People often say that the problem with string theory is that it doesn't make any prediction, but that's not quite right: the problem is that it can make almost any prediction you want it to make. It is really less of a "theory" in its own right and more of a mathematical framework for constructing theories.
One day some unusual observation will come along from somewhere, and that will be the loose end that allows someone to start pulling at the whole ball of yarn. Will this happen in our lifetimes? Unlikely, I think.
The problem is that once, a long time ago, String Theory was something that made concrete predictions that people just couldn't calculate.
Then people managed to calculate those predictions, and they were wrong. So the people working that theory up relaxed some constraints and tried again, and again, and again. So today it's that framework that you can use to write any theory you want.
That original theory was a good theory. Very compelling and just a small adjustment away from mainstream physics. The current framework is just not a good framework, it's incredibly hard to write any theory in it, understand what somebody else created, and calculate the predictions of the theories you create.
I am old enough to remember when string theory was expected to explain and unify all forces and predict everything. Sadly, it failed to deliver on that promise.
And there is no known single real world experiment that can rule out string theory while keeping general relativity and quantum mechanics intact.
More accurately, string theory is not wrong (because it just cannot be wrong). Because it does not predict anything and cannot invalidate anything, it does not help to advance our understanding of how to integrate general relativity and quantum mechanics.
It should not be called theory - maybe set of mathematical tools or whatever.
You can't really show it's wrong because there are dozens of different theories but using the Wikipedia definition "point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings" it's possible that particles are not strings. I guess it would then be like fairies at the end of the garden theory. Good from a literary fiction point of view but not reality.
I was planning to make a similar comment. Conjecturing that some theory in the string theory landscape [0] gives a theory of quantum gravity consistent with experiments that are possible but beyond what humans may ever be capable of isn't as strong of a claim as it may first appear. The intuition I used to have was that string theory is making ridiculously specific claims about things that may remain always unobservable to humans. But the idea is not that experiments of unimaginable scale and complexity might reveal that the universe is made up of strings or something, it's just that it may turn out that string theory makes up such a rich and flexible family of theories that it could be tuned to the observed physics of some unimaginably advanced civilization. My impression is that string theory is not so flexible that its uninteresting though. There's some interesting theoretical work along these lines around exploring the swampland [1].
Or, that day will never come, because string theory isn't reflective of the actual world, or because there are so many theories possible under the string theory rubric that we can never find the right one, or because the energies involved to see any effect are far beyond what could be reached in experiment.
It isn't completely implausible that a future civilisation could perform the experiments to gather that data, somehow; but it is hard to envisage how we do it here on Earth.
Your implicit point is a good one. Is it sensible to have a huge chunk of the entire theoretical physics community working endlessly on a theory that could well end up being basically useless? Probably not.
> the problem is that it can make almost any prediction you want it to make
In logic this is either the principle of "contradiction elimination" or a "vacuous truth". Depending on how you look at it. i.e. given sufficiently bad premises, you can prove anything.
The Planck scale where string theory's distinctive physics should appear is around 10^19 GeV. The LHC operates at about 10^4 GeV. That's a factor of 10^15 which is a million billion times too weak. No foreseeable accelerator technology can bridge this gap. The proposed Future Circular Collider (FCC) would reach maybe 10^5 GeV. Still 14 orders of magnitude short.
Non-Euclidean geometry (geometric axioms in which one postulate is rejected such that the 3 angles of a triangle are not exactly 180 degrees) was considered a meaningless word game and fundamental mistruth.
Later, non-Euclidean geometry was actually essential to modern physics.
It's intellectually sketchy to judge future value by the present.
Thanks for posting that; as soon as I saw the title here I was going to look that up if no one else had already. Sabine Hossenfelder too, though there's far too much content from her on this to put a list, but anyone interested might like some of her takes.
A few debates between Brian and other notables; Hossenfelder, Eric Weinstein, and Roger Penrose to name a few; have popped up in my youtube feed lately which are typically also engaging.
_totally_ off topic, but what sort of brain must Ms Collier have that she can play a game at the same time as giving a cogent lecture on String Theory with very few hesitations? I could hardly concentrate on the lecture because of the game being shown in an inset window. Truly impressive
I definitely don't walk away from any of Brian Greene's content thinking that String Theory is anything close to a confirmed fact at all.
It's been some times since I read his earlier books, possibly his tone has changed?
I'll also say, I'm far from a professional physicist. I'm reading and watching for fun and intellectual curiosity, not to learn physics with the goal of doing my own research. I always thought of String Theory as being more of a study of math where many people have unsuccessfully tried to apply it to physics. And, that it's lead to some really interesting ideas. I just find him and his work really enjoyable.
I have a PhD in high energy theoretical physics (hep-th for short) and I've written a paper on string theory, so I'd like to comment on some things:
1. I think there are two reasons why string theory is cool (other people may have different opinions). Please note that none of these two reasons are directly related to the extension of Standard Model.
