Thirty years have passed since a pair of physicists, working together on a stormy summer night in Aspen, Colo., realized that string theory might have what it takes to be the “theory of everything.”

“We must be getting pretty close,” Michael Green recalls telling John Schwarz as the thunder raged and they hammered away at a proof of the theory’s internal consistency, “because the gods are trying to prevent us from completing this calculation.”

Their mathematics that night suggested that all phenomena in nature, including the seemingly irreconcilable forces of gravity and quantum mechanics, could arise from the harmonics of tiny, vibrating loops of energy, or “strings.” The work touched off a string theory revolution and spawned a generation of specialists who believed they were banging down the door of the ultimate theory of nature. But today, there’s still no answer. Because the strings that are said to quiver at the core of elementary particles are too small to detect — probably ever — the theory cannot be experimentally confirmed. Nor can it be disproven: Almost any observed feature of the universe jibes with the strings’ endless repertoire of tunes.

The publication of Green and Schwarz’s paper “was 30 years ago this month,” the string theorist and popular-science author Brian Greene wrote in *Smithsonian Magazine* in January, “making the moment ripe for taking stock: Is string theory revealing reality’s deep laws? Or, as some detractors have claimed, is it a mathematical mirage that has sidetracked a generation of physicists?” Greene had no answer, expressing doubt that string theory will “confront data” in his lifetime.

Recently, however, some string theorists have started developing a new tactic that gives them hope of someday answering these questions. Lacking traditional tests, they are seeking validation of string theory by a different route. Using a strange mathematical dictionary that translates between laws of gravity and those of quantum mechanics, the researchers have identified properties called “consistency conditions” that they say any theory combining quantum mechanics and gravity must meet. And in certain highly simplified imaginary worlds, they claim to have found evidence that the only consistent theories of “quantum gravity” involve strings.

According to many researchers, the work provides weak but concrete support for the decades-old suspicion that string theory may be the only mathematically consistent theory of quantum gravity capable of reproducing gravity’s known form on the scale of galaxies, stars and planets, as captured by Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. And if string theory is the only possible approach, then its proponents say it must be true — with or without physical evidence. String theory, by this account, is “the only game in town.”

“Proving that a big class of stringlike models are the only things consistent with general relativity and quantum mechanics would be a way, to some extent, of confirming it,” said Tom Hartman, a theoretical physicist at Cornell University who has been following the recent work.

If they are successful, the researchers acknowledge that such a proof will be seen as controversial evidence that string theory is correct. “‘Correct’ is a loaded word,” said Mukund Rangamani, a professor at Durham University in the United Kingdom and the co-author of a paper posted recently to the physics preprint site arXiv.org that finds evidence of “string universality” in a class of imaginary universes.

So far, the theorists have shown that string theory is the only “game” meeting certain conditions in “towns” wildly different from our universe, but they are optimistic that their techniques will generalize to somewhat more realistic physical worlds. “We will continue to accumulate evidence for the ‘string universality’ conjecture in different settings and for different classes of theories,” said Alex Maloney, a professor of physics at McGill University in Montreal and co-author of another recent paper touting evidence for the conjecture, “and eventually a larger picture will become clear.”

Meanwhile, outside experts caution against jumping to conclusions based on the findings to date. “It’s clear that these papers are an interesting attempt,” said Matt Strassler, a visiting professor at Harvard University who has worked on string theory and particle physics. “But these aren’t really proofs; these are arguments. They are calculations, but there are weasel words in certain places.”

Proponents of string theory’s rival, an underdog approach called “loop quantum gravity,” believe that the work has little to teach us about the real world. “They should try to solve the problems of their theory, which are many,” said Carlo Rovelli, a loop quantum gravity researcher at the Center for Theoretical Physics in Marseille, France, “instead of trying to score points by preaching around that they are ‘the only game in town.’”

**Mystery Theory**

Over the past century, physicists have traced three of the four forces of nature — strong, weak and electromagnetic — to their origins in the form of elementary particles. Only gravity remains at large. Albert Einstein, in his theory of general relativity, cast gravity as smooth curves in space and time: An apple falls toward the Earth because the space-time fabric warps under the planet’s weight. This picture perfectly captures gravity on macroscopic scales.

