String Theory, A Theory Of Anything

Following on from the „History of String Theory“ video, we’re taking a look at the achievements and shortcomings of string theory and ask the question: has string theory failed?

Content:
0:00 Intro - Failure?
0:57 Failure to be Physics - Theory without Evidence
3:58 Failure of Prediction - A Theory of Anything
6:33 Failure of Acceptance - Always just out of Reach
9:58 Failure in Communication - Hype and Hubris
12:58 The Eventual Usefulness of a Failure

Sources and Influences:

[1] Baggott, Jim (2013)
„Farewell to Reality“
How Fairytale Physics Betrays the Search for Scientific Truth

[2] Conlon, Joseph (2015)
„Why String Theory?“

[3] Gubser, Steven S. (2010)
„The Little Book of String Theory“

[4] Hawking, Stephen (2001)
„The Universe in a Nutshell“

[5] Hawking, Stephen (2015)
„The Illustrated Brief History Of Time“

[6] Kragh, Helge (2015)
„Higher Speculations“
Grand Theories and Failed Revolutions in Physics and Cosmology

[7] Mohaupt, Thomas (2022)
„A Short Introduction to String Theory“

[8] Rickles, Dean (2016)
„A Brief History of String Theory“
From Dual Models to M-Theory

[9] Siegel, Ethan (2016)
„What Every Layperson Should Know About String Theory“

[10] Siegel, Ethan (2019)
„Why Supersymmetry May Be The Greatest Failed Prediction In Particle Physics History“

[11] Smolin, Lee (2009)
„Die Zukunft der Physik“
Probleme der String Theorie und wie es weitergeht
{Engl.: „The Trouble with Physics“}

[12] Vafa, Cumrun (2021)
„Das Universum in Rätseln“
{Engl.: „Puzzles to Unravel the Universe“}

[13] Weinberg, Steven (1993)
„Dreams Of A Final Theory“
The Saerch For The Fundamental Laws Of Nature

[14] Witten, Edward (2015)
„What every physicist should know about string theory“
Physics Today 68 (11), 38–43

[] Woit, Peter (2007)
„Not Even Wrong“
The Failure of String Theory and the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics

Wikipedia:

[VeteranVandal]

String theory is our modern "add another epicycle". Yes, technically speaking, adding another epicycle will eventually describe any possible trajectory, but without elucidating any of the reasons the trajectories take place. In a sense, that's somewhat useless, because you cannot falsify this model too. But the reason it works mathematically is a very good tool, the Fourier series.

[Squirrel_]

Dr. Kaku has a great gig on the History Channel doing alien shows now, at least.

[prosimulate]

Ed Witten: This is a speculative enterprise.
Everyone: Now you tell us?

[NaumRusomarov]

string theory was more a failure of science communication than an actual failure of math and physics. as a theory it stands on the same level as other competing theories of "everything", but it was marketed as the next big thing in physics to the public.

loved the video, btw.

[sjzara]

I like the way you add more information than other commentators (like the needed mass of the lightest super symmetric particles).

[jkzero]

Nice overview. This reminds me of an article that I read when I was starting my PhD appeared in PhysicsWorld titled "Stringscape." The author summarizes it as "string theory has gone from a theory of hadrons to a theory of everything to, possibly, a theory of nothing."

[Highcaloriegrappling]

To get better pick up by the YouTube algorithm, I'd suggest changing your title to 'Failure of string theory | a theory of anything'.

[alexolas]

2:35 “With current technology, it would take a particle collider roughly the size of the solar system to reach the energies required.”

i’ve heard descriptions of a similar megastructure from some other science channels, yet none of them have explained _where_ that figure comes from, or what precisely it is (as an actual number in somethingmeters). i assume there’s some equation somewhere relating the radius of a particle accelerator to the maximum force or force-per-space it can produce. and i suspect that there’s some special threshold, when the force variable is equal to some special number (possibly a planck unit or similar natural quantity), and the radius is then close to the semi-major axis of neptune or pluto-charon or the kuiper belt. but i don’t know what either of these are.

[DavidKutzler]

String Theory Epitaph: "It's not even wrong."

[shannonbowlingchannel]

"On the road to the Theory of Everything, the potholes must first be filled with the dashed hopes of string theorists."

[Jono]

Okay, but then what happens when are no more experiments that you can do at all that are immediately accessible (or our current theories already explain all results of experiments that are currently accessible) and any possible new theory designed to solve remaining mysteries are just out of reach experimentally, at least for the foreseeable future? How does science progress then?

[cougar]

As an experimental physicist myself, I can’t say I’m sad that we have string theorists right now. Pretty much all physicists agree that the path to string theory, laid out in the late 60s by Veneziano and others, seemed like a pretty natural progression. While I don’t think that we should keep throwing tons and tons of money at it, at least we gave it a few decades of time from the world’s brightest minds. As a theorist, you know better than anyone how sneaky Mother Nature can be sometimes 😂 cheers!!

[Name-otxw]

Props to all those mathematicians who got tenure for inventing an untestable system of math. Almost enough to make particle physicists blush.

[NeovanGoth]

Isn't it fascinating how the masses of "predicted" super-symmetrical particles scale in precisely the way that a new, even bigger particle collider has to be built? ;)

Nice video. I like this mindset. Strong Hossenfeld-vibes.

[joshuakirkham]

A good break-down of the issues that alot of theories face.

[chadb]

3:31 Theory alone can never be proof. I 100% agree. This is my problem with Hawking radiation. The math checks out, but there is no test we can currently run.

[duhfher]

"If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it."

chapter 7, “Seeking New Laws, ” p. 156 [as presented in edited book]

- Physics Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman

[tma]

Talking of solar system sized accelerators, can cosmic rays from exploding stars, super massive black holes etc provide the required energy scale evidence ?

[ddtt]

Lovely presentation, bringing all points (and more) that I realized as a bystander. Seen it all coming, exploding and imploding. Still when will they admit it is mostly useless? And apolguise to those they kept down and under?

[therealist]

I just like string theory for the math (but then I like theoretical math lol). I do also think that we should start letting the universe tell us more about how math works than using our math to tell the universe how it should work, if you get my drift. Kind of like how Alain Connes (I think?) suggested a way for physics to either prove or disprove the Riemann hypothesis.