1.1. String theory is the only theory so far that can mix gravity and quantum mechanics, and it can be even used to derive Hawking entropy of a black hole from "first principles" (see paper by Strominger and Vafa). The obvious trouble is that the black hole in question lives in five-dimensional space and is unrelated to the real-world black holes, but this is way better than what one can get from Standard Model physics (which is, no gravitons for you).
1.2. Through AdS/CFT correspondence, string theory can be used to describe quantum field theories that are not related to string theory by themselves. This gives a very strong tool to study these quantum field theories, and the paper by Maldacena that discovered this correspondence is one of the most important papers in the field.
2. It is true string theory is unusable as of now to derive the Standard Model physics (and provide extensions for it). Unfortunately, I would say that hardly any papers in high energy _theoretical_ physics currently address Standard Model physics. Roughly speaking, in late 1970s, after quantum chromodynamics was established and the asymptotic freedom was discovered, it turned out that it is extremely hard to compute many things we are generally interested in. At this point, high energy theoretical physics split in two sub-areas: phenomenology (which tries to extend the Standard Model to derive things like neutrino mass) and theory (which is a more formal theory and tries to answer questions like "how to quantize gravity"). One can argue that this makes hep-th an area of mathematics, and I would agree with that (eg in Cambridge theoretical physicists are in the same department with applied mathematicians).
2.1. The things theoretical physicists study tend to pop up in various places, even if the original motivation is misplaced. Even the string theory itself originated as a way to explain the Regge trajectories (which were explained with quantum chromodynaics afterwards), and not to quantize gravity. For a more practical example, Witten introduced topological quantum field theories long before anyone understood how to apply them to real-world physics.
3. I do not agree that string theory dominates the hep-th field. I would say that its popularity changes with the time, going up and down. While the main conference in the hep-th field is called "Strings", the talks at it are not necessarily related to strings theory, and at the 2025 conference I'd say that only 1/3 of the talks were anyhow related to the strings theory. Moreover, there is no hard division between people working on string theory and people working on other hep-th subjects, so that e.g. Witten made many contributions to hep-th which are not anyhow related to string theory.
3.1. As for the push to do string theory that eg Sabine Hossenfelder alludes to, I'd say that I experienced no such push during my MSc and PhD studies. I've written four papers, and worked on a couple of projects that did not become a paper, and out of those, only one was dedicated to string theory.
3.2. On the other hand, the more fringe theories that can provide alternative to string theory are also more high-risk endeavors (as you are quite likely to fail to produce anything coherent within a typical timeframe you allot to write a paper). Hep-th is strongly underfunded, and I believe, that with greater funding (and less need to publish-or-perish) some people would also pursue the more fringe directions in hep-th.
3.3. A comment on the naming: hep-th is a field which is very hard to name. The name I use is the traditional one (and is used as eg a name for the field on arXiv). However, many things derived by the physicists in the field are not anyhow related to the high energy in the literal meaning of the words "high energy". When talking to people at a party, I say that I studied string theory, because the name is catchy and it rings a bell, but this way of referring to the field is definitely a misnomer.
Thanks for the comment that exposes the nuances. As a non physicist who is interested in physics, I would say that the predicament is that we simply don't have enough data to tell how to improve our physics theory, but we have too many physicist working in the field, so ideas just get staled.
Not exactly, I'd put it as follows:
1. In phenomenology (the science that looks into extending Standard Model) we'd definitely benefit from more data (with most viable data sources, in my opinion, being not the colliders but the detectors of extraterrestrial particles such as PandaX or Fermi-LAT). However, this doesn't stop us from getting new results, narrowing the window of possibilities for the properties of the Standard Model extensions. This "sorting a haystack in search of a needle" approach may not sound too cool, but this is exactly how we discovered the Higgs boson, for which we looked for more than twenty years.
2. In hep-th we currently lack either enough data (which we can't really collect now), or an ideological breakthrough in solving one of the hard problems. Unfortunately, the problems are indeed very hard, so that one of them (Yang-Mills existence) is a Millenium Prize problem. This caused the de-facto shift of hep-th into applied math, so now hep-th is not constrained by the data problem, and is developing as actively as an area of applied math can.
Here is my question to string theorists: suppose some physicists came up with an alternative theory of everything and were able to use it to make unique empirical predictions. Would you accept it as true and abandon string theory?
What experiment(s) would we have to run to see deviations from the Standard Model and be able to come up with newer models (maybe String Theory maybe not)?
Is it just about higher energy particle collisions? Or does it involve things like doing experiments next to a black hole?
