Talk:Brane

why is there an D-brane and brane article? we should probably combine them. H0riz0n 12:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC). I went ahead and did the combining... I will let some admin do the rest. H0riz0n 12:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)... Bah... I went ahead and did it figured it could be reverted H0riz0n 12:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC) I have added Braneworld Cosmology... but im thinking maybe it should be left separate... opinions? H0riz0n 12:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the merger was a bad idea, and at least should have been discussed first. D-branes are a specialized enough topic that they need their own article, as does braneworld cosmology. -- Fropuff 20:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting this. This was a huge change that turned multiple decent articles into a confused mess. H0riz0n, please don't make such edits without discussing them first, and without having a good understanding of the subject. --Constantine Evans 05:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that this article is written in such cryptic terms? Shouldn't it be explained in more general terms to be more available to the public? And why doesn't it mention how the notion of there existing "branes" come about in the first place?

Can the gap be cleaned up? Jackiespeel 17:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

And the evidence for all of this is....zero. The evidence for superstrings is....zero. The evidence for other dimensions is....zero. This is just an unproven speculation and is not science at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.57.179.230 (talk • contribs)

What's your point? --Closedmouth 07:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence for complex numbers...zero! Effect on importance of their study?...zero! Reductio ad absurdum. --Lionelbrits 23:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is tremendously cryptic for the general public. It needs to be completely cleaned up and rewritten. BradNeuberg

Different Wiki Standards for Sciences & the Humanities

Perusing a number of entries in a variety of subjects I note that the various SuperEditors who are quick to delete or flag an entry in the humanities lose all courage when dealing with topics in the sciences. This entry is a good example. There are no references and no way an informed generalist may ascertain the facts asserted. If this were not a scientific topic this entry would have been deleted by now. The Wiki community should apply the same standards throughout the encyclopedia, if the absence of supporting citations dooms an entry in the humanities then such a failure should also bounce an entry in the sciences. LAWinans (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

BBC documentary

This documentary explains string and brane theories in (almost) layman's terms. Perhaps some of its content should be incorporated into the article to make it easier to understand --Closedmouth 03:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment about the word itself

I'd vote to have this term changed to "membrane" or something else less confusing. It just seems like a bad idea to invent a noun that is a homonym for another noun. A few already exist in our language that already cause confusion, but this one really takes the cake. When a physicist is discussing "branes" it's almost impossible to avoid being distracted by the other, much more common word "brain."Landroo 19:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree but for an entirely different reason. M-theory discovered Membranes and that is one very likely reason M-theory is called M-theory and not W-Theory or U-Theory. Also, it seems to me that the word "brane" is just a simplification or shortened version of the Word "Membrane." So I agree we should move this article to something like "Membrane (Cosmology)" seeing as how there are different articles describing Membranes of different contexts. but that is just my opinion.スミス ナサニアル 22:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Brane" is the technical term for a mathematical object. The things described by M-theory and String theory are not "membranes" they are specifically "branes". Doing this would be like renaming "strange" "charm" "bottom" and "top" quarks because the whimsical names are misleading, or (even more so) the use of "color" in quarks as this is very confusing and has nothing to do with ordinary colors. The title really should be "brane".Ekwos (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the above conversation

I was thinking of moving this article to a page that has yet to be created that will be named, Membrane (M-Theory). The reason why is because, I have heard the word "Membrane" used a lot to discuss this object in string/superstring/M Theories with the word "Branes" used afterword. (Similar to the effect of naming an organization such as the Modern Language Association and using its abbreviated form, MLA after.) Also, due to the discussion above, I believe that the move would be accepted by a few.

