**Ask a monkey a physics question thread**

[Savy]

You never heard of stuff like that before MMM? I obviously dunno a huge amount behind how solid they are as theories or even how much it applies here tbh, but you must have heard of like holographic universes and the like before.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You never heard of stuff like that before MMM? I obviously dunno a huge amount behind how solid they are as theories or even how much it applies here tbh, but you must have heard of like holographic universes and the like before.

Yes, I've heard of them, but they're of no physical relevance... yet. They are based on complicated, unfounded assumptions and describe unobserved objects. Where the theories agree with the Standard Model of Particle Physics, they are correct, but they do not overlap entirely with the Standard Model. Also, they do not make predictions that can be tested beyond what the Standard Model predicts.

What this means is that string theories are not incorporated into the Standard Model, because they do no add to or clarify the Standard Model. No string theory has yet to yield a significant contribution to our understanding of reality as we observe it.


As such, I don't spend a lot of time digging deeply into string theories. Many people, much smarter and more educated than me, have spent their lives working on string theory, and to no avail, other than to eliminate possibilities... which is good in its own right. Proving something can't be the answer, or putting limits on the form of the answer, is sometimes a vital step in determining the answer.

My point is that I, personally, focus more on practical, tested theories and their applications. As such, I'm not very fluent in the language of string theory. Also, as pertains to this topic specifically, this is PhD level stuff. I'm struggling to keep up with an undergraduate degree.