String Theory Didn't Fail. It's Worse.
[This is a transcript with links to references.]
You’d think that physicists could finally leave string theory behind and move on, but that isn’t happening. It’s not that string theory failed, it’s worse. Just the other day, Quanta Magazine ran an article titled “Are Strings Still Our Best Hope for a Theory of Everything?” and answering this question basically with yes.
The article also begins with a quote from me ““String theory is not dead; it’s undead and now walks around like a zombie eating people’s brains,” the former physicist Sabine Hossenfelder said. The former physicist.” Well, well, Natalie, getting a little passive aggressive here? Ok, let me give you some context.
The news in the article from quanta magazine is a paper from January by a group of string theorists. It’s a purely mathematical analysis of the question whether it is justified to say that string theory is “the only game in town”, as string theorists like to say. This is a longstanding claim of string theorists that no matter how you try to construct a theory of everything, it must be string theory. Eric Weinstein famously claims that string theorists have killed physics by taking over the foundations with this “only game in town” claim.
In the new paper, the authors show that a particular version of quantum field theory, that’s the type of theory we use for the standard model of particle physics, leads to a version of string theory, under certain circumstances. Problem is, as the title says, that for this to work, one needs maximal supersymmetry which we do not have in the real world. So the conclusion is: string theory is inevitable, as long as you first assume a universe that doesn’t exist. And that’s really all there is to say about this.
This attempt to prove that string theory must follow given certain assumptions is very similar to a paper I already talked about last year. The idea that string theory is the only game in town is obviously wrong, because there is no reason that a theory which combines all the four known interactions has to be a final theory, has to be “uv-complete” as physicists put it, or has to be a quantum theory, or has to unify the interactions or has to be supersymmetric, which are key assumption to all these proofs. So in my mind, these are good papers because they force string theorists to face just why their theory is not the only game in town.
But that string theorists are in the process of disproving themselves isn’t really the noteworthy thing here. What’s noteworthy is a general trend that I see in the community, especially among younger people. They are no longer interested in describing reality. They are content to just do some calculation so long as they can get it published. The previous generations of string theorists, at least they tried to figure out how to test the idea. Granted, that didn’t work, they just ended up inventing a lot of particles that where never found, but at least they tried to do real science. The new generation just doesn’t care at all.
And that is the legacy of string theory, it’s left behind a group of people who call themselves scientists but who do neither properly science nor properly mathematics, because mathematicians don’t care about this stuff either. In fact no one cares about this except as it seems quanta magazine, so let me tell you something about that.
Quanta Magazine is primarily financed by the Simons foundation and their mission seems to basically be to hype research at US top tier institutions. The reporting isn’t per se bad, but it is entirely uncritical. If there are some people at top US institutions saying something is important, they’ll report on it. Then they’ll get some colleagues to say nice things and quote them and that’s that.
That said, I also disagree with Eric Weinstein’s idea that string theory killed the foundations of physics. I think his point of view has strongly been shaped by his own history at US-American Ivy league institutions. I have academically “grown up” in Europe, and over here string theory was never much of a thing to begin with.
Yes, we did and do have string theorists, but they were a small group and have never been the major problem. It was more of a niche hobby, like knitting, just with more indices. The bigger problem over here have been high energy particle physicists eating up funding for foundational research and streamlining everyone into inventing new particles. So, it’s not that I doubt Eric’s own experience, certainly not. But I think string theory is symptom, not the disease.
The disease itself is the completely broken incentive structure in academia. Doing real science is hard. Doing some calculations for theories that don’t describe the real world is easy. Better still, since most people on the planet don’t understand the calculations, they won’t dare criticising you. And that’s why this insanity lives on. And if you start calling how insane this is, that’s when you become a “former physicist”.
Comments (29)
Mathematics is not science. Note that there is no Nobel prize for mathematics.
String theory is bunk 100% BS
psychology + neuroscience is what really kills the foundations tho in my opinion
Strings are complicated, they always wrap you up and draw you back in. But back on topic, should Sabine, the "former physicist" face off against the "supposed journalist" Natalie then my money is on Sabine.
