Talk:Why 10 dimensions?

message: B-) How is this encyclopedic? Why isn't the title nominal? --ESP 06:02, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why ''Why 10 dimensions''?

message: "Anything academic - Someone or something that would be mentioned in a textbook or research paper, and which is notable or famous at least within its field."
"Why 10 dimensions?" is a topic that is discussed in books such as Michio Kaku's book "Hyperspace" and on prominant websites dealing with string theory. The existing Wikipedia pages on string theory do not cover this issue.
Name of the page.
"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."
This "name" was taken from sources that discuss this issue such as:
http://www.ecf.toronto.edu/~quanv/String/string9.html
If there was a better name in use I would be glad to use it. "Dimensionality of the universe" or "Dimensionality of String Theory" are possibilies, but I have not seen these terms used in the string theory literature in relation to the issue discussed here.
JWSchmidt 07:56, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Encyclopedic?

message: I was initially inspired to start the "Why_10_dimensions?" page when I saw this page. However, I have now become aware of the possibility of putting "educational" information into Wikibooks. I am exploring the idea of moving the Why 10 dimensions page to this book. JWSchmidt 15:39, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea. --ESP 02:57, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the article's style, it would probably be appropriate for Wikibooks. An article with the name "Reasons for the number of dimensions of the universe" or something similar would however have its place on Wikipedia, so it would be best not to move it but to copy it. Fredrik (talk) 03:34, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikibooks for "education"?

message: Does anyone have a source of the "Ramanujan function" that has terms (D-24) or another "generalized" form with (D-8)?
Maybe one of the references here? I'm not sure how to find these physics articles online.
I could not access online:
A. M. Polyakov, Quantum geometry of bosonic strings, Phys. Lett. B103 (1981), 207.
But this: "Quantum geometry of bosonic strings : revisited" has the following equation:
Z=\int_{}^{} D^F [\rho(\xi)]\exp\left(-\frac{26-D}{12\pi} \int_{\xi}^{} \left[ \frac{1}{2} \frac{(\delta_\alpha \rho)^2}{\rho^2} \right] + \int_{\xi}^{} \mu_R^2 \rho^2 \right) 
and cites another article by A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B103 (1981), 211.
as the source of an equation with D = 10 as the critical dimension for a supersymmetric bosonic quantum field. JWSchmidt 03:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ramanujan function

message: Could someone explain why energy conservation laws works in 3 dimensions (i.e.: no "escape" of energy to higher level dimensions) ? Rama 23:02, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy loss to higher dimensions 

message: First, let me say that I agree this is an important topic worthy of encyclopedic discussion, though I'm not sure the title chosen is the best one.  Second, I think this article definitely needs a discussion like that in Zwiebach's A First Course in String Theory, where the dimensionality of spacetime is deduced by mandating that string equations of motion be Lorentz invariant.  This would give the article a much more solid grounding than a discourse on modular forms.  Not that I think the modular form stuff should go!  I prefer to have complementary approaches whenever possible; it's just that a bright physics undergraduate could probably grok the Lorentz-invariance explanation in fullness.  I've even had some luck explaining 10- or 26-dimensional theories that way to non-science people; lawyers, even.
Anville 12:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lorentz invariance 

message: The box at the top of this page has been removed, there is no archived peer review that I can see... QmunkE 08:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review? Where? 

message: I expected to find an explanation of why 10, 11, or 26 dimensions should be more favoured than other numbers, but I can't find the answer in the article. Maybe it is too complicated math, but then what is the relevance of this article? Apus 13:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding. While it's probably dubious to try to bring something so obviously technical into everyday language, the fact that this article exists (and a book, too, apparently) seems to refute that. So, unless some editors here can prove us wrong, I nominate this article for deletion. Those interested in the technical details of string theory can find it at the article about string theory. If there's any extra info available here, merge it into that article, and delete the rest. As it stands now, this article is not accessible to lay audiences. -69.47.186.226 05:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the answer? 

message: I think this article should be moved to Wikibooks (but keep a link here). Anyway, I think that it isn't clear for the non-mathematician or non-physicist yet; The main author could extend it.
--Lucas Gallindo 18:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice article 

message: ----
The book is mentioned a little too early for my liking.
:I think it's just fine. The book is mentions nearly nowhere else. The article does not resemble an advertisement at all.Leon math 19:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: It's original research.  It's a compilation of multiple information sources filtered through the editors' interpretations, it's not the straight dope. Much of it is good, interesting, and useful information, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  A blog, yes, magazine, yes, but not an encyclopedia.  69.137.223.153 06:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  should be deleted