Many people discredit String Theory for postulating that particles are strings rather than points, out of convenience. However, Max Planck made the same leap of faith when proposing black body radiation is quantized.
>>17030587is there any experimental evidence that supports any hypothesis in string theory?
>>17030587I don't think you fully understand why people take issue with string theory. The strings aren't a problem per se. And the math checks out as a fit for current observations. But it has yet to pass even the most basic test of a model: It must make a testable prediction not made by presently accepted models and have that prediction turn out to be true.Max Plank did that. String theory hasn't so far.
>>17030587Explain why "let's functor our way into geometry and introduce more dimensions" explains anything? Why is "geometry makes it happen" a valid theory. What does the geometry consist of? "Pure spacetime". How do you know that's ontic? What does it consist of? What rules does it follow? It's all circular and seemingly exists in symbiosis with the notion that physicists are people who do a lot of math on a big blackboard.
I'd like it to either be testable or to explain existing disjoint results under one framework (that is, bring together QM and GR)
