Editing String theory (section)

=== Sociology of science ===

Since the superstring revolutions of the 1980s and 1990s, string theory has been one of the dominant paradigms of high energy theoretical physics.<ref>[[#Penrose|Penrose]], p. 1017</ref> Some string theorists have expressed the view that there does not exist an equally successful alternative theory addressing the deep questions of fundamental physics. In an interview from 1987, [[Nobel laureate]] [[David Gross]] made the following controversial comments about the reasons for the popularity of string theory:

{{quote|The most important [reason] is that there are no other good ideas around. That's what gets most people into it. When people started to get interested in string theory they didn't know anything about it. In fact, the first reaction of most people is that the theory is extremely ugly and unpleasant, at least that was the case a few years ago when the understanding of string theory was much less developed. It was difficult for people to learn about it and to be turned on. So I think the real reason why people have got attracted by it is because there is no other game in town. All other approaches of constructing grand unified theories, which were more conservative to begin with, and only gradually became more and more radical, have failed, and this game hasn't failed yet.<ref>[[#Woit|Woit]], pp. 224–225</ref>}}

Several other high-profile theorists and commentators have expressed similar views, suggesting that there are no viable alternatives to string theory.<ref>[[#Woit|Woit]], Ch. 16</ref>

Many critics of string theory have commented on this state of affairs. In his book criticizing string theory, Peter Woit views the status of string theory research as unhealthy and detrimental to the future of fundamental physics. He argues that the extreme popularity of string theory among theoretical physicists is partly a consequence of the financial structure of academia and the fierce competition for scarce resources.<ref>[[#Woit|Woit]], p. 239</ref> In his book ''[[The Road to Reality]]'', mathematical physicist [[Roger Penrose]] expresses similar views, stating "The often frantic competitiveness that this ease of communication engenders leads to [[bandwagon effect]]s, where researchers fear to be left behind if they do not join in."<ref>[[#Penrose|Penrose]], p. 1018</ref> Penrose also claims that the technical difficulty of modern physics forces young scientists to rely on the preferences of established researchers, rather than forging new paths of their own.<ref>[[#Penrose|Penrose]], pp. 1019–1020</ref> Lee Smolin expresses a slightly different position in his critique, claiming that string theory grew out of a tradition of particle physics which discourages speculation about the foundations of physics, while his preferred approach, [[loop quantum gravity]], encourages more radical thinking. According to Smolin,

{{quote|String theory is a powerful, well-motivated idea and deserves much of the work that has been devoted to it. If it has so far failed, the principal reason is that its intrinsic flaws are closely tied to its strengths—and, of course, the story is unfinished, since string theory may well turn out to be part of the truth. The real question is not why we have expended so much energy on string theory but why we haven't expended nearly enough on alternative approaches.<ref>[[#Smolin|Smolin]], p. 349</ref>}}

Smolin goes on to offer a number of prescriptions for how scientists might encourage a greater diversity of approaches to quantum gravity research.<ref>[[#Smolin|Smolin]], Ch. 20</ref>