Talk:Graviton/Archive 2
Latest comment: 7 months ago by Pitorki in topic String theory in lead
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
String theory in lead
Should string theory be mentioned in the lead paragraph? It’s increasing considered fringe. As far as I know, most mainstream non-string theorists (most of mainstream physics these days) don’t consider string theory even to be a valid theory; to them instead it’s a formerly popular hypothesis that hasn’t borne fruit theoretically, and is completely untestable, at least at this point in time. Monsieur Mercury (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hey, that is maybe the wrongest description of the world of theoretical physicists you could have come up with. If your "mainstream physicists" happen to work in Princeton (& IAS), Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, MIT, CERN (Theory department at least), to just cite a few institutions that are unambiguously recognised as world leading, you will find a very string-friendly attitude, and most these people who accept the description "string theorist". Although they would argue that this notion today is not the same as it was in the 90s, and is much more broad. Other research is good too and exists but the mainstream is with no doubt "string theory". Pitorki (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)