Hi,I think, you think you are disagreeing with me, but you are not. As I see it, string theory can (maybe) describe and infinite number of universes (as you said too general) and there seems to be no hope of coming up with the particular solution that will describe ours.
Coupled with the fact that it requires supersymmetry and each new collider we build ups the lower limit on then energy of supersymmetric particles requiring modifications to the theory, and it looks like a dead end to me. What it predicts beyond the standard model has been pretty much disproven.
Bob
Bob
Well thanks for clarifying that. However, i am not sure if you accept it or not, maybe you accept it for some things and not for other things. That's probably my view too. BTW when i say string theory i am including M Theory.
However, supersymmetry is not "required" for string theory. As with all mathematics, symmetry always simplifies the problem in some way. So it is used to form a more workable solution ... a simpler model to work with. We do this all the time in electronics, we create models that are not exact but can show us a lot of information it would have taken longer to get without the toy model. A transistor modeled by a dependent current source for example. It works to a certain point so we can get at least some information from it. We can always turn to the full blown model spice offers us.
In the purest sense though supersymmetry is not "required" i think a better word is "desired".
It's also interesting how it helped mathematics in general.