> Model ≠ Reality, yadda yadda.

I think im a fan of what is described as quantum bayesianism in the article, that quantum mechanics is basically a probabiltiy