I find it weird how much of this is about science popularization. I have an undergrad degree in physics and don't consider myself qualified to have an opinion.<p>Nor do I see the point in having one. If they came tomorrow and said "yep, we just proved string theory", all I could do is shrug and say "good to know".<p>It feels more like people cheering on their favorite sports team than actual science.
Before anybody misinterprets Susskind opinion, String theory might not be, and probably isn't, the theory of the real world, but that doesn't mean it's not useful. The prevalent opinion amongst the physics community is that some parts of String theory are isomorphic to the theory of the real word whatever it might be (e.g. ADS/CFT correspondence).
String theory reminds me of the beta-amyloid theory for Alzheimer’s. Both have sucked up all of the research and funding into a likely dead end.
Worse, they’ve both managed to exclude those trying to work on alternatives, partly because to go against these in-vogue approaches is to go against famous scientists with name recognition and funding control.
As a teen in the mid-1990's, I wanted to be a physicist (hard science!), but after reading extensively about string theory, I decided to become a biologist. Squishy beats non-empirical.
Isn't this about a group of people who are way above their peers in brain capacity or just plain malignant, throwing some utter nonsense into the mix and watch in awe as their not so bright fellows jump on it like flies on rotten meat?