But, I also, I believe that if I do it now without any prior warning or asking of permission, even if I state, "Sorry if I cause any fuss by doing this..." in the Edit Summary, I will upset a great number of people. So I would like to get a general consensus before I go through with it. So if you agree to this postulation please respond by typing "Agree" or "Disagree" underneath this paragraph with a sentence or two if possible to why or why not this should be carried out. I will wait a week to a month depending on how fast people respond. I greatly hope for some feedback for both sides before preforming the move itself to see if it can be justified or if it is a big waste of time. Thank you for responding in advanced. スミス ナサニアル 03:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree - As I have stated above, I believe that this article should be moved. I have already given my reasons as to why. スミス ナサニアル 03:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it has been a month and still no one has responded signifying whether or not they agree with me or not so as promised I will be now preforming the move. If you disagree with this and haven't yet spoken up, I believe that this conversation will be carried over along with the article itself so we can start up the discussion again and I will take your opinions into account and decide whether or not the article should be moved back to here. So without further ado, heres to a smooth transition. スミス ナサニアル 03:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

why is this referred to as a theory

when it is, in fact, just speculation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.23.137 (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

String theorists have delusions of grandeur.Ekwos (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

An offer for your consideration

While not an expert on Mathematics, Cosmology, or Physics, I feel that even my hobbyist's knowledge of the subject could bring this article from "stub" status to "start" status (which is, after all, higher on the Mathematics Grading Scheme [1]). I'm willing to do research on the topic and expand this topic--which I believe to be of interest to a lot of people--into a more complete article. This would be my first serious involvement with Wikipedia, though, so I want to make sure I'm within my rights to attempt this. Hopefully I can help move this article forward on its way to becoming an A-Class article [2].--The Practical Philosopher (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Making changes

Some changes for mathematicians to make

1) The theory page makes no reference to quantum gravity models a la Vafa.

2) The theory page advocates that membranes come with all of their numbers accessible, can this be clarified to relate to number theory?

3) Could an editor consider that these mathematics are a simulation of 6 extremely complex superstring calculations and as such are merely approximations?

What is this article about?

Now I'm aware that some subjects are difficult to dumb down for the layman but in it's current form who is this article for beyond people who already understand the subject and therefore wouldn't read it to start with? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Came across a reference to this reading sf and found the article understandable; my field is History, and it worked for me. Improvements though, by someone who's doing string would be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewssoul (talk • contribs) 15:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A 0-brane is the familiar zero-dimensional Euclidean point. A 1-brane is the familiar one-dimensional Euclidean line. A 2-brane is the familiar two-dimensional Euclidean surface. Fancy names for traditional concepts. Did they succeed in dazzling you?Lestrade (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Title change

I think the title of the article should be changed into Membrane (String theory) or even better: Brane (String theory). The current title is misleading, and seems to refer to (only) the restricted set of branes ocurring in M-theory, (super)membranes. Ribashka (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, if not one of the suggestions made by Ribashka, at least rename the article using a lowercase "t" for "theory" (i.e. "M-theory") so it's consistent with the use of "M-theory" elsewhere (e.g. the M-theory article itself). 212.84.104.198 (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ribashka. And 'brane' would be better than 'membrane', as that is their name. - snookerfran ^(talk) 23:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone

someone has maliciously edited this article to include minor inaccuracies, if someone who has the expertise could edit the inconsistencies out, i am not sure what they changed, but i know it was, so a general review by a knowledgeable person would be well appreciated. thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.141.203 (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

String is 1-brane or 2-brane?

In the lede, it says "a 1-brane is a string" but under "Description" it says "Originally string theory was a theory of 2-branes called strings." If the theory changed and strings were once thought to be 2-branes and now are thought to be 1-branes, the article should discuss the revision in the theory. More likely, strings still are 1-branes, but I defer to a more knowledgeable editor. Anomalocaris (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Connection to Norse mythology?

The "See Also" section links to Múspellsheimr and Niflheim, though there is nothing in the text to explicitly indicate why these particular terms are relevant, and there is no reference whatsoever to M-Theory in the articles for either Múspellsheimr or Niflheim. If the links are present to allude that Norse mythology was predictive of M-Theory, a random, unexplained linking of but two of the nine worlds seems an odd way to do it. And if so, what differentiates the Norse cosmology from the "planes" of other mythologies? 98.223.162.75 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)