation without a shred of physical evidence 

message: It is the only theory ascribing to the nature of Quantum Field theories without infinities.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.91.38 (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  M-theory is the highest energy approximation neccessary 

message: Something like this:
M-Theory is a theory of the structure of the universe that speculates our universe may have emerged from the collision of two membranes of energy which exist in higher spatial dimensions than we can currently perceive. 
--jlw/11/18/2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.190.240 (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a lay explanation of M-Theory: Scientists currently have no idea what the "theory of everything" is. 128.194.39.250 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It's ridiculous to say that scientists have no idea what M-theory is.  At anything but the highest energy, we know exactly what it is (the precise particle and brane content, and how they interact).PhysPhD (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a lay explanation? 

message: The statement regarding building any space by "gluing circles" is dubious, as any algebraic topologist will tell you.  - 99.249.183.96 (talk) 04:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  gluing circles 

message: Theory M could be updated to include one additional dimension for God.  75.139.214.136 (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And/or a 13th dimension for brain-washed sheep.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.166.253 (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange; there's no section in the main article which outlines the predictions made by M-theory. If it's falsifiable (scientific), there ought to be one. Maybe there is one somewhere among those 10 to the 500th power universes...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorkelobb (talk • contribs) 03:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  God could have 12 dimensions. 

message: M theory describes the size and shape of our universe, as compared to the size and shape of a separate surrounding universe (SU).Four dimensions in our universe; gravity, time, dark matter and dark energy, compare to four opposite dimensions in the  (SU).  The four opposite dimensions in the SU universe are: anti-gravity, GRB's, dark matter's opposite, which may be very similar to our dark matter, since it represents most of the universe, and times' opposite, anti-time, meaning to us, the other universe brings a new beginning.SU's current boundary is only known by the gamma ray bursts(GRB's) seen all over the edge of our universe, which actually is coming from the SU universe and illuminates its boundary to us.
The boundary between our universe and the SU, is obviously, still in debate, but at some point in time, this boundary is crossed from a fixed point in space, as the boundary is constantly shifting. and at that point of intersection of this boundary lies the "big bang", on which this "wavely, rippley moving sheet" is what "M theory is all about".
M theory is currently trying to define the boundaries and properties not only of our dimensions, but the opposite dimensions found in the SU.
One thing we do know, from our reference point of view in our universe, we are completely surrounded by the SU. It is 6 billion light years to 14 billion light years away depending on the direction we look from any place on the planet. The current question is.... is the SU getting closer..or further away? Indications support that our current universe is in expansion, but this could be a temporary effect due to the opposite properties found
in the SU.
These opposite properties seen in the SU indicate that the separate universe is actually increasing speed, instead of normal properties in our universe which would slow it down. This is the result of opposite dimensions (at work) in the separate dimension.
For more information on this subject contact: gunther.j@sbcglobal.net
Jgunther2 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite article? 

message: I want to write here:
The 11D theory have been created only because 10D theory was not neat. But there is no any reasons to say, that there are exactly 11 dimensions - the theory is just enough suitable with the nature, but not supposed to be final one. There is no reason to claim, that the quantity of dimensions is exactly 11 - it may be 12, 26, 994, or even 100500 - but there is no any real reason to say, that the quantity of dimensions is limited. Also, fluctuations may be results of "another universes".
I just want to say three things:
1. There may be an infinitum of dimensions;
2. The fluctuations are result of existing "inner universes" and theirs' sizes change;
3. If I am right, we can get resources from "upper universes".
212.41.32.125 (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 dimensions -> 4D -> 10D -> 11D -> ?D -> an infinitum of dimensions? 

message: "(The Type IIA and Type IIB string theories also contain open strings, however these strings are bound to that is to say, they are tight)."
Is that a real sentence?  68.54.104.18 (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this supposed to say? 

