M-theory Simplified/Talk

I don't think getting in to the practice of writing simplified entries for other articles is the right way to go. The original article should start with the basics clear enough so that people from non-science backgrounds should at least be able get the gist of it. Links to other pages with more detail should provide sufficient background for proper understanding. A lot of the text in here *has* been covered in other articles in just as basic language (eg. the description of the atom and subatomic particles in the second paragraph). Some of the text is written in basic lagnuage but does not seem to mean very much ("Equations for the higher dimensions... include the folding of space at sub-light and normal light speeds through time itself"). -- sodium

I did that and they chopped it out on the other article ! I wrote M-theory too. So this page is for people who may need to learn yet not have the background to understand. This is a wonderful writeup for me here because it shows I understand the subject enough to explain to a non-scientific person or even a child. BF

I agree that the original M-theory article is not easy enough to understand for non-scientists (including for a lot of it me). A lot of the terms, eg parity, are not explained (though this could be done through links). The article also needs a summary in laymans terms. But this should all be done *in* the entry, I can't think why they (who?) would chop an introduction for the unscientrific person. -- sodium

I was one of the people responsible for chopping BF's simplified introduction to the M-theory article. The reason was that explaining basic physics concepts such as the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics does not belong in an article about M-theory. The basics belong in other articles, about those concepts, and the M-theory article should link to them, but not attempt to explain those concepts itself. Otherwise, we'd be beginning every single article on physics with pages of rehash of basic physics, rather than dealing with the article's real content.

Also, while I agree with trying to simplify things for people, I do not think we should do so at the cost of accuracy. That is exactly what BF's current simplification does. -- SJK