Best wishes for your substack and for your book next year.
To me, both these lessons seem internal to string theory? I don't see them leading us towards a discussion such as "The Geometrical Trinity of Gravity", in Universe 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/universe5070173 (Open Access), for example, which I have found compelling because it shows us ways to think not only in terms of curvature and gauge theory (without denying that curvature and gauge theories are useful formalisms, but allowing us to consider carefully whether curvature may not be the best and only way "to carve nature at its joints".)
[I also think an idea that string theory is the only way to have a mathematically consistent quantum field theory that includes gravity, which in one or another form I see often, isn't thinking deeply enough about what renormalization is about, why it's needed, or ..., but that is a separate discussion. My reanalysis of renormalization doesn't invalidate your claim that "No other candidate for quantum gravity or TOE has led us to previously unknown physics results" because I think more empirically than in terms of quantum gravity and ToEs, but it addresses a different problem by showing us ways to think not only in terms of ill-defined deformations of Lagrangian densities.]
"No other candidate for quantum gravity or TOE has led us to previously unknown physics results,": well maybe but condensed matter physics has contributed even more profound results - spontaneous symmetry breaking, renormalization group, generalized symmetries, topological order and more recently the entanglement entropy formula. Plus it has real implications, IMO more theoretical physicists should study real things, we will learn more that way.
While comparing the profundity of results from totally different fields does not make sense to me, there is no doubt that cond matt is a fascinating area. I tell the students who approach me for PhD to consider cond matt instead --it's absolutely fascinating, connects with experiments not to mention being far better funded.
But ultimately, everyone has different interests. For those who, like me, are primarily interested in understanding the fundamental quantum nature of spacetime, are going to pursue other avenues, even if you don't seem to consider them real physics. Science works best when everyone pursues their interests!
Best wishes for your substack and for your book next year.
To me, both these lessons seem internal to string theory? I don't see them leading us towards a discussion such as "The Geometrical Trinity of Gravity", in Universe 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/universe5070173 (Open Access), for example, which I have found compelling because it shows us ways to think not only in terms of curvature and gauge theory (without denying that curvature and gauge theories are useful formalisms, but allowing us to consider carefully whether curvature may not be the best and only way "to carve nature at its joints".)
[I also think an idea that string theory is the only way to have a mathematically consistent quantum field theory that includes gravity, which in one or another form I see often, isn't thinking deeply enough about what renormalization is about, why it's needed, or ..., but that is a separate discussion. My reanalysis of renormalization doesn't invalidate your claim that "No other candidate for quantum gravity or TOE has led us to previously unknown physics results" because I think more empirically than in terms of quantum gravity and ToEs, but it addresses a different problem by showing us ways to think not only in terms of ill-defined deformations of Lagrangian densities.]
"No other candidate for quantum gravity or TOE has led us to previously unknown physics results,": well maybe but condensed matter physics has contributed even more profound results - spontaneous symmetry breaking, renormalization group, generalized symmetries, topological order and more recently the entanglement entropy formula. Plus it has real implications, IMO more theoretical physicists should study real things, we will learn more that way.
While comparing the profundity of results from totally different fields does not make sense to me, there is no doubt that cond matt is a fascinating area. I tell the students who approach me for PhD to consider cond matt instead --it's absolutely fascinating, connects with experiments not to mention being far better funded.
But ultimately, everyone has different interests. For those who, like me, are primarily interested in understanding the fundamental quantum nature of spacetime, are going to pursue other avenues, even if you don't seem to consider them real physics. Science works best when everyone pursues their interests!