[DesertRhino]

For god’s sakes, please stop calling it string “theory”. It’s “String Hypothesis” until there is a repeatable falsifiable experiment proving it. A dry erase board is not an experiment.

[gundog]

[dayglored]

> For god’s sakes, please stop calling it string “theory”. It’s “String Hypothesis” until there is a repeatable falsifiable experiment proving it. A dry erase board is not an experiment.

THIS ^^^

[subterfuge]

Thanks Sheldon.

[Rockingham]

String theory is a fair term in that it is the best and most durable idea that we have for reconciling quantum mechanics and relativity, both of which are experimentally well-proven.

When and if proof comes for string theory or some derivation of it, it will almost certainly be first stated as ideas and mathematics that explain otherwise puzzling observations and experimental results. That is how Einstein got his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect, not by lab work, but by mathematically describing light as composed of particles emitted with quanta of energy expressed by their frequency.

For physicists, Einstein suddenly made sense of light emission stimulated by electrons. He adopted Planck's proposal that light consisted of particles (photons), with Einstein further explaining their frequency as quanta of kinetic energy imparted by electrons. The warm glow from Edison's marvelous light bulb (and much else) was thereby explained.