String theory has always seemed intuitively wrong to me. From Wikipedia:
>In theories of particle physics based on string theory, the characteristic length scale of strings is assumed to be on the order of the Planck length, or 10E−35 meters
Yet electrons repel each other over distances of many meters by I think the virtual exchange of photons. How on earth would that work? How does your photo string know to head to an electron string trillions and trillions of times it's length away?
As far as I can tell the field became popular for sociological reasons that you could get grants for it and the like rather than any connection to reality(?)
You're being somewhat unfairly voted down, it's a legitimate questions because the popular media so grossly misrepresents what string theory is, especially in their visuals.
It's hard to visualise in 3D, but if you cut down the spatial dimensions to just 1D (a line), then theories like string theory just turn the infinitely thin mathematical line into a tube. You can picture a tube that vibrates, or has waves in its cross-section. Don't think of the the "strings" as actual little loops moving around in space, they're a modification of what space is.
You can even do the same kind of line->tube extension of a space with even more extra "loop" dimensions than the number of base dimensions. AFAIK the current theories have 10 total, of which 3 are the usual "large" dimensions of space, the rest are "small" and rolled up like the tube example.
Even so I don't get how electrons a meter apart interact through that stuff, as opposed to the electrical fields which spread out through space and so interact with other electrons as featured in quantum field theory which is what physicists use to actually calculate physical results, as opposed to string theory which fails to calculate actual physical results.
"if you cut down the spatial dimensions to just 1D" doesn't sound very physical to me.
I'm maybe being downvoted fairly. I studied physics and it don't think it's a misunderstanding of popularisation or that string theory is untestable, I just think it's straight wrong and not how the physical universe works.
whether or not string theory is at this point grifty and weird, the theoretical basis for it is far stronger than you would think based only on reading critics / pop sci explainers. It is not like, missing any obvious physical facts in its foundation. Rather it is trying to say: look, we have this zoo of particles with seemingly random masses and properties; is there same lower-level framework which can produce the zoo that we see according to a simpler list of rules? The obvious choice for this, especially given some of the "hierarchies" of particles that are observed, is that they are in some way resonant modes of some kind of underlying object. Which is where you get the strings from. (Which might sound like a weird justification if you are not aware of all the other aspects of physics which get explained as resonances of fields; this is a standard sort of justification which there's a lot of good reasons to be interested in, at least initially.)
Readit News
One day some unusual observation will come along from somewhere, and that will be the loose end that allows someone to start pulling at the whole ball of yarn. Will this happen in our lifetimes? Unlikely, I think.
Then people managed to calculate those predictions, and they were wrong. So the people working that theory up relaxed some constraints and tried again, and again, and again. So today it's that framework that you can use to write any theory you want.
That original theory was a good theory. Very compelling and just a small adjustment away from mainstream physics. The current framework is just not a good framework, it's incredibly hard to write any theory in it, understand what somebody else created, and calculate the predictions of the theories you create.
And there is no known single real world experiment that can rule out string theory while keeping general relativity and quantum mechanics intact.
More accurately, string theory is not wrong (because it just cannot be wrong). Because it does not predict anything and cannot invalidate anything, it does not help to advance our understanding of how to integrate general relativity and quantum mechanics.
It should not be called theory - maybe set of mathematical tools or whatever.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampland_(physics)
Your implicit point is a good one. Is it sensible to have a huge chunk of the entire theoretical physics community working endlessly on a theory that could well end up being basically useless? Probably not.
In logic this is either the principle of "contradiction elimination" or a "vacuous truth". Depending on how you look at it. i.e. given sufficiently bad premises, you can prove anything.
so it's javascript?
Later, non-Euclidean geometry was actually essential to modern physics.
It's intellectually sketchy to judge future value by the present.
Energy to vaporize Earth's oceans: ~4 x 10^27 J
For a Planck-scale linear collider at LHC-like collision rates (~10^8/sec):
Beam power requirement: ~2 x 10^17 W
With realistic wall-plug efficiency of ~1%: ~2 x 10^19 W
Annual energy consumption: ~6 x 10^26 J
At 1% efficiency, one year of operation would:
Vaporize about 15% of Earth's oceans
Or vaporize the Mediterranean Sea roughly 50 times
Or boil Lake Superior every 5 hours
Or one complete ocean vaporization every 6-7 years of operation
It's about 1 million times current global power consumption
Or about 50,000 Suns running continuously
Or 170 billion Large Hadron Colliders operating simultaneously
I also just really enjoy Brian Greene, his books, and the World Science Festival Youtube channel.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAbP0magTVY
[1]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kya_LXa_y1E
A few debates between Brian and other notables; Hossenfelder, Eric Weinstein, and Roger Penrose to name a few; have popped up in my youtube feed lately which are typically also engaging.
I definitely don't walk away from any of Brian Greene's content thinking that String Theory is anything close to a confirmed fact at all.
It's been some times since I read his earlier books, possibly his tone has changed?
