[IronJack]

I don't pretend to be a theoretical physicist, but this jabber about string theory just feels wrong. It's like Copernicus being forced to define a geocentric solar system. It can be done, yes, but only by torturing the numbers to fit the concept. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this is the opposite, the simplest mathematical route. But it just doesn't seem right to me, for whatever that's worth.

It would be interesting to see a version of this "for Dummies." I think I could grasp the concepts, although I admit the theoretical math eludes me.

[Semper Paratus]

It would be interesting to see a version of this "for Dummies."

"String Theory For Dummies" would be a tough book to write.

[snarks_when_bored]

It would be interesting to see a version of this "for Dummies." I think I could grasp the concepts, although I admit the theoretical math eludes me.

Galileo's take (from The Assayer):

Philosophy is written in this vast book, which continuously lies upon before our eyes (I mean the universe). But it cannot be understood unless you have first learned to understand the language and recognise the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and the characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures. Without such means, it is impossible for us humans to understand a word of it, and to be without them is to wander around in vain through a dark labyrinth. . .