In his recent book Something Deeply Hidden, Sean Carroll writes:

but pretty soon physicists thought to themselves, “Hmm, gravity actually exists. Maybe string theory is a quantum theory of gravity?” That turns out to be true, and even better there is a bonus: the theory makes finite predictions for all physical quantities, without needing an infinite number of input parameters. –Carroll, Sean. Something Deeply Hidden (p. 274). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

I could find no record of the calculations showing that string theory makes finite predictions of all physical quantities such as the mass of the electron, the velocity of light c, Planck’s constant h, the mass of the proton, the mass of the neutron, the mass of the neutrino, nor the masses of any of the quarks. Could Carroll please cite the source or sources for his statement, as physicists are taught to do freshman year?

Perhaps Sean Carroll could make youtube videos where he performs the mathematical string theory calculations that make “finite predictions for all physical quantitites?” Perhaps, for the edification of society, Carroll could create a series of youtube videos, or publish a couple papers, showing how one can derive the mass and charge of the electron, or any other physical quantity, or all physical quantities as Carroll claims, using the mathematics of string theory? Perhaps, in the spirit of truth, beauty, and science, Carroll could create a series of youtube videos showing how one can derive the velocity of light and Planck’s constant, or any other physical quantity, or all of them, using the mathematics of string theory? Perhaps Carroll could share how he uses the mathemetics of string theory to calculate the mass of the proton and the fine structure constant? Perhaps he could create a series of youtube videos showing how one can derive the masses and charges of all the quarks using the mathematics of string theory? Perhaps, for the edification of society, Carroll could create a series of youtube videos showing how one can derive any physical quantity using the mathematics of string theory? Perhaps Carroll could do all of the above during a joint-appearance on the Rogan podcast?

If Carroll is unable to show that string theory makes finite predictions of all physical quantities, perhaps he and/or his publisher could correct his book, in the service of science?

I believe I may have found a rather major omission in Sean Carroll’s book Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime:

It seems that Carroll does not reference the fact that his “Many-Worlds” interpretation is laid to rest by Wigner, Wheeler et. al. on page 294 of Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton Leg… (Paperback) by John Archibald Wheeler, Wojciech Hubert Zurekin, in a paper by Eugene Wigner, where Wigner writes:

“Many-world” theories are much more difficult to discuss than theories of hidden variables. They postulate—as mentioned earlier—that if a measurement with a probabilistic outcome is undertaken, the world splits into several worlds, and each possible outcome of the observations appears in the fraction of the new worlds given by the quantum-mechanical probability of that outcome. . . It is, of course, difficult to see the meaning of the statement that there are other worlds with which we never will have any contact, which have no influence on us, and which we cannot influence or perceive in any way. . . the statement that there are such worlds, and that they are constantly created in large numbers, is entirely meaningless. It can neither be confirmed nor refuted.” –Eugene Wigner

From https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Measurement-Princeton-Library/dp/0691613168/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1499118080&sr=8-6&keywords=quantum+theory+measurement ( https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Measurement-Princeton-Library/dp/0691613168/ )

Does Dr. Sean Caroll quote or reference this passage anywhere in his book which celebrates and promotes Many Worlds as science to the unsuspecting public? If so, I could not find it at all.

If Carroll does not reference the above passage, why would Carroll omit such a foundational and complete dismissal of his Many Worlds interpretation, accomplished by Wigner in a most simple, logical manner?

Perhaps Carroll found it impossible to refute the noble logic of Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner’s words, and instead chose to simply ignore him?

At any rate–Dr. Caroll–if you have indeed omitted the exalted words of Wigner either accidentally or intentionally, please do add the words to future editions of your book.

As a Caltech scientist with a larger media footprint than perhaps any other postmodern scientist, you owe it to the world to present thorough and honest research, in the true spirit of science and the edification of all.

If you disagree with Wigner, please feel free to try and dismantle his simple logic and reason in future updates to your book.

Dr. Carroll–I would highly recommend that you read and engage in conversation with the Greats on quantum mechanics before passing yourself off as an expert. Please read this wonderful book containing the Words of the Founding Fathers and let us know what you think of Wigner’s simple reasoning: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Measurement-Princeton-Library/dp/0691613168/

Perhaps Carroll could read Wigner’s wonderful words during his next appearance on the Joe Rogan Podcast?