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.
This is a really nicely-constructed presentation. I love the way it circles around to pointing out that this whole thing was basically a "shoot the messenger" tactic. Anyone else want to see a cage match between Sabine and Natalie? The only rules are that the allowed weapons are experimental results and it has to take place in our universe.
These rules are not fair, the looser is clear before the fight starts.
Maybe the “former physicist” epithet has to do with some bad feelings between you and them? Aren't you also a “former Quanta writer”? https://www.quantamagazine.org/authors/sabine-hossenfelder/ Did I miss the post where you related your falling out with them...? I'll continue to follow your missives wherever they appear :-)
thanks for the support!
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/traian-terec-2bb051137_the-biggest-post-einstein-predictioneclipse-activity-7447333777929834496-RCLI?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAACFJzW8BrMdPJSGiuL7HWOc_KjACAJvTG94
Sabine I predicted red circle in NASA oficial photo of Artemis eclipse:
https://youtu.be/53pweVfVwV8?si=i2KjCrM-dqOetU0N Hi Sabine, I thought this might lighten your day. haha
The disease is mathematicism, the scientifically baseless philosophical belief that mathematics underlies and determines the nature of physical reality. That is the operating paradigm of Modern Theoretical Physics. MTP is now a wasteland of vapid, imaginary physics propping up decrepit, century-old mathematical models. It's current account of physical reality on macro and micro scales is incoherent, illogical, and absurd. If you don't bow to the mathematicist cult of belief you are not allowed to work in academic science. The required act of obeisance is a de facto acceptance of the so-called standard models as true by acclimation. Challenging those models is grounds for excommunication from the cult and thus from academic science itself, such as it is. Peer review produces sycophantic rubbish. It is impossible to do science in an environment controlled as it currently is by delusional mathematicists who believe their badly broken models to be unchallengeable holy truths.
So much math hate! I get pissed by the nonsense, too, but this is only going to hurt math's feelings. It's just a tool being misused. Like trying to change a tire with a claw hammer.
Cute: there seems to be something at least of an underlying operative structural pathology afoot. If only I were cancelled for questioning string theory. Here’s my sharp formal critique of GR and the standard model of cosmology. Recommended quality light beach/toilet reading if anyone is bored. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19442366 Nobody’s perfect. It’s fine; I’m probably wrong too.
So much for the salad; now to the main course: What should we say about string theory? First thing surely would be to acknowledge Smolin's The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2006). After all, he tried (and then gave up trying) to talk you out of writing your trashing-junk-physics book, Lost in Math. I bet he even set you up with Max Brockman. (Yeah, I know it may be out of fashion to acknowledge Lee right now but I'm not going there.) He WAS a stringer and he drank the Kool Aid and he turned into a critic who said pretty much all there is to say about the failings of string theory. Like you: Serious intellectual integrity! Next we should note there seems to be some sort of substance to string theory that's keeping it afloat. For example, in Time Now (p. 101) I quote a knowledgeable source as saying: "So we are certain string theory has a connection to the real world." Hmmm. As my practice is, I check the source of each quote to make sure I have it right and of course to rightly cite it and -- my goodness! -- I have duplicated the offending article that got you going by quoting YOU. Thing is, as Time Now: The True Nature of Reality explains in more detail than would suit this space, you got that exactly right! And, just a moment, what is this we have here? Yet another instance of your talking up ontology. I mean, what could be more deeply ontological than a connection to the real world?