I'll also say, I'm far from a professional physicist. I'm reading and watching for fun and intellectual curiosity, not to learn physics with the goal of doing my own research. I always thought of String Theory as being more of a study of math where many people have unsuccessfully tried to apply it to physics. And, that it's lead to some really interesting ideas. I just find him and his work really enjoyable.
1. I think there are two reasons why string theory is cool (other people may have different opinions). Please note that none of these two reasons are directly related to the extension of Standard Model. 1.1. String theory is the only theory so far that can mix gravity and quantum mechanics, and it can be even used to derive Hawking entropy of a black hole from "first principles" (see paper by Strominger and Vafa). The obvious trouble is that the black hole in question lives in five-dimensional space and is unrelated to the real-world black holes, but this is way better than what one can get from Standard Model physics (which is, no gravitons for you).
1.2. Through AdS/CFT correspondence, string theory can be used to describe quantum field theories that are not related to string theory by themselves. This gives a very strong tool to study these quantum field theories, and the paper by Maldacena that discovered this correspondence is one of the most important papers in the field.
2. It is true string theory is unusable as of now to derive the Standard Model physics (and provide extensions for it). Unfortunately, I would say that hardly any papers in high energy _theoretical_ physics currently address Standard Model physics. Roughly speaking, in late 1970s, after quantum chromodynamics was established and the asymptotic freedom was discovered, it turned out that it is extremely hard to compute many things we are generally interested in. At this point, high energy theoretical physics split in two sub-areas: phenomenology (which tries to extend the Standard Model to derive things like neutrino mass) and theory (which is a more formal theory and tries to answer questions like "how to quantize gravity"). One can argue that this makes hep-th an area of mathematics, and I would agree with that (eg in Cambridge theoretical physicists are in the same department with applied mathematicians).
2.1. The things theoretical physicists study tend to pop up in various places, even if the original motivation is misplaced. Even the string theory itself originated as a way to explain the Regge trajectories (which were explained with quantum chromodynaics afterwards), and not to quantize gravity. For a more practical example, Witten introduced topological quantum field theories long before anyone understood how to apply them to real-world physics.
3. I do not agree that string theory dominates the hep-th field. I would say that its popularity changes with the time, going up and down. While the main conference in the hep-th field is called "Strings", the talks at it are not necessarily related to strings theory, and at the 2025 conference I'd say that only 1/3 of the talks were anyhow related to the strings theory. Moreover, there is no hard division between people working on string theory and people working on other hep-th subjects, so that e.g. Witten made many contributions to hep-th which are not anyhow related to string theory.
3.1. As for the push to do string theory that eg Sabine Hossenfelder alludes to, I'd say that I experienced no such push during my MSc and PhD studies. I've written four papers, and worked on a couple of projects that did not become a paper, and out of those, only one was dedicated to string theory.
3.2. On the other hand, the more fringe theories that can provide alternative to string theory are also more high-risk endeavors (as you are quite likely to fail to produce anything coherent within a typical timeframe you allot to write a paper). Hep-th is strongly underfunded, and I believe, that with greater funding (and less need to publish-or-perish) some people would also pursue the more fringe directions in hep-th.
3.3. A comment on the naming: hep-th is a field which is very hard to name. The name I use is the traditional one (and is used as eg a name for the field on arXiv). However, many things derived by the physicists in the field are not anyhow related to the high energy in the literal meaning of the words "high energy". When talking to people at a party, I say that I studied string theory, because the name is catchy and it rings a bell, but this way of referring to the field is definitely a misnomer.
Is that a correct assessment?
Is it just about higher energy particle collisions? Or does it involve things like doing experiments next to a black hole?
or dark matter
>In theories of particle physics based on string theory, the characteristic length scale of strings is assumed to be on the order of the Planck length, or 10E−35 meters
Yet electrons repel each other over distances of many meters by I think the virtual exchange of photons. How on earth would that work? How does your photo string know to head to an electron string trillions and trillions of times it's length away?
As far as I can tell the field became popular for sociological reasons that you could get grants for it and the like rather than any connection to reality(?)
It's hard to visualise in 3D, but if you cut down the spatial dimensions to just 1D (a line), then theories like string theory just turn the infinitely thin mathematical line into a tube. You can picture a tube that vibrates, or has waves in its cross-section. Don't think of the the "strings" as actual little loops moving around in space, they're a modification of what space is.
You can even do the same kind of line->tube extension of a space with even more extra "loop" dimensions than the number of base dimensions. AFAIK the current theories have 10 total, of which 3 are the usual "large" dimensions of space, the rest are "small" and rolled up like the tube example.
"if you cut down the spatial dimensions to just 1D" doesn't sound very physical to me.
I'm maybe being downvoted fairly. I studied physics and it don't think it's a misunderstanding of popularisation or that string theory is untestable, I just think it's straight wrong and not how the physical universe works.
Dead Comment