User talk:Polytope24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:04, 3 October 2015

Polytope24, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Polytope24! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of AdS/CFT correspondence

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article AdS/CFT correspondence you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SPat -- SPat (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your time! Polytope24 (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of AdS/CFT correspondence

The article AdS/CFT correspondence you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:AdS/CFT correspondence for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SPat -- SPat (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Mirror symmetry (string theory)

The article Mirror symmetry (string theory) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mirror symmetry (string theory) for comments about the article. Well done! ColonelHenry (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While waiting for the bot to transclude the GA1 template, you can find my review at Talk:Mirror symmetry (string theory)/GA1. Congratulations to you for such a thoroughly prepared and informative article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Polytope24 for helping to promote Mirror symmetry (string theory) and AdS/CFT correspondence and to Good Article status. Please accept this sign of appreciation and goodwill from me. Your contributions are much appreciated! --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 03:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Polytope24 (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

On having AdS/CFT correspondence promoted to FA status! You were a joy to work with and I was impressed with your patience throughout the FA process, more patience I could have mustered. Cheers, --Mark viking (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes congratulations. We definitely need more articles like yours. --Laser brain (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for helping out! Polytope24 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page appearance: AdS/CFT correspondence

This is a note to let the main editors of AdS/CFT correspondence know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 8, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 8, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence is a conjectured relationship in theoretical physics between two kinds of physical theories. On one side of the correspondence are conformal field theories, including theories similar to the Yang–Mills theories that describe elementary particles. On the other side of the correspondence are are anti-de Sitter spaces (cross section depicted), which are used in theories of quantum gravity, formulated in terms of string theory or M-theory. Proposed by Juan Maldacena in late 1997, the AdS/CFT correspondence represents a major advance in our understanding of string theory and quantum gravity. This is because it provides a non-perturbative formulation of string theory and because it is the most successful realization of the holographic principle, an idea in quantum gravity originally proposed by Gerard 't Hooft. In addition, it provides a powerful toolkit for studying strongly coupled quantum field theories and has been used to study many features of nuclear and condensed matter physics by translating problems in those subjects into more mathematically tractable problems in string theory. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

field theory
Thank you for quality articles on physics, such as anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence and Mirror symmetry (string theory), raising awareness for mathematical physics, with concentration on facts and a self-critical approach, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Polytope24 (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 686th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today M-theory, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review for holographic principle

Hi Polytope,

Congrats on the AdS/CFT article! Given your knowledge on the topic, can I please ask you to review the short presentation I made for the Hyakutake papers here and maybe suggest improvements/clarifications? Do you think it's a good idea to link this recent work in the AdS/CFT article? Thanks for your help! Alma (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alma. It looks pretty good to me. I added a citation to the AdS/CFT article. Polytope24 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks a lot! Alma (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Revert

Could you please justify the revert of my edit?

Mirror symmetry

Hi Polytope. I was listed at that the project members list as a copy-editing, not a contributor of substantive edits. However, I know User:Paul August to be an approachable active editor. Perhaps you could ask him to weigh in at the FAC instead. Regards, AGK [•] 23:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the reference! Polytope24 (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted

Polytope24, I see your article on mirror symmetry was promoted. Congratulations! Only a thousand edits and you already have two featured articles - I'm impressed! RockMagnetist (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out with the review! Polytope24 (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page appearance: Mirror symmetry (string theory)

This is a note to let the main editors of Mirror symmetry (string theory) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 9, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 9, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

In mathematics and theoretical physics, mirror symmetry is a relationship between geometric objects called Calabi–Yau manifolds (pictured). The term refers to a situation where two Calabi–Yau manifolds look very different geometrically but are nevertheless equivalent when employed as extra dimensions of string theory. Mirror symmetry was originally discovered by physicists. Mathematicians became interested in this relationship around 1990 when Philip Candelas, Xenia de la Ossa, Paul Green, and Linda Parks showed that it could be used as a tool in a branch of mathematics called enumerative geometry. Today mirror symmetry is a major research topic in pure mathematics, and mathematicians are working to develop a mathematical understanding of the relationship based on physicists' intuition. Mirror symmetry is also a fundamental tool for doing calculations in string theory, and it has been used to understand aspects of quantum field theory, the formalism that physicists use to describe elementary particles. Major approaches to mirror symmetry include the homological mirror symmetry program of Maxim Kontsevich and the SYZ conjecture of Andrew Strominger, Shing-Tung Yau, and Eric Zaslow. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

