upvote
No, not morons, but people who have built a career on string theory. At this point, even if they regret their decisions, it’s too late to turn back now.
reply
I don't think it's a good argument. String theory is just "one application" of advanced mathematical physics. It's like saying that software developers specialised in ReactJS would lose their career if ReactJS is suddenly abandoned.
reply
Not a fair comparison because one is exposed to real life market forces vs. academic inertia.

ReactJS devs will retrain when the market dies. Professors still publishing theories/experiments costing large amounts of public monies better spent elsewhere.

reply
As opposed to having built a career complaining about string theory on youtube?
reply
And that's the reason she's wrong?
reply
You were the one introducing the argument "they are getting advantages out of it so we should be careful to not take what they say as an impartial view". Same can be told of Hossenfelder (personally, I would say that Hossenfelder has shown more clues that indeed she is not very reliable and would prefer caricatural sensationalistic descriptions, which is not what the typical string theory physicist does).
reply
No, my point was only to refute the idea that people need to be egotistical or moronic (the only two options) to cling to an idea past its expiry date. People could also be “pot-committed” career-wise. Or they could have myriad other reasons (identity, sunk-cost fallacy, etc).

Nowhere did I suggest that “the reason for discrediting string theorists is that they have financial stakes in the idea.” Please try to be more charitable than that.

reply
You said

> No, not morons, but people who have built a career on string theory. At this point, even if they regret their decisions, it’s too late to turn back now.

This is not presented as "yet another option that may or may not be the reality", this is presented as your conclusion of why we observe what we observe.

Maybe it is not what you are thinking, but you cannot blame people for interpreting your message the way you have written it.

I agree with you that there are several options, one of the most probable, that you did not mention, is that the situation of the string theory is just "normal" and some idiots are not able to understand that.

reply
Spending your life's work on a theory that is widely agreed to be untestable is certainly a form of ego, or at least is more philosophy than science.
reply
The "untestable" meme is just a thought terminating cliche. It's as if you believe no researchers ever considered the brilliant insight that the framework is difficult to test. History is littered with plenty of examples of a novel discovery, understanding, or technology yielding new opportunities for experimental design.

It's also a glib dismissal of the unexpected mathematical elegance of string theory that makes it so compelling. Worse, it completely ignores the material contributions to applied physics that string theory has made possible which is obviously worth "spending your life's work on" - as if people need to justify the value of their life's work to disinterested onlookers lest they be demeaned.

reply
This is a pretty silly belief to hold about science. Plenty of strong, well held standards of the modern era were considered ridiculous fringe beliefs a century ago.
reply
They were testable, no?
reply
Not taking either side here - but surely a lot of cosmological phenomena couldn't be testable/verifiable at the time they were theorized either?

(thinking of black holes for example - they were theorized way before we had observations. And presumably a lot of particle physics can similarly be theorized before we built the technology to experimentally verify them)

reply
Black holes were theorized and you could design experiments that, given the proper instruments, would allow them to be detected. Relativity was similar (famously, the curvature of spacetime was demonstrated during a solar eclipse by being able to see stars that should have been behind the sun).

String theory has nothing even theorized that would allow us to prove it.

reply
Sometimes theories need engineering to catch up to become testable.
reply
Well, we can test it, but you'll need to give me a ton of money in order for me to test it.
reply