But in small enough increments, space and time lose meaning, and the laws of quantum mechanics — in which particles have no definite properties like “location,” only probabilities — take over. Physicists use a mathematical framework called quantum field theory to describe the probabilistic interactions between particles. A quantum theory of gravity would describe gravity’s origin in particles called “gravitons” and reveal how their behavior scales up to produce the space-time curves of general relativity. But unifying the laws of nature in this way has proven immensely difficult.

String theory first arose in the 1960s as a possible explanation for why elementary particles called quarks never exist in isolation but instead bind together to form protons, neutrons and other composite “hadrons.” The theory held that quarks are unable to pull apart because they form the ends of strings rather than being free-floating points. But the argument had a flaw: While some hadrons do consist of pairs of quarks and anti-quarks and plausibly resemble strings, protons and neutrons contain three quarks apiece, invoking the ugly and uncertain picture of a string with three ends. Soon, a different theory of quarks emerged. But ideas die hard, and some researchers, including Green, then at the University of London, and Schwarz, at the California Institute of Technology, continued to develop string theory.

Problems quickly stacked up. For the strings’ vibrations to make physical sense, the theory calls for many more spatial dimensions than the length, width and depth of everyday experience, forcing string theorists to postulate that six extra dimensions must be knotted up at every point in the fabric of reality, like the pile of a carpet. And because each of the innumerable ways of knotting up the extra dimensions corresponds to a different macroscopic pattern, almost any discovery made about our universe can seem compatible with string theory, crippling its predictive power. Moreover, as things stood in 1984, all known versions of string theory included a nonsensical mathematical term known as an “anomaly.”

On the plus side, researchers realized that a certain vibration mode of the string fit the profile of a graviton, the coveted quantum purveyor of gravity. And on that stormy night in Aspen in 1984, Green and Schwarz discovered that the graviton contributed a term to the equations that, for a particular version of string theory, exactly canceled out the problematic anomaly. The finding raised the possibility that this version was the one, true, mathematically consistent theory of quantum gravity, and it helped usher in a surge of activity known as the “first superstring revolution.”

But only a year passed before another version of string theory was also certified anomaly-free. In all, five consistent string theories were discovered by the end of the decade. Some conceived of particles as closed strings, others described them as open strings with dangling ends, and still others generalized the concept of a string to higher-dimensional objects known as “D-branes,” which resemble quivering membranes in any number of dimensions. Five string theories seemed an embarrassment of riches.

The next major breakthrough came in 1995, when Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., argued in a famous lecture that all five string theories were mathematically connected and must be pieces of the same all-encompassing master theory. Witten named it M-theory. The *M* seems to have originally referred to membranes, but Witten has intimated that the true meaning of *M* awaits a better understanding of the theory, which seems to surpass the sum of its known parts. “There was a running joke that it stood for ‘mystery,’” said Steve Carlip, a quantum gravity specialist at the University of California, Davis. Whatever *M* stands for, this mother of all manifestations of string theory restored the dream of unification.

“People had spent decades studying different types of string theories and found there were only a few consistent ones and they were the same thing,” Strassler said. “You could say, maybe that’s the only thing that can exist. Maybe there’s only one quantum gravity theory, and M-theory is it.”

**Fisheye Universes**

Two years after Witten’s proposal of M-theory, the Argentinian-American physicist Juan Maldacena found yet another surprising relationship, this time between strings and point particles. Maldacena’s work suggested that under certain conditions, a theory that includes gravity, be it string theory or otherwise, can be directly translated into a quantum field theory that does not have gravity.

