Template talk:String theory
Physics Template‑class | |||||||
|
discussion was "keep and prune". |
Revamp
This template needs a total revamping, and since I know nothing of physics, someone that does should better organize it. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2 30 June 2005 00:02 (UTC)
- IMHO this template needs WP:TFD. It's much too large and intrusive, especially for articles, which aren't that tightly related to string theory. --PjacobiJuly 2, 2005 23:34 (UTC)
- This template is definitely bad. I'll fix it over the next 2 days,. Dimension10 (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- UPDATE: PETURBATIVE STRING THEORIES Dimension10 (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- UPDATE: ALL EXCEPT FOR LAST (HOPEFULLY)... 09:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Dimension10 (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- UPDATE: UPDATED; COMPLETED;, BUT WITH BUGS......Dimension10 (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- UPDATE: UPDATED; COMPLETE; BUT; WITHOUT; BUGS!!!... ... DONE!!! Dimension10 (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- HELLO!Dimension10 (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Is the new template fine? Dimension10 (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- UPDATE: UPDATED; COMPLETE; BUT; WITHOUT; BUGS!!!... ... DONE!!! Dimension10 (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, fine, like I'll take anybody's suggestion anyway.
- UPDATE: UPDATED; COMPLETED;, BUT WITH BUGS......Dimension10 (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- UPDATE: ALL EXCEPT FOR LAST (HOPEFULLY)... 09:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Dimension10 (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I will not take anyone's suggestion!
- UPDATE: PETURBATIVE STRING THEORIES Dimension10 (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
- I will take nobody's suggestion! No - - - one;':s.
- This template is definitely bad. I'll fix it over the next 2 days,. Dimension10 (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Dimension 10,
The edit that you reverted was not vandalism but a serious attempt to simplify the template. You've done a good job reorganizing the template, but I think there are some problems with what you've done.
1. The quote that you included in the header is cute, but most readers are not going to understand who said it, why it's there, or what it means. Unless you have a good reason for including it, I would recommend simplifying the template by removing this quote.
2. The links in the template are more complicated than they need to be. When you refer to theories as "non-GSO-truncated superstring theories", you're just obfuscating.
3. The mathematics list is full of redundancy and unhelpful links. You provide separate links to
4. The list of theorists should be a concise list of the most prominant theorists. What you've given is a strange mixture of prominant and less prominant string theorists. You apparently think that
I welcome any suggestions you have. 208.46.240.4 (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Maxwell's Equations
How does string theory explain
- If you compactify M-theory around a line-segment, and If you then get rid of the GSO Projectionm, and then, get rid of supersymmetry, then take the new (bosonic) string theory to the low-energy limit and get rid of the terms and all the "extra" terms, then you get the standard model. If you get rid of strong nuclear forces and the Higgs from there, you get electroweak theory. If you get rid of E - W unifiicationm, and then, get rid of the weak force, you get Quantum Electrodynamics. If you take that to the classical limit, you get the conservation law of the EM - tensor... If you expand that out, you get some long, long equations with a lot of coordinates and having something to do with electromagnetis,m. If you make it a bit coordinate - free - like, then, you get Maxwell's 4 equations. Dimension10 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)