Talk:String (physics)

Untitled

this need immmediate review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.41.42 (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the math?

The usual in physics is to model things mathematically. If strings are not themselves mathematical objects, presumably they are modeled by mathematical objects. I would expect some mathematical definitions. Thanks if you can help.CountMacula (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modes of open strings?

In the final sentence of Closed and open strings:

(...) In certain string theories the lowest-energy vibration of an open string is a tachyon and can undergo tachyon condensation. Other vibrational modes of open strings exhibit the properties of photons and gluons.

Isn't the representation (open or closed) of photons and gluons dependent on the model as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.255 (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to move "String" to "String (disambiguation)"

In order to make way for moving Draft:String to article space to take the place as the primary topic, I've posted a proposal at Talk:String#Requested move 16 January 2017 to move the disambiguation page currently at "String" to "String (disambiguation)". Your input would be helpful to establish a common consensus on whether or not this move, or something else, should be done. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter. The Transhumanist 22:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 January 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved; consensus is against the proposed move. bd2412 T 21:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

String (physics) → Quantum string – Per WP:NaturalDisambiguation. "Quantum string" is a common term for this topic and it already redirects here. Rreagan007 (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mild oppose for now per common name, String theory,Superstring, Bosonic string theory, Open string, Closed string, and other uses of the term. I actually would like the term to be "quantum string", as it seems to accurately define the object of the theory, but am not accredited in or have thoroughly researched the physics field. Will keep watch on what should be an interesting discussion, and to read the comments of members of the physics WikiProject. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Quantum string" is not as common as simply "string", but it is still commonly used in English. Per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, there is preference for "using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title" to get rid of the parenthetical disambiguation in the title. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd prefer String (quantum physics) or String (string theory), so that it doesn't get confused with the use of normal strings in physics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that they can be confused so much that the title has to be changed, there's e.g. Spin (physics) which has a hatnote. Hatnotes are cheap. wumbolo ^^^ 20:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose String theory contains objects commonly called strings, which can either be classical (if you consider the theory of classical strings) or quantum (if you consider the quantum theory). The article should cover either case - the classical theory is a limit of the quantum theory, so it doesn't make much sense to have an article solely about quantum strings. Furthermore, "quantum string" is not a particularly common term. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as Waleswatcher. However, it is true that String (physics) is not a particularly good title, given the existence of other types of strings in physics. I would support Headbomb's suggestion of String (string theory) instead, which removes all ambiguity while using only very common terms, and leaving the possibility of having classical strings. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons articulated above. String (physics) is not a great title, and String (string theory) would be better. XOR'easter (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.