In the theory’s simplest manifestation, the “certain conditions” require an imaginary landscape known as anti-de Sitter (AdS) space, which resembles graph paper viewed through a fisheye lens, with the squares getting smaller and smaller toward the boundary. A theory that describes how gravity works in an AdS space can be translated into an equivalent “conformal field theory” (CFT) representing point particles on that universe’s boundary. This connection enables researchers to study quantum gravity by probing the corresponding CFT. For example, they can play around with CFTs to calculate properties of quantum gravity theories in “AdS3” space — a fisheye universe with two spatial dimensions plus time. “The goal of finding quantum gravity in AdS3 could be translated into finding the right conformal field theory,” said Rangamani.

In the two most recent papers, posted within days of each other in December, separate groups led by Rangamani and Maloney set out to study the fundamental objects (whether they be strings or otherwise) in a class of simple AdS3 universes. They found that as these universes get extremely hot, the objects within them will go through an exponentially increasing number of possible “states.”

This behavior is exactly what one would expect if strings were the fundamental objects in these universes. A hotter universe allows strings to vibrate and arrange themselves in new ways, and so a hot, stringy universe will have lots of states. Point particles, by contrast, exhibit far less variety at high temperatures. “We’re getting a stringy number of states,” said Christoph Keller, a postdoctoral fellow in physics at Rutgers University and co-author of one paper with Maloney and Alex Belin. “In principle it’s conceivable there’s another theory out there that isn’t string theory that also has a lot of states. We don’t know any such example.”

Some argue that this orchestra of states at high temperatures strengthens the case for the universality of string or “stringlike” quantum gravity theories in AdS3. “No one is going so far as saying that string theory is the only thing that can come out of these consistency conditions, but there’s evidence that it’s stringlike stuff,” Hartman said.

The “weasel words” in the authors’ arguments, according to Strassler, skirt around the fact that they did not calculate the exact density of states in some of the more complicated cases but merely showed that the number was higher than expected for a universe composed of point particles. “And just finding a stringy density of states — I don’t know if there’s a proof in that,” Strassler said. “This is just one property.”

Meanwhile, loop quantum gravity researchers object to the very premise that the results about AdS3 give any hint whatsoever about the nature of quantum gravity in our own universe. They note that the AdS/CFT correspondence itself has not been proven — it is only a conjecture (albeit one with wide support). More importantly, AdS space differs greatly from flat space, and universes with two spatial dimensions are far simpler than those with three. “The world is not 2+1-dimensional,” said Lee Smolin, a founding and senior faculty member at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario, and one of the founders of loop quantum gravity. “And even in that case, there have existed for a long time counterexamples to the string universality conjecture, in the form of completely worked out formulations of quantum gravity which have nothing to do with string theory.” (String theorists argue that these particular 2+1 gravity theories differ from quantum gravity in the real world in an important way.)

Yet researchers have also applied the AdS/CFT correspondence to quantum gravity in AdS4 — a fisheye universe, but one with the same number of dimensions as our own. In 2011, Maldacena, now a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study, and his student at the time, Alexander Zhiboedov, found evidence that string theories are the only quantum gravity theories with a particular feature that reproduce general relativity at large scales. The researchers went further in a 2014 paper, arguing that in any number of dimensions and space-time geometries, only theories with a certain stringlike property satisfy causality, or the notion that causes precede effects. “This is what you would expect based on the hypothesis that string theory is the only game in town,” said Zhiboedov, who is now a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard University.

The results to date appear to support the existence of “stringlike” theories, at least circumstantially. According to string theorists, stringlike theories seem somewhat likely to be string theories, as it’s difficult to picture an object that vibrates like a string but isn’t one. But then, what counts as string theory, anyway? What is M-theory? Critics have pointed out that no one knows how to use M-theory to answer all the questions one can ask about quantum gravity, or to show how nature works in all situations. String theorists might become convinced that they’re banging on the right door, without learning what, exactly, lies behind it.

So far, they have picked and chosen special, mathematically tractable testing grounds for their calculations. “There’s nothing wrong with that,” said Carlip, who considers himself a “nonaligned” quantum gravity specialist. In experimental physics, “you do the experiments you can do and not the ones you can’t.” The question, Carlip said, is “to what extent the results are general properties of quantum gravity, and to what extent they are the result of these particular simplifications.”

