Only in universe with 5 dimensions. Shouldn't string theory be given up on at this point? This theory has existed for over 50 years and hasn't produced any results. Even the predictions made by it such as e.g. supersymmetry have not been confirmed despite searching for them at particle colliders.

▲ yyyk an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The issue isn't string theory yes or no (there are reasons physicists went this way and other alternatives aren't so much better), but the difficulty in getting data and testable predictions. It's very likely the most effective way to help particle physics is getting way more data at high energies, not a new theory.

▲ n4r9 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As I understand it, it's still our best candidate for a unified theory of everything. Not for lack of effort in researching alternatives, either.

▲ 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲ boxed 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It has produced some good math though. That's something.

▲

isolli 4 hours ago | parent [-]

At what opportunity cost?

▲

tomrod 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Low. It's too expensive to send all of humanity across the stars at present.

▲

kakacik 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you want to bash badly-spent potential look at people doing cutting edge ad research and optimization, or HFT. This is at least good base research that others can build on.

▲

bluGill 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

String theory has generated a lot of hype over the years, but never delivered anything. Looks to me like they are all the negatives you hate about ad research.

▲

isolli 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Fair point, but waste in one domain should not be used to excuse waste elsewhere. Unless your argument is that it's generally hard for human societies to know where to best invest their scientific talent without the benefit of hindsight.

▲

defrost 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Think of it as a playground for the exercise and training of a pool of minds that will one day either make the glove fit or kick the sand castle over replacing it with a better mousetrap.

Too many metaphors? Hmmm, maybe fold in some dimensional reduction somehow.

▲

lacunary 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

human societies don't decide where to invest their talent; individuals do

	▲	Avicebron 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I've worked in academia. How grants are won and research is received and encouraged is not an individual decision.
	▲	guerrilla 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> don't decide shouldn't* decide

▲

hahahahhaah 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree plus ST takes a person who would have researched somewhere else. The Googler or Jane Street or guy who decides to travel the world in the canoe have different reasons and probably would need way more persuading to be in academia.

▲

boxed 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

100% unknown. That's always the problem with science and why political control and direction always backfires and is stupid.

▲ aurareturn 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

  Shouldn't string theory be given up on at this point?

Has anti string theory propaganda taken over HN? Sabine Hossenfelder succeeded?

Anyone who is anti string theory actually qualified to make statements saying string theory is wrong or not worth more investment from researchers?

Are these anti string theory posts on HN mostly just laymen hearing how string theory can’t be tested and we wasted a lot of resources on it so it needs to be repeated on every string theory post here?

▲

squeefers 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Susskind himself said its dead in the water. We dont live in an anti de-Sitter space, the basis of string theory.

▲

aurareturn an hour ago | parent [-]

Source?

▲

simiones 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

Here is a lengthy interview where he discusses this at length (with a timestamp where he says exactly that String Theory, the precise mathematical model, doesn't describe the real world):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p_Hlm6aCok&t=10m15s

This also references this podcast discussion between Leonard Susskind and Lawrence Krauss, where they discuss the same thing:

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

Note that he still thinks that there is a way to produce some kind of similar theory, "a string theory" as opposed to "String Theory", could be the best answer.

▲

aurareturn 12 minutes ago | parent [-]

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/1kolwxm/last_ye...

According to this Reddit thread, he doesn't say it's "dead in the water" at all. It's just a version of string theory.

This is what I'm afraid of. People who aren't qualified spreading fake news on string theory.

I don't claim to be qualified. I just want to call out HN people who are extremely confident that string theory is dead but has no background in physics.

	▲	simiones 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You can listen to the podcast yourself. I explained my own understanding of his position: that String Theory, the specific mathematical structure, is categorically not a good model of the real world. He does believe that it is possible to create a different theory inspired from String Theory, "a slightly expanded version of String Theory", that could be correct. But, he also says that no version of a string theory that exists today fulfills this role. Now, if by "string theory is dead in the water" someone means that "working on a generalization of string theory is a bad idea", then they are wrong, Leonard Susskind doesn't believe that. But if by "string theory is dead in the water" they mean "there is no point in studying String Theory deeper, with its general mathematical properties, maybe with a slight tweaks, as it is right now it can't describe the real world", then this is quite clearly professor Susskind's position.