That looks like a pretty good discussion, but I didn't read too much of it. You should read up on the "EPR paradox" to get an overview of what Quantum Entanglement is. I wrote a paper about it, so I can go on at length about EPR if you're curious.

The Standard Model is basically, "What we've figured out so far". It is the most widely tested collection of predictive ideas in the history of humanity. Its counter-intuitive elements of Quantum Mechanics have been so refuted and tested to the point that we now know that the predictions are accurate to something like 35 decimal places. No other predictive theory in history shows that kind of accuracy and precision.

It's hard for me not to say, "The Standard Model is what we know is right." However, that's no way to talk about scientific theories. We know that there is always a non-zero chance that they're incorrect, or incomplete. This openness to the revision of the Standard Model is its inherent strength. If anything is shown to disprove a part of the Standard Model, that disproved part is thrown out.


String Theories are nipping at the boundaries of the Standard Model. There is plenty that the Standard Model doesn't explain, or explains poorly. String theories are trying to find explanations that can make sense of the things in the Standard Model that are still incomplete.

String theories are taking the idea that particles behave like waves to posit that they look like waves because some physical thing is waving.
That makes sense to me.
They suppose the thing that is waving is a string of some sort with a thickness many times smaller than the diameter of a proton.
That also makes sense to me.
Unfortunately, there is no way to measure anything that tiny. Even if it's length spans the universe, the thinness of it makes it invisible to any known detection method.
So one problem with string theories is that their fundamental premise is unobservable.

Another problem is that in order to be included in the Standard Model, a string theory would have to make a prediction that is not made by a preexisting portion of the Standard Model. It has to provide "new" or "unique" insight into the nature of the universe to be added to the current explanation.

No string theory has yet predicted anything that is not predicted already and which is also observable.

There's no reason to assume that these theories will or wont come to greater fruition, but decades upon decades of work on string theories has not yet yielded new physics.