String theorists seem to expect that stringy results will keep appearing when they apply the AdS/CFT tool to more general classes of imaginary worlds. (They say they would be equally excited to find evidence against string universality.) A full proof that every theory of quantum gravity in AdS space is a theory with strings would be, according to Maloney, “extremely strong evidence” that the same is true in geometrically flat universes like ours.

Proof in flat universes will require completely new tools, however. Our universe does not have a spatial boundary as AdS space does; its boundary lies at the future end of time. The development of an AdS/CFT-like tool for our universe’s geometry remains in its infancy. The road to a full proof — or refutation — of string universality is long. Right now, Zhiboedov said, “this is a belief, a dream, an expectation. It’s a feeling based on work in this field.”

*Correction: This article was revised on February 21, 2015, to correct Lee Smolin’s title. He is a founding and senior faculty member at the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario.*

*Note: This article was updated on March 1, 2015, to provide additional context about 2+1 quantum gravity theories.*

*This article was reprinted on* *BusinessInsider.com*.

There’s nothing wrong with that? Hey, if our theories aren’t validated in this universe, let’s invent other universes in which they will work and use this as justification to continue receiving grant money!

They should get together with Max Tegmark. Surely he has an infinitude of mathematical universes in which string theory describes the universe.

Unfortunately, it’s likely that infinitude of universes will not have life, since it’s clear string theory will not describe a universe like ours.

The last sentence summarizes everything that is wrong with string theory. “This is a belief, a dream, an expectation. It’s a feeling based on work in this field.” Intuition has led us to some interesting discoveries in the past, but holding on to blind faith hoping your life’s work wasn’t a waste of time is ridiculous.

Working a hard problem in mathematically easier settings is part of physics, and always has been. Almost every major conceptual theory is first worked in idealized settings (assume the spherical cow) before it is applied to the complicated real world.

Tools and intuition are gained and eventually the problem can be generalized. String theorists are perfectly correct that their work in some of these settings (often highly supersymmetric worlds with a great deal of symmetry, lower dimensions etc) does provide some evidence that their consistency conditions generalize.

Of course this isn’t perfect, but there are quite a few deep reasons not mentioned in this article why such links are expected to generalize. Unfortunately these logical chains of reasoning are outside the domain of discussion for laymen, and is complicated specialist territory.

By all measures, 2015-16 will be the yr. that string theory, vis a vis SUSY, is either reborn or enters a limbo state, where only the most ardent stringers will continue to research it, & funding for further expts. will dry up. They know that the theory is physically inconsistent w/out the existence of SUSY being validated in the form of sparticles detected, & 20 yrs of searching have turned up not a trace at the Tevatron or LHC. When the end of 2016 rolls around, & if sparticles remain in absentia, we will witness an unprecedented failure in fundamental physics the likes of which has never been seen. Thousands of professors, post-docs, & grad students, will see the foundations of their careers, some spanning decades, crumble at their feet. Historians of science will have a field day analyzing what went wrong, & how this mass group-think could’ve seduced so many of the finest minds of two generations.

String theory is right because physics is all wrong.We need string theory to fix or correct physics.We need also new particles to explain behaviors of other particles for quantum mechanics.Quantum string theory will fix science.

Lee Smolin says, “The world is not 2+1-dimensional,”, but it actually may be exactly that. String theorists have good reason to expect any 3-D volume can be described by the 2 – D boundary of that volume in a holographic format. The size of our universe, approximately 15 BLY radius, has been found by adding up all the information ‘ s mass in the universe and the the Scharzschild radius formula is applied giving us the radius to the cosmic event horizon. Every Planck Area of the Cosmic Event Horizon, CEH, is filled with one bit’ s worth of information smeared across the CEH. therefore, we exist simultaneously as discrete objects in 3-D space and a 2 – D hologram on the CEH.

