1
$\begingroup$

I'm an undergrad, and haven't moved very far into my courses in Physics. As I look around the internet and books to gain information about string theory, it seems to me there is a much more heated debate about the acceptance of it, compared to older theories such as Quantum or Relativity.

What is the primary reason for the - seemingly - rather widespread nonacceptance of it?

I've heard it described that String Theory is in the stage now that the atomic structure had in the late 19th to early 20th centuries; there wasn't enough experimental evidence or foundational knowledge to know for sure that atoms [or in this case - strings] existed.

$\endgroup$

closed as primarily opinion-based by Qmechanic Dec 12 '14 at 2:09

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ This is really broad, but I have heard the same things as you regarding the (lack, as of yet) of evidence. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Dec 12 '14 at 1:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/15/2451 , physics.stackexchange.com/q/1869/2451 and links therein. $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Dec 12 '14 at 2:11
  • $\begingroup$ That atoms had to exist was pretty well established with the insights of Lavoisier, Proust, Dalton and others at the end of the 18th century. String theory is nowhere close to having amassed nearly as much evidence for the existence of strings as these scientists had amassed for chemistry being the reactions between indistinguishable atoms. Besides that, a lot of the scientific reasoning behind string theory has become rather lazy and resembles the desperation of the ether crowd more than it resembles modern physics. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Dec 12 '14 at 6:24

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.