message: first, are matter's physical dimensions (namely:length, width, depth) are (infinitesimally) small. meaning does matter, acutely, can go in dimensions to match vacuum. No, because the string theory says: there are "strings floating in space" which means that a string occupies a volume in space that is denser with "energy" or mass. 
by defention (languge)then matter must have a higher energy than vacuum.
what is the minimum possible energy difference between vacuum and matter, which is then matter would "float" in space, matter would become denser. Then vacuum would exert density forces on matter (water vs wood). then gravitational forces becomes a complex form of density forces with vacuum and separate matter entities. --e:Y,?:G 04:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  does M-theroy gives energies difference between vacuum and matter 

message: the text says its because of "membrane" but shy witten will not agree.
maybe its because its named after Maldacena, the string expert that got first to the
proposition of a unifying theory?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.254.115.51 (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  M-Theory name meaning 

message: I have gotten the impression that the M-theory is not a theory, but instead a research programme (directed towards finding an "M-theory") where Witten creates mathematics sketching relationships between various string theory models. I.e. he doesn't describe M-theory, he just prepares way for finding it. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree 

message: ok if anyone's interested i have a 12d model of the physical unverse, and it's not that esoteric or difficult.  It's based on 'nullities' and singularities.  0s and 1s.  These are Implied Forms, meaning they can only be implied by definition, like a mathematical Point.  Now, at the 11th dimenson, singularity is at maximum concentration, nullity is at it's most diffuse.  At the 1st dimension, singularity is at it's most diffuse, nullity is at it's greatest concentration.  There is a force known as Novelty, at 11th d.  As you go down the dimensions, you have: 11-9,novelty, 9-7,gravity, 7-5, Electromagnetism, 5-3, weak nuclear force, 3-1, strong nuclear force.  strangely enough, S.N.f interacts with Novelty, W.N.F with Gravity, magnetism with electricity.  This is a result of the 1's and 0's trying to come together to find equilibrium.  Also as you go down the d's, forces get stronger.  This is a result of concentrated nullity.  As you go up the d's matter gets more concentrated.  This is a result of concentrated singularity.  Novelty and S.N.F alone created the Big Bang.  novelty is the force that brings the abstract chaos into definition, and light.
It's all based on the dimensions being bound by Implication to add up to 12.  Implication is another force, that resonates through the non local abstract realm, and the entire physical universe.
Natmanprime (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a publication that reliably reports about it. ≡ CUSH ≡ 22:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  i've got a 12d model 

message: Ed witten said that "m" stands for monkey, so as to describe the human race Thor cherubim (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monkey Theory 

message: Need clarification for laymen: Is the 6-dimensional Calabi-Yau manifold still accounted in M-theory or it must be replaced with 7-dimensional one?Mastertek (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a 7-dimensional manifold would be necessary to compactify 11-dimensional M-theory down to our familiar 4-dimensional space, in the same sense that a 6-dimensional manifold is necessary when starting from 10 dimensions. The usual generalization of the Calabi-Yau condition to 7 dimensions is to use a G2 manifold. --Steuard (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  7-dimensional manifold 

message: The following sentence seems to be grammatically incorrect, please tell me if I am right: "Finally, since superstring string theories are supersymmetric for supersymmetry is needed for consistency, one expects to see supersymmetry appearing in the low-energy approximation." I am a laywoman, but this sentence seems incorrect in it's structure. Thank you for you time and consideration on a matter, no pun intended, that I find very interesting.
Cristykay  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristykay (talk • contribs) 19:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on Sentence Structure. 

message: The article has a long-standing statement in the introduction: Because the dimensionality exceeds that of superstring theories in 10 dimensions, proponents believe that the 11-dimensional theory unites all five string theories (and supersedes them).
This seems ridiculous. The condition of higher dimensionality may be necessary for the second clause to be true but it is certainly not sufficient. If a fuller description of why it is believed to unify all the string theories can't be given, it would be better to simply point out its dimension is one higher and leave the second clause as a simple statement of the views of proponents rather than saying one is a consequence of the other.  Elroch (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. I've been meaning to change it. How about something simpler like this-
Proponents believe that the 11-dimensional theory unites all five 10 dimensional string theories and supersedes them.
Bhny (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: no objections so I'll make the change Bhny (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculous logic? 

