The physics community thinks that string theory is so much more promising than other approaches. So should we be critical of the fact that there was so much effort in string theory over the last few decades, even though it is not still connected with observations? I have mixed feelings about that. We've learned a lot about the structure of string theory itself and lessons that sort of apply to quantum gravity more broadly. All these insights came from people who were either string theorists or string theory adjacent.
Physics is in crisis, what else is new? That's what we hear in certain corners, anyway, usually pointed at "fundamental" physics of particles and fields. (Condensed matter and biophysics etc. are just fine.) In this solo podcast I ruminate on the unusual situation fundamental physics finds itself in, where we have a theoretical understanding that fits almost all the data, but which nobody believes to be the final answer. I talk about how we got here, and argue that it's not really a "crisis" in any real sense. But there are ways I think the academic community could handle the problem better, especially by making more space for respectable but minority approaches to deep puzzles.
Blog post with transcript: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2023/07/31/245-solo-the-crisis-in-physics/
Support Mindscape on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/seanmcarroll
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.