>>12906973honestly as a big fan of string theory here, i have got to say that it is definitely a leap of faith. i have looked into it and i am convinced it is right because so many really truly “lucky” things happen in it to make it provide a viable theory of everything when there are so so many things of this type where it could have gone wrong. a great example is that it provides just the right amount of spacewomen dimensions such that d-brane configurations (or alternatively compatifications) can encode the standard model. and this consistency check of string theory came literally 30 years after string theory was invented. there were 30 years of limbo before they even knew about d-branes and how to construct realistic models that included gravity plus the standard model, and it could have been debunked right then and there. but magically the number 6 is what it predicted, instead of 1,2,3,4,5,7, or 8, and that was perfect. there have been so many other lucky things in string theory that work out like this. it just barely hangs together—not because of tweaks we make but rather because somehow it just luckily happens to fit all the constraints for some imponderable reason.
but this is not up to the scientific standard i would like. just because an equation gives a great fit to the data is not enough. you need tests. and unfortunately string theory has also seemingly led to the implication that it doesn’t admit itself to experimental testing with what humans are capable of.
so it does have almost a no scientific smell hovering around it. it is wonderfully consistent and has this awesome track record of working out despite all these numerous pitfalls you would assume it might trip on. but that isn’t quite scientific. there is some definite faith-based buy-in you need to do.
i wouldn’t call it bullshit, i’d just say that it is something that is almost too good to be true. then it depends on whether or not you value skepticism over the siren song
