In the book, I make the point that here we have string theory and here we have twistor theory and we don't know if either one of them is the right approach to nature.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
String theory is an attempt at a deeper description of nature by thinking of an elementary particle not as a little point but as a little loop of vibrating string.
I'd say many features of string theory don't mesh with what we observe in everyday life.
Even before string theory, especially as physics developed in the 20th century, it turned out that the equations that really work in describing nature with the most generality and the greatest simplicity are very elegant and subtle.
In order to achieve a true understanding of string theory, some new idea will be required, and most likely, some break with the concepts on which we've traditionally based physical theory.
There are a lot of good things about string theory, and it's great that some people want to work on it.
What the string theorists do is arguably physics. It deals with the physical world. They're attempting to make a consistent theory that explains the interactions we see among particles and gravity as well. That's certainly physics, but it's a kind of physics that is not yet testable.
The central idea of string theory is quite straightforward. If you examine any piece of matter ever more finely, at first you'll find molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles. Probe the smaller particles, you'll find something else, a tiny vibrating filament of energy, a little tiny vibrating string.
If string theory is a mistake, it's not a trivial mistake. It's a deep mistake and therefore kind of worthy.
The basic theory in twistor theory is not to add extra dimensions.
I do feel strongly that string theory is our best hope for making progress at unifying gravity and quantum mechanics.
No opposing quotes found.