“Many-world” theories are much more difficult to discuss than theories of hidden variables. They postulate—as mentioned earlier—that if a measurement with a probabilistic outcome is undertaken, the world splits into several worlds, and each possible outcome of the observations appears in the fraction of the new worlds given by the quantum-mechanical probability of that outcome. . . It is, of course, difficult to see the meaning of the statement that there are other worlds with which we never will have any contact, which have no influence on us, and which we cannot influence or perceive in any way. . . the statement that there are such worlds, and that they are constantly created in large numbers, is entirely meaningless. It can neither be confirmed nor refuted.” –Eugene Wigner

From https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Measurement-Princeton-Library/dp/0691613168/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1499118080&sr=8-6&keywords=quantum+theory+measurement ( https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Theory-Measurement-Princeton-Library/dp/0691613168/ )

Dear Dr. Woit, Dr. Smolin, Dr. Greene, Dr. Witten, Dr. Susskind, & Dr. Dawid et al. Does string theory successfully unify quantum mechanics and general relativity?  Yes or no?

Peter Woit writes that Richard Dawid argues that:

we’re supposed to consider accepting (String Theory) as the final, fundamental theory of physics, a “theory” that is not just untestable, but is a “chronically incomplete” framework based on something we can never hope to define or understand.

Brian Greene disagrees with Woit and Dawid, writing in the introduction to Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) 

Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics. The full explanation for how this is accomplished is involved, but here’s a rough way to understand it. By introducing strings as the fundamental ingredients, superstring theory takes the old idea of point-particles and spreads it out—stretches it out—into the new idea of tiny filaments. This spreading of points into filaments also implies that the microscopic structure of space is spread out relative to how it was envisioned (and how it was mathematically modeled in calculations) prior to superstring theory. When strings spread space at the microscopic level, the violent undulations that were the source of the theoretical conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity, get stretched out and hence diluted. And, as detailed calculations attest, this dilution of the violent spacetime fluctuations is just enough to allow quantum mechanics and general relativity to merge into a mathematically consistent quantum theory of gravity. — Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) (Kindle Locations 239-247). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

So who is right?

As a student of physics, I am asking, “Does string theory successfully unify quantum mechanics and general relativity?  Yes or no?”

The insightful Sabine Hossenfelder3:00 PM, October 30, 2019 writes:

The motivation for string theory as a theory of quantum gravity is fine. Except that it was never shown to actually solve the problem, people have given up even trying to show that it does, and instead they have made the theory increasingly less plausible by adding one fix after another when the idea ran into conflict with observation.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-crisis-in-physics-is-not-only-about.html?showComment=1572462024517#c4559923110278471033

Dr. Hossenfelder’s comment suggests that it is high time to correct Brian Greene’s introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity.

Senior physicists have a great responsibility to answer this question fully and honestly, as it may affect the careers of thousands, as well as the advancement of physics.

The venerable Jim Baggott writes, “Theoretical physicists who say the multiverse exists set a dangerous precedent: science based on zero empirical evidence.” — https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerous

String Theory also has zero empirical evidence. And yet I can find no record of Baggott criticizing Brian Greene’s introduction to Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity. Sabine Hossenfelder wrote an entire book titled Lost in Math. And yet, I can find no record of Hossenfelder criticizing Brian Greene’s introduction to Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity. Nor could I find anywhere where string-theory critic Lee Smolin criticizes Brian Greene’s introduction to Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity, nor asks for it to be corrected.  Are we witnessing some sort of double-standard in science?

Why does Brian Greene get a free pass? Why are Woit, Baggott, Smolin, and Hossenfelder apparently happy with students reading the following in the introduction to Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity?

Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics. The full explanation for how this is accomplished is involved, but here’s a rough way to understand it. By introducing strings as the fundamental ingredients, superstring theory takes the old idea of point-particles and spreads it out—stretches it out—into the new idea of tiny filaments. This spreading of points into filaments also implies that the microscopic structure of space is spread out relative to how it was envisioned (and how it was mathematically modeled in calculations) prior to superstring theory. When strings spread space at the microscopic level, the violent undulations that were the source of the theoretical conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity, get stretched out and hence diluted. And, as detailed calculations attest, this dilution of the violent spacetime fluctuations is just enough to allow quantum mechanics and general relativity to merge into a mathematically consistent quantum theory of gravity. — Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) (Kindle Locations 239-247). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

For the past couple decades or so, Peter Woit has been a leading critic of String Theory and the Multiverse.  Perhaps nobody has blogged more about, nor thought more about, String Theory and the Multiverse.  There is likely no greater expert.

Woit explicitly states that string theory as an idea of unification hath failed, writing on his blog, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively. ”  Recently Woit wrote:

I don’t think “string theorists” calling themselves whatever they want is scandalous, what’s scandalous is misleading the public about “string theory”, the way Carroll and Johnson are doing.

