|
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 |
|
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 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 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 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 |
|
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 ? |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)