Cosmology: String theory – a first step to understanding it …

I would hardly call what String Theorists are doing now as going against what the elders are saying. They have essentially become the elders. What we now must do is go against what the String Theory experts are saying. It is interesting how String Theory is being called a new theory it actually started in the year 1943 S-Matrix. It failed and was revived in the 70s. String Theory is old hat. String Theory's theoretical predictions are being created based on unproven mathematics. More speculative physics piled upon more speculative theory. The only difference between this idea and crackpot theories is a serious amount of mathematics was used to support it. We are using unproven mathematics to establish un-provable theories. Perhaps we should try coming back down to Earth and reign in this Mad Science. If you are growing tired of all these questionable theoretical concepts spewing from the popular media outlets try checking out The Theory of Super Relativity. Einstein was right about the shortcomings of Quantum Mechanics and so therefore String Theory is also the incorrect approach. As an alternative to Quantum Theory there is a new theory that describes and explains the mysteries of physical reality. While not disrespecting the value of Quantum Mechanics as a tool to explain the role of quanta in our universe this theory states that there is also a classical explanation for the paradoxes such as EPR and the Wave-Particle Duality. The Theory is called the Theory of Super Relativity. This theory is a philosophical attempt to reconnect the physical universe to realism and deterministic concepts. It explains the mysterious. mmfiore14

F/N: Wiki's intro on String Theory as a starter for reflections: ___________ >> String theory is an active research theory in particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity.[1] It is a contender for the theory of everything (TOE), a manner of describing the known fundamental forces and matter in a mathematically complete system. The theory has yet to make testable experimental predictions, leading some to claim that it cannot be considered a part of science. String theory mainly posits that the electrons and quarks within an atom are not 0-dimensional objects, but rather 1-dimensional oscillating lines ("strings"). The earliest string model, the bosonic string, incorporated only bosons, although this view developed to the superstring theory, which posits that a connection (a "supersymmetry") exists between bosons and fermions. String theories also require the existence of several extra, unobservable dimensions to the universe, in addition to the four known spacetime dimensions. The theory has its origins in the dual resonance model (1969). Since that time, the term string theory has developed to incorporate any of a group of related superstring theories. Five major string theories were formulated. The main differences among them were the number of dimensions in which the strings developed and their characteristics. All of them appeared to be correct, however. In the mid 1990s a unification of all previous superstring theories, called M-theory, was proposed, which asserted that strings are really 1-dimensional slices of a 2-dimensional membrane vibrating in 11-dimensional spacetime. As a result of the many properties and principles shared by these approaches (such as the holographic principle), their mutual logical consistency, and the fact that some easily include the standard model of particle physics, some mathematical physicists (i.e. Witten, Maldacena and Susskind) believe that string theory is a step towards the correct fundamental description of nature.[2][3][4][5][unreliable source?] Nevertheless, other prominent physicists (e.g. Feynman and Glashow) have criticized string theory for not providing any quantitative experimental predictions.[6][7] >> ___________ Notice, BTW the focus on seeking a correct -- i.e. true -- description of nature. Notice as well teh emphasis on testable empirical predictions and the want of such to date after about 25 or so years of discussion. In short, the debate is, is it physics or highly mathematical metaphysics. (String theory researchers, of course, routinely receive funding as studying SCIENCE.) Sauce for the goose . . . GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Weinberg didn't say he doesn't think much of string theory. He said he doesn't know what string theory is - a claim that all of string theory's leading proponents would agree with. As far as I know, Weinberg continues to regard string theory as by far the most promising existing attempt at unification and one which is more likely than not to pan out, although there is obviously great uncertainty about that last point (see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/view-weinberg.html, particularly the very end). Jason1083