precious again! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M theory

What do you think of this? Also, there is currently a redirect from membrane theory to m theory... if that source is not good enough, then maybe the redirect should be removed. Thoughts? KDS4444^Talk 05:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KDS4444. The term "M-theory" actually has a fairly complicated history. I undid your edit because I don't think the theory was called "membrane theory" in 1995 when it was first discovered. You are right that the M has something to do with membranes, and I've made some changes in the history section that will hopefully clarify this point. The lead already talks a little about what the M stands for, and I don't think it's appropriate to go into too much detail there.

Just so you know, the article you link to is copied from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article which had a number of problems. Polytope24 (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the circular Wikipedia reference. Here's a better one dated 2004 and non-Wiki in which the use of the term "membrane" is discussed as an alternative meaning for the M. What I was aiming for in all of this is the following: when someone types "membrane theory" in a Wikipedia search, they are redirected to "M theory" where the words "membrane theory" did not appear. This ends up being confusing for the reader... "I was looking for 'membrane theory'... Is this 'membrane theory' or not? Does that 'M' stand for 'membrane'?" I have no background in theoretical physics or string theory, and am only trying to do something with that redirect so that it doesn't end up causing more confusion than it should. If a redirect takes you to a page, that page really should mention the words/ terms of the redirect somewhere so that the reader knows how the originally-typed word(s) fit into the article where that reader has eventually landed. This is in keeping with the Principle of Least Astonishment (WP:R#PLA). Thoughts on that? KDS4444^Talk 20:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I wouldn't really care if we just got rid of the redirect. The term "membrane theory" is definitely not a standard name for this subject, and anyone who types that in a Wikipedia search is probably just confused about the terminology. Polytope24 (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I will remove the redirect myself (and if anyone complains, I will ask them to speak with you about it... But I doubt anyone is going to complain). KDS4444^Talk 10:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the process requires a deletion nomination through the Redirects for Discussion page. I have linked the nomination to our discussion here. KDS4444^Talk 10:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:String theory

Hello,

Re this, would a fundamentals/phenomenology section be acceptable – i.e. a single section consisting of the three fundamentals links followed, separately, by the three phenomenology links – ? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sardanaphalus,

I don't think it makes sense to combine these things. The articles listed under "Fundamental objects" refer to the fundamental degrees of freedom of string theory. They are the physical objects described by the theory (i.e. strings in certain limits and branes more generally). Phenomenology is a branch of string theory research that attempts to make predictions at the LHC and other experiments. Polytope24 (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. As each of the first five sections only contain a few links, I've now edited the template so that only the remaining two sections (Related concepts, Theorists) are collapsible lists. Hopefully, that's acceptable. Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks for helping out with this. Polytope24 (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology

Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed carefully and you're among the few chosen to have a first access to a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers

Tetra quark (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cosmology - task

I decided to drop you a message to make sure you check out the first task of the cosmology project: Help improve the Universe. Please feel free to remove this message after you read it :) Tetra quark (talk) 03:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of M-theory

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article M-theory you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vinethemonkey -- Vinethemonkey (talk) 20:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of M-theory

The article M-theory you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:M-theory for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vinethemonkey -- Vinethemonkey (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compactification illustration

I'm working on creating SVG illustrations for the compactification illustration. It will differ a bit from the existing image, but I think what I'm doing can better represent what needs to come across. Please email me through Wikipedia, send me a brief message with your email address, and I will send you two prototypes. If you can offer some constructive feedback and/or pick the best image, I will upload it for use in the article.

As for a possible "source", was there a similar illustration in Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe"? I know the documentary demonstrated the concept showing a close-up of a telephone wire. Anyway, let me ask another editor for his thoughts on the sourcing concerns. – Maky ^« talk » 20:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maky, it's very kind of you to offer to do this. At the moment, I don't have access to a computer with appropriate imaging software, so I won't be able to work on any of these issues for a few days. In the mean time, you're certainly welcome to create new images for the article.

