So on what is String Theory based on? How did they come up with

>>8564494
>>8564494

The math didn't work, so they just thought "what would the world have to look like, for us to be getting the kinds of errors the math keeps spitting out?" Whether there's any reality behind the model used only time will tell, but string theory deals with such tiny scales that we're centuries away from being able to test its predictions empirically.

>>8564504
There's much assumption in the Theory, you reckon we'll ever be able to rigorously run a test on it?

>>8564567

Sure, in theory. The energies involved are way beyond our current technology, you'd need a particle accelerator a lightyear across using current tech to reach the Unification Energy, but ultimately this is "just" an engineering problem. The theory DOES make predictions that can be tested, but the extreme difficulty involved in doing so means there's no way to know whether or not the theory is sound. On the other hand, there are some seriously big brains behind it, and Susskind says there have already been applications in theoretical physics from ideas developed in string theory, such as the ER = EPR interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER%3DEPR

>>8564567
>>8564578
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBPpRqxY8Uw

>>8564585
Thanks, seems interesting, all though at first glance a bit pop-sciency.

>>8564608
>pop-sciency

Yeah no, Susskind is a major contributor to quantum mechanics and he lectures at Stanford.

>>8564494
Check out Michiu Cuckold

>>8564494

it is gonna get majorly rekt when someone unifies relativity and quantum mech. a lot of scientists are gonna be left with cum on their faces, as the saying goes.

>>8564652

String theory is an attempt to unify gravity and qed, and the only one that seems to be possibly correct.