>>11315416> shockingly inaccuratelyno, it's not inaccurate. more like it has too much freedom. it has been shown that it can predict a universe just like ours, with the standard model and gravity, very closely, but it can predict lots of other non-realistic or slightly-off stuff too and it's unclear how one sorts these things out so far. this is not "innacurate" because "inaccurate" would mean it makes a prediction which is incompatible with observed reality, which is not the case so far.
>We do have some strong contenders.none of string theory's contenders could in any way be considered "strong". not a single one of them is actually a theory/framework of everything. all the alternatives to string theory are vague ideas that basically can only quantize gravity while leaving out all the other forces, and none of them comes close to having anything resembling the rest of physics. they are so weak that they can safely be ignored.