I think "The Elegant Universe" sounds like an excellent source for the picture you're talking about. The image we're looking for is illustrating a very simple concept which is explained in lots of different places, so it's a little odd to cite a source for it. The source you mention is probably the best choice in this case. I'll send you an e-mail and take a look at your pictures. Polytope24 (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of M-theory

Congratulations on bringing M-theory to FA status! Running the FA gauntlet was a lot of work, and you did a great job. Cheers, --Mark viking (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mark viking! I hope to work with you again on a future featured article! Polytope24 (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see M-theory on the main page; you certainly deserve it for the work you do here! StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep deleting my diagram of String AdS/CFT correspondences and dualites???

Dualities and correspondences in Superstring Theory

Don't just delete things. If you see an inaccuracy in a diagram fix it and make it better. I'm sure it's not too hard to edit a diagram in Windows Paint. You are not helping bringing complicated subjects to the general public by deleting diagrams that show things clearly. Diagrams don't have to exit other places. Likewise the text in a Wikipedia article doesn't exist in another place in this exact form.

Here is a diagram but far too complicated so I simplified it. All I've done is take the string duality and AdS/CFT correspondence and combined them in one diagram. They are all related as everyone who works in string theory and AdS/CFT knows. All the links in the diagram I made are explicitly stated either in the AdS/CFT article or string dualities article.

Here is another diagram of dualities. How can you say all these things aren't related and shouldn't be put on a single diagram?

I think you feel like you own the Ads/CFT page. Unless you ARE actually Edward Witten, or Juan Maldacena in which case I bow to your superior knowledge. (But that would be a bit strange to write an article about yourself!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drschawrz (talk • contribs) 14:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drschawrz, thanks for your message. It was never my intention to discourage you from editing the AdS/CFT article. I reverted your changes because I see a number of problems with what you're trying to do. I mentioned this briefly when I reverted your edits, and I'll try to explain the issues in more detail here.

First of all, I am concerned that the material you added is not entirely relevant to the article. For example, while the monster VOA is a very fascinating structure, its relation to the AdS/CFT correspondence is still fairly obscure and conjectural, and this relationship is not indicated in your diagram anyway. Likewise, the relations between the different versions of superstring theory are quite interesting, but not directly related to the AdS/CFT correspondence. It would make much more sense to include this diagram in the string dualities article, which needs a lot of work at the moment.

A much more serious problem is that you have not cited any sources. Official Wikipedia policy, as documented in WP:WHYCITE, requires citations for any material that is likely to be challenged. Your diagram shows a great deal of detailed technical information, but this is very difficult to verify without a single reference.

The lack of citations is particularly worrisome since the diagram appears to contain a fair amount of misinformation. For example, you claim that type IIB superstring theory can be compactified on

AdS 3 \times S 3 \times S 3 \times S 2

, but this is impossible since the latter space has dimension 11, which is larger than the critical dimension for superstring theory. You claim that there is a connection to the AdS/CFT correspondence and certain sporadic groups, but without a reference its impossible to know exactly what you're talking about. I also don't understand why you describe M-theory as a theory in

AdS 11

.

Please do not ask me to fix the diagram for you. I've worked hard to bring this article and others to featured status. Other people are perfectly welcome to edit the article, but it's important that these edits be technically accurate and supported by reliable sources. Polytope24 (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes I did add the edits to say that AdS/CFT is not mathematically proven. I think it is import to say that it is a conjecture. Yes, there are lots of tests which seem to show it is true in certain cases. So-called "physicists level of proof" is not a proof. There have been many "physicist proofs" that have turned out to be wrong. Even many conjectures by Witten turned out to be wrong when studied by the mathematicians. In fact, Witten bares some responsibility for this as he has made quite a few conjectures including that there exists an 11 dimensional theory called M-Theory which unites all string theories. This may or may not be true. But he is allowed to make such wild conjectures because of his other excellent work including his work involving knot polynomials and Chern Simons theory. In particular I don't think there exists a mathematical proof of the AdS/CFT between string theory and N=4 Super Yang Mills. If there is no mathematical proof it means that it might only be true for the cases that have been tested. I don't really know how to cite the non-existence of a proof. I would rather just say it is a conjecture and then at a later date if someone finds a proof one can change this to cite the proof. Anyway, I don't really care that much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drschawrz (talk • contribs) 23:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]