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.

"*yet to produce testable predictions" can only come from a qualified physicist who is working in the field.. sorry*"
Boggle. WTF does that mean? Are you pulling rank? -- GWO

I question the usefulness of the new 'non-technical' info. If you don't know what words like dimension, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and so on mean, I doubt you'd even be bothered to read an article on M-theory. Or if you where, we shouldn't try to explain those simpler concepts here -- we should just put links in to where these simpler concepts are explained. -- SJK

I have no accurate answer. This theory develops as it goes along. The point of the article is to show a technical report on what M-Theory is. This is not my theory. Much work is being done by physicists, and the irony is, the closer they get to defining the fundamental truth behind "how all things exist" the simpler the formulas.

That's not irony, it's what we all expected. But I'm not questioning the theory, I'm questioning whether or not this is perhaps an inaccuracy in the article.

My notes are accurate. I think this is semantics, because theory of everything is a layman's or laywoman's term to try to understand these 1-D strings that are so small yet in theory form everything, including gravitrons. A nice thing is this theory solves the General Relativity problem mentioned on String theory

With regard to the theory of everything title, see the note on my page. Please check the 11-D space vs 11-D spacetime difference for me, the two mean different things and it *is* important for understanding how M-theory relates to other models. Please? --JG

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.

Any question is warranted. When I read somewhere that M-theory "stood up to most vicious mathematical onslaughts", this confirmed for me, at least, that here was something that filled in the missing pieces Einstein left behind(when he passed away), and to totally understand this 'theory of everything' a person would need to be a genius in mathematical theoretical physics. Many of us on wiki may have those qualities latently, which is the same to me as those who demonstrate their genius outwardly, using them to define these nearly invisible strings that comprise all matter(from subatomic --> upwards). I think I got something people can begin to learn now, laugh maybe, and rub their eyes in disbelief, just like the top 300 physicists did when Witten introduced the M-theory in a 3 hour lecture.

"

Of course not. I am explaining that whoever added that part must be researching M-theory, unless they are quoting someone who is. * once again, that deletion was made because the THEORY has already been scrutinized by fellows of Witten, and stands. Someone chooses to assume or fantasize they are part of the M-theory group of physicists, outside wiki. That tiny addition to the main page was unsubstantiated presumption on someone's part. Moreover, I have read some recent journal abstracts(some Japanese scientists) which use M-theory to expand into new areas of superstring, meaning it works.*

"*But you're not just explaining, you're deleting*"

"The theory stands" means that mathematically it is probably ok; it doesn't mean that it has anything to say about the world. And as of yet, it has never said anything new about the world, anything that could have been independently verified. --AxelBoldt

We're both observers of the same event Axel, specifically, the intersection of space-time future and past light cones. Would you write a stub for space-time ? (It's more than a graph of motion space vs. time.)I wish TOE? wasn't even mentioned in this article because it was just a PR misconception dated 1985. ~BF

I don't know what this has to do with anything. Refrain from removing the fact that M-theory has yet to produce a testable prediction. All that M-theory has going for it is the mathematical elegance of combining 5 prior theories, that's it.

I also removed the flowery introductory paragraph which was devoid of information. --AxelBoldt

I question the usefulness of the new 'non-technical' info. If you don't know what words like dimension, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and so on mean, I doubt you'd even be bothered to read an article on M-theory. Or if you where, we shouldn't try to explain those simpler concepts here -- we should just put links in to where these simpler concepts are explained. -- SJK

The point was giving someone who might not know anything about this get the "gist" of what this is all about. If you think it detracts, it's gone. And I would like to see some reference to M-theory not producing a testable prediction. I don't even see how this is relevant to this article, and is another add-on to cast doubt on a solid scientific article. ~BF

I will check for a reference; it might be in the *Scientific American* article I added to the references. I think it is emminently relevant that when you describe a physical theory, to state what that theory predicts and whether those predictions are actually true. Many theories new theories had to wait a while for confirmating evidence, see for example general relativity. The status of M-theory, and I'm sure Witten would agree, is as a promising theory proposal, not even close to other physical theories such as quantum mechanics or relativity. --AxelBoldt

Thanks for checking Manning. Is the admin planning on banning the troll's IP ?