I think Maldacena a was right, and his pretend universe is more like the real universe than some physicists are willing to admit. The Universe as a Hologram seems to be consistent with what we know about quantum mechanics, even the double slit experiment, that before a particle is measured relative to 3-D space, it exists as a holographic bit of information that exists everywhere on the CEH at the same time, yet only has the mass of a single bit of information. When a reference is established between the particle and the measurement apparatus, just like turning on a reference beam for a hologram and seeing a 3-D image, the particle becomes part of the 3-D space.

It seems as though String Theory has one shortcoming, it tries to be a theory of everything when the universe exhibits simultaneity, that the rules of the universe change based on how you measure it. Since we obviously have 3-D space, and since mathematically there is every reason to believe the universe has a CEH whose information must exist holographically on the horizon, that means there are two distinctly different ways to define the universe.

Beyond that, we can’t ever perfectly define anything because subjectivity always enters our best attempts. String Theory might just be one way to define the universe relative to certain criteria in the same way Newtonian physics gives us reasonable answers for a lot of questions, but it’s not the last word in physics Newtonian physics is not wrong, it’s just not infinitely applicable. I suspect that we will find that different theories are preferable based on the application, that there is no one single TOE because to define something, you have to measure it, and if you measure something, that result has to be relative to something else.

Well, actually, Newtonian theory IS wrong — its concepts of space and time are incorrect and even inconsistent, its gravitation theory leads to blatant contradictions, and it certainly doesn’t match careful experiment. (One could even claim that one of its central pillars — the idea of “mass” — is at best a mirage.) It’s “good enough” only in an engineering sense — if you leave off enough significant figures and restrict yourself to situations where the resulting error is inconsequential to what you are trying to accomplish, you can use the simplified math. But that doesn’t make it “correct physics”. Same goes for these cartoon universes and applications of unproven conjectures. You can use them to try to understand what may be going on, and to make progress in getting to the real story. But that doesn’t make them any less incorrect as describing real physics in our real universe.

WLM,

“Newtonian theory IS wrong…”

That’s completely false. Read the below link to understand where you go horribly wrong:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52165/newtonian-gravity-vs-general-relativity-exactly-how-wrong-is-newton

Its completely valid in its intended domain of use, and what these physicists are currently trying to do is give us a glimpse of whether we might be moving in the right direction in lieu of the extremely high energies they would need to probe to falsify the theory

bob and Mojorizin say it all. But it will not only be an embarrassment for the many seduced group-think physicists and for the fanatic pro-string theory arXiv moderators who in my case had rejected within a few minutes a paper about the likely non-existence of black holes, an opinion later shared by Hawking, but also for the arXiv itself. Both Planck and Einstein had warned about making mathematical speculations. Planck warned that sometimes side by side the greatest insight can be the greatest nonsense. And Einstein remarked that a mathematician has it easy compared to a physicist: While a mathematician can always invent new mathematics, a physicist must check his guess against the results of an experiment or observation. If the mathematical model seems to describe realty he can only say “perhaps” (this is a correct way to describe nature).

Why does gravity have to be a particle? Why cant it just be a field that stems from something, like strings or other interactions?

String theory doesn’t work and never could because, the concept leaves too many unanswered questions. E.g. ‘where did the strings originate? / what process was involved in the creation of quarks? How did the quarks form into consistently uniform packages when the potential for mass conglomeration is prevalent. Do I need to go on and on ad infinitum?

The reason why String Theory is so popular amongst physicist is because is so rich in details and posibilities that you can write a lot of papers about it without looking for answers in the experiments. It is a mathematical big toy that seduces the physicist mind because of its original conception as an unifying theory. But, since the 60’s we are still trying to unify qm and gr. I think of string theory as the epicycles: it is funny, it seems to describe physics, it is complicated enough you can describe any planet motion doing combinations at pleasure…. but it is too much complicated, it has many new questions unsolved… and we use it again and again because it is what my phD advisor did, my university department do and the arxiv writers do. We live with the string theory inertia, like a new kind of social pressure. We must remember Galileo: look the experiments, look to Nature, not to the arxiv’s list of papers on hep-th….

" 20 yrs of searching have turned up not a trace at the Tevatron or LHC."

Damn, 20 years of the LHC already, where does the time fly?