message: *Roughly speaking, bosons are the constituents of radiation, while fermions are the constituents of matter.
I associate bosons more with mediating forces than radiation.
*Such objects had been considered as early as 1962 by Paul Dirac, and they were reconsidered by a small but enthusiastic group of physicists in the 1980s.
A reference to a Dirac publication would be nice.
*Branes are dynamical objects which can propagate through spacetime according to the rules of quantum mechanics. They have mass and can have other attributes such as charge.
Do all branes have mass?
*There is a small amount of inline LaTeX. As always, it looks awful AWFUL when using PNG rendering on a large screen.
Suggestion: Use the math templates like in  and  or .
YohanN7 (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi YohanN7, these are really good comments. I don't know if you're aware, but this article is currently a featured article candidate, and it would be great if we could include your feedback on this page. If you'd like to participate in the review process, please leave your thoughts there, and I'll respond with changes to the article. You can then choose to support or oppose the nomination. Thanks! Polytope24 (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I copied my post over there, so lets close this thread. YohanN7 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A final note (I'll comment there, also):  Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics has a "guideline" that  should not be used in mathematical formulae.  That might not apply to this article, but I would not be at all surprised if  might fail at some point. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small thoughts 

message: Is there a reason not to use clickable Harvard style citations? I changed one to the  for demonstration. I can change the rest too if it is to your liking. Better yet, YOU do it. (If you hate it, just revert my last two edits.) YohanN7 (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to changing the citation style, but I'm busy with other projects at the moment and won't be able to do it myself. If you decide to change it, please be *extremely* careful. The article has lots of cross referencing, and the cross references are easily broken (as happened with your edit). Polytope24 (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll probably do it. No time table though. YohanN7 (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline citations 

message: The BIGGEST difference between string theory and M-theory is that string theory is 10-dimensional while M-theory has 11 dimensions of spacetime. The article previously used "ten" and "eleven" but they don't stick out to the reader as much as 10 and 11. It's also a writing practice to spell out single digits numbers, i.e. nine but use numerals for two digit numbers and larger, i.e. 10 & 11. - The Messenger 50.153.104.253 (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  10-dimensional String Theory and 11-Dimensional M-theory  

message: : In dimension p, these are called p-branes.
One sometimes wonders whether the physicists are having us on.... ;-) Praemonitus (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pea Branes? 

message: This article lacks a balanced viewpoint with only a brief nominal comment that "some" have questioned M/String theories utility (tho utility is a kind word). Notably..perhaps as an effort to appear objective, the only citation given to criticism (which is currently mounting) is to Peter Woit's 2006 book. Even if we stick with criticism of 10 or more years ago, shall we ignore Glashow's criticism, Smolin's, etc...? Not to mention the current crescendo. Get a life guys...stop writing articles that are about things you hope to work. Be objective. Look in a mirror. It is never too late. Juan Riley (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of balance 

message: The wikipedia article says:
"The claim is that this quantum field theory is equivalent to the gravitational theory on the bulk anti-de Sitter space in the sense that there is a "dictionary" for translating entities and calculations in one theory into their counterparts in the other theory. For example, a single particle in the gravitational theory might correspond to some collection of particles in the boundary theory."
I don't fully understand this point. Could someone give an example with a specific particle in mind.
Also who is the M theory page intended for?
I doubt a  non physicist or mathematician would 
understand much of what is written.Is it unrealistic to expect a layman to grasp M theory 
relativity etc , so is the article aimed just at people with knowledge of the physical sciences?
Thanks for your help.
Carovingian
Carovingian (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  an example of ADS to conformal field would help for non physicists 

message: The general public is used to seeing 3D, therefore, writing 4-dimensions 4D, 10-dimensions, 11-dimensional spacetime. 2601:580:7:2C63:79D7:6AC1:B636:D324 (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  3D, 4D, 10D, 11D, 11-dimensional spacetime 

message: This article should simply state in its introduction... M-theory includes Superstring Theory: 6D Hyperspace + common 4D and/or Supergravity Theory: 7D Hyperspace + 4D. 99.169.79.198 (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  M-theory includes Superstring Theory: 6D Hyperspace + common 4D and/or Supergravity Theory: 7D Hyperspace + 4D