The first paper they link to is not about string theory. It's using math that was developed for string theory, and is perfectly valid outside it, to make predictions that can be (and are) experimentally validated.

It has exactly none of the problems of string theory, and I am not sure why it's clumped with a physics paper in the blog. How is it a problem to say "hey they used string theory tools!" in a press release? If anything it might get other people to look at the math and get something good out of it...

It reminds of this quote from Roger Penrose's book, Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe:

“My nervousness was perhaps at its greatest because the illustrative area that I had elected to discuss, namely string theory and some of its various descendants, had been developed to its heights in Princeton probably more than anywhere else in the world.”

“Moreover, that subject is a distinctly technical one, and I cannot claim competence over many of its important ingredients, my familiarity with these technicalities being somewhat limited, particularly in view of my status as an outsider.”

“Yet, if only the insiders are considered competent to make critical comments about the subject, then the criticisms are likely to be limited to relatively technical issues, some of the broader aspects of criticism being, no doubt, significantly neglected.”

The fact that Penrose felt nervous criticizing string theory has made me think less of string theory (or rather, the humans behind it) ever since.

Well, it is a surprisingly natural path from Quantum Field Theory (QFT). So many things we get for free (primarily: gravitation), I would be surprised if it were just a random coincidence.

Yet, no one knows how to turn it into an actual theory in physics. It feels like we had QFT but weren't able to create the Standard Model.

It is, obviously, possible that the String Theory framework is just too broad. Or that it is in principle true, but we reached a level where it is too hard. Or it is just a step in the right direction, but we are missing something.

Given the effort of the smartest minds and still no progress (I do not think there is any hype left), it is possible that we need to wait for something more. Like the revival of artificial neural networks in the 2010s, after decades of slumber.

Unfortunately my understanding of physics stops at general relativity and quantum mechnics (which I did study both at uni, with some mathematical framework of understanding).

How would I advance from this point, what should I read to get a grip on string theory, including the concepts and maths involved? Could you recommend some resources?

Like why did they come up with the concepts they came up with, how does that help explain established theories and experimental phenomena on a deeper level, etc.

Also I've noticed there are several competing theories in this domain (like Quantum Gravity, String Theory, hope I'm not wrong), what are the odds that these theories end up being equivalent?

As others have pointed out, compared to classical physics, quantum mechanics describes the world of tiny distances and energies in greater detail while relativity becomes useful at the opposite end.

How would one construct an experiment whose results depend on both phenomena?

Among theoretical physicists there is little doubt that Edward Witten is currently the greatest living theoretical physicist. Here is an interview with him from a few weeks ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAbP0magTVY

I think it is a great watch for anyone with an interest in the field.

Hasn't it just been subsumed by AdS/CFT now? IIUC that's a layer of abstraction but still primarily string theory under the hood. That's still an active area isn't it? Or is that dying too?

If string theorists are now unemployable, and they have to rebrand themselves as doing ML, then it seems to me that string theory is disappearing on its own, even if there are still some with tenure who continue to publicly promote it, but will eventually die off. So maybe when a child who was born this year becomes old enough in the future to develop an interest in physics, they won't even hear about it, except as a footnote.

All it needs is an experiment that can test it.

I notice not-even-wrong-woit doesn't bother refuting any of the claims on their merits. Just calls it "ridiculous hype" and moves on. It's about the same level of rigor he applies to his research in LQG - Loony Quantum Gravity.

Are string theorists any less employable than other physicists? I gather that most physicists end up doing something other than physics.

It feels like Woit is just being a hater at this point. In a meritocracy, talent and funding gravitate toward the most promising options. If string theory took up a large proportion of people and resources, it’s because it solved technical problems no other framework could. Even if it hasn't yielded a Theory of Everything, the fact that its toolkit is now solving problems in other fields suggests the program has led to some success. Now that the field is in a lull, we're seeing a natural institutional rebalancing. Talent is simply self-allocating toward more fertile ground, which is exactly how a healthy scientific ecosystem should function.

Thanks to Michio Kaku.

not a physicist but this video by Angela Collier is a fun watch:

“string theory lied to us and now science communication is hard.

https://youtu.be/kya_LXa_y1E?si=WTfOSS61YeUQbqgf

[dead]

I’m reporting a -1 day here because I’m lazy and tired. Apple passwords are not case sensitive anymore, especially when porting between iPhone and windows QR codes lol

People need to get fired

Sabine Hossenfelder seems to think the paper on natural networks is pretty legit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj5b0ieVWSo

Even if string theory cannot explain the universe, there may still be some value in it.