They’ve (Carroll & Johnson) taken to heart the post-fact environment we now live in, one where if you keep insisting something is true (string theory unification is a great idea) despite all evidence, then for all practical purposes it is true.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10600#comment-232011Peter WoitOctober 17, 2018 at 12:50 pm

Tsetrot,
Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively. Those who promote it to the public without acknowledging that “the stuff we told you about all particles and forces being vibrations of strings doesn’t work, now we just mean an untestable idea about gravitational degrees of freedom at unobservable scales which doesn’t really quite work either, but sucks less than the competition”.

Woit writes, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively.”

Woit asserts that “String Theory has no equations to solve,” writing:

This is based on the misconception about string theory that the problem with it is that “the calculations are too hard”. The truth of the matter is that there is no actual theory, no known equations to solve, no real calculation to do.

Greene writes, “Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics.”

If Woit is right, that string theory has no equations, then how can string theory merge general relativity and quantum mechanics, without any equations?

I could find no record of Woit criticizing Greene’s statements in the introduction to Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity.   Does Woit agree with Greene?  Why does Woit seemingly spend so much time going after the Dawids and Carrolls and Johnsons who are merely bantering on blogs, while giving Greene a free pass in the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity?  Does not Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity carry more prestige, cache, and influence than a couple of bloggers?

Perhaps if Woit had focused his energy on correcting Greene’s statements in the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity, string theory would have been on its way out by now?  But then again, perhaps Woit yet enjoys pondering String Theory after all these decades, and he does not really wish to see the hype fade for another couple decades more?

At any rate, who is right?  Forget the games and politics and teams for a moment, and answer honestly in the way you might speak Truth to a student.  Who is right?

Woit writes, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively.” (on his Columbia blog)

Greene writes, “Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics.” (in the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity)

If Greene is right, then perhaps Woit could finally find other things to blog about?  And if Woit is right, then perhaps someone could correct the introduction to Einstein’s Meaning of Relativity before string theory can lead billions of more taxpayer dollars and thousands of more physicists down a dead end, while displacing true physicists and physics from the academy?

Brian Greene continues in The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) :

Moreover, not only does superstring theory merge general relativity with quantum mechanics, but it also has the capacity to embrace—on an equal footing—the electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the strong force. Within superstring theory, each of these forces is simply associated with a different vibrational pattern of a string. And so, like a guitar chord composed of four different notes, the four forces of nature are united within the music of superstring theory. What’s more, the same goes for all of matter as well. The electron, the quarks, the neutrinos, and all other particles are also described in superstring theory as strings undergoing different vibrational patterns. Thus, all matter and all forces are brought together under the same rubric of vibrating strings—and that’s about as unified as a unified theory could be. —Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) (Kindle Locations 247-253). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Woit writes, “Sorry, string theory as an idea about unification has failed, conclusively.”

Greene writes, “Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics.”

Who is right?  Or is science just an endless game of politics with teams?  If so, what is the best long-term physics career plan for a physics student these days–following dead-end, failed theories or criticizing dead-end, failed theories?  What is the best way to score a book deal and speaking engagements?

Sabine Hossenfelder writes,

“And so, what we have here in the foundation of physics is a plain failure of the scientific method. All these wrong predictions should have taught physicists that just because they can write down equations for something does not mean this math is a scientifically promising hypothesis. String theory, supersymmetry, multiverses. . . Maybe all these string theorists have been wasting tax-money for decades, . . . But even if you don’t care what’s up with strings and multiverses, you should worry about what is happening here. The foundations of physics are the canary in the coal mine. It’s an old discipline and the first to run into this problem. But the same problem will sooner or later surface in other disciplines if experiments become increasingly expensive and recruit large fractions of the scientific community. ” — http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-crisis-in-physics-is-not-only-about.html

If all that is true, Dr. Hossenfelder, and if you truly believe it, why have you, Woit, and Smolin not sought to correct Brian Greene’s introduction to Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity? Greene writes:

Superstring theory successfully merges general relativity and quantum mechanics. The full explanation for how this is accomplished is involved, but here’s a rough way to understand it. By introducing strings as the fundamental ingredients, superstring theory takes the old idea of point-particles and spreads it out—stretches it out—into the new idea of tiny filaments. This spreading of points into filaments also implies that the microscopic structure of space is spread out relative to how it was envisioned (and how it was mathematically modeled in calculations) prior to superstring theory. When strings spread space at the microscopic level, the violent undulations that were the source of the theoretical conflict between quantum mechanics and general relativity, get stretched out and hence diluted. And, as detailed calculations attest, this dilution of the violent spacetime fluctuations is just enough to allow quantum mechanics and general relativity to merge into a mathematically consistent quantum theory of gravity. — Einstein, Albert. The Meaning of Relativity: Including the Relativistic Theory of the Non-Symmetric Field (Princeton Science Library) (Kindle Locations 239-247). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.