Difference between revisions of "Talk:M-theory"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(A Total Failure: it has generated some interesting math)
(A Total Failure)
Line 3: Line 3:
  
 
: I agree that M-theory is not a total failure, because it has generated some interesting math. However as a unified field theory to explain the forces of nature, it is a failure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:03, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
 
: I agree that M-theory is not a total failure, because it has generated some interesting math. However as a unified field theory to explain the forces of nature, it is a failure. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:03, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
 +
 +
:: It's potential for success as a unified field theory remains open to question. This is not quite the same thing as being a "failure". You know, quantum electrodynamics also went through a rather long rough period before it was finally accepted as the official theory of light and matter.--[[User:Lemonpeel|Lemonpeel]] 21:37, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

Revision as of 01:37, June 17, 2009

A Total Failure

I removed the blatantly untrue sentence "M Theory is a total failure". Many of the dualities that comprise M-theory have been verified mathematically. A fundamental goal of M-theory is to unite the existing and various versions of super-string theory. This project is far from complete, but nor is it a "total failure". It's an on-going topic of research.--Lemonpeel 20:39, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

I agree that M-theory is not a total failure, because it has generated some interesting math. However as a unified field theory to explain the forces of nature, it is a failure. RSchlafly 21:03, 16 June 2009 (EDT)
It's potential for success as a unified field theory remains open to question. This is not quite the same thing as being a "failure". You know, quantum electrodynamics also went through a rather long rough period before it was finally accepted as the official theory of light and matter.--Lemonpeel 21:37, 16 June 2009 (EDT)