"String theory is incredibly appealing to many scientists because it is “beautiful”—its equations are satisfying and its proposed explanations elegant. But so far it lacks any experimental evidence supporting it—and even worse, any reasonable prospects for gathering such evidence."
[scientificamerican.com]theory-may-create-far-fewer-universes-than-thought/
Read Brian Green's The Elegant Universe. It's the best explanation out there for non-experts. I loved it and it came in handy in the early 2000s when string theory was initially being talked about.
I bought that expecting something like "A Brief History of Time" or "The Universe in a Nutshell," but for string theory. I was severely disappointed. Brian Green's writing feels like he dumbs some things down too much, talks down to the reader, and is too invested in string theory being "right" to adequately consider the entirety of it.
To be fair, I am probably not the target audience.
@Drewesque Right. Definitely too smart for such an award winning book geared towards the layperson.
@LilAtheistLady Sorry if that seemed like an ego thing. I did not mean that I am too smart by any means. I am just someone who finds the concept interesting, but would have preferred a book that offered more of a critique of the theory. I had done some reading on the topic already, but most authors are either far too involved in the research to write an approachable book that addresses the strengths and limitations or they just dismiss string theory due to unprovable hypotheses. I had picked up the book hoping that it would include criticisms and address them. The closest he came to that was introducing the competing string theories and the attempt to consolidate them.
I far prefer Hawking's books, but their subject matter is slightly more practical, which may be part of my dislike. It is difficult to properly come up with engaging analogies for collapsed dimensions and a theory that is pretty much entirely mathematical. I may have had my hopes too high for "The Elegant Universe," as I found the ants on a hose analogy to be a rather strange way to approach it, and rather unhelpful.
I don't think I was the target audience because many loved it and because I was looking for something different. I tend to assume that many of the books I do not enjoy or get a lot from have targeted someone with different interests or styles.
The debate continues.... It will until something better comes along. I cannot speak for researchers working on this field, other than they are still looking and trying to move the ball forward. It depends also who do you read...Brian Greene, it's all fantastic and promising..... Peter Woit, well in his own words "not even wrong" and all the ones in between. It's interesting to say the least, that's for sure
I'm not supposed to be saying this, but I have it on good authority that valid evidence for String Theory has been embargoed at the "request" of Chuck Lorre. If valid ST evidence ever came out in public, there would be no more running gags about Sheldon on Big Bang Theory NOT finding any evidence for it.
Gotta give it to you ?
It's also a really catchy term. Throw it around and you instantly sound smart! At least that's what I'm hoping the people at parties are thinking of me.
Yeah at this point I would have to say it's a very unprovable Theory but a fascinating one