For decades, String theory has been treated as the leading candidate for a “theory of everything.” But there’s a growing recognition—even among physicists—that it may not actually describe our universe. As critics like Sabine Hossenfelder point out, many versions of string theory only work if you assume conditions (like supersymmetry) that we simply do not observe in reality . That raises a practical question: should we keep investing in a framework that struggles to connect with measurable physics? Holosphere theory offers a fundamentally different approach. Instead of starting with abstract mathematics and hoping reality fits, it starts with physical behavior—coherence, strain, and transport—and builds upward. Think of string theory like designing a perfect blueprint for a machine that has never been built. It may be elegant, but no one has ever seen it run. Holosphere theory is more like studying how real traffic flows through a city and then deriving the rules from what actually happens. Another way to see the difference: string theory relies on hidden extra dimensions that are difficult or impossible to test. Holosphere theory stays in observable space and explains structure as patterns of alignment and breakdown—like how ripples form in water or how highways emerge from repeated use. You don’t need invisible dimensions to explain the pattern; you need rules for how motion organizes itself. Most importantly, Holosphere theory is designed to be falsifiable. It makes concrete predictions about things like galaxy rotation, cosmic structure, and signal transport. That gives it a clear business advantage: it can be tested, refined, or rejected based on data. In short, the shift is from “mathematical possibility” to “physical accountability.” If physics is about describing reality—not just exploring abstract consistency—then approaches like Holosphere theory deserve serious consideration as a replacement, not just an alternative.
I too read Wolchover's "former physicist" as thoughtless at best, and as seriously ill-considered if she did give it any thought. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we have a more consequential and even less professional spectacle. One that unfortunately passes for usual these days. I refer to that paper's choice of specious math as the vehicle for engaging (or effectively not engaging) in debate about what's real and what language will enable us to make progress with it. In this regard, Sabine, you are not always on the side of the angels. Yet check what you just (quite aptly) used as your punch line: "a universe that doesn’t exist." If that's not the ultimate ontologic shot I do not know what is. Your own words are here confirming (in backhanded fashion) what I have been trying to politely bring to your (and your loyal fans') attention for some time: THE DEEP PROBLEMS OF FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICS ARE ONTOLOGICAL AND LINGUISTIC, RATHER THAN THEORETICAL! These problems are addressed, with I hope the seriousness they deserve, in Time Now: The True Nature of Reality, which finds they have a singular simple solution. I don't need you to buy the book; the publisher will send you a free copy on request. I don't need you to read the book: Your fans need you to read the book; and so do you.
It was NOT "thoughtless", in this case they would have edited it, after many people (including me) had demanded that on their accounts, which did not happen. It´s one of the dumbest ad hominem attacks, I heard for a while. I hope it gets an own goal.
If you like string theorizing, you'll love academic economics, perhaps especially parts of health economics.
It’s that physics at fundamental scales currently lacks sufficient empirical constraints to force closure. Until that changes, the field will continue to explore mathematically consistent possibilities rather than converge on a single physical theory.
True except that much of the work, such as the paper talked about in this episode *ignores* the empirical constraints we do have. I think that is what gets the steam going in these posts.
QM will be the same: no computational results because entanglement is not a thing.
This happened to me, too! I changed careers from bench biology to patent law. One snarky post-doc said, “you aren’t a scientist anymore.” He got a laugh from the audience and I felt humiliated. So now, I will still introduce myself as a scientist (depending on my audience) and add “well I think I’m still a scientist… I got a Ph.D. and then went to law school, but they haven’t taken away my union card.” I usually get a laugh, and pre-empt snarky digs. Sorry to hear that a vulnerable narcissist took your career development and turned it into an ad hominem attack to try to diminish the substantive hard work you did in academics. You won your stripes fairly and nobody can take that away just because they disagree with you. Please keep your chin high. Cheers, Allen
Hi Allen, you are right, and that snarky post-doc and the laugh of the audience are symptomps of how bad can people be with each other. On the other hand, writer Josep Pla once said: "We are what we do every day".
Wow! So "former physicist" in this context implies "conspiracy theorist." Can imply other things in other contexts as well though, seems like. Karl von Reichenbach and his "Od" research comes to mind. He was an active and respected scientist until he discovered the western version of qi and began to write about it.
Linus Pauling and vitamin C. No relevance to Sabine, of course. She's just out there industriously trying to educate us, and running her Bullshit Meter(R).
Looks like someone in that article conflated job description with education field. It suggests you can uneducate yourself... Somehow.
The "former" science journalism tends to become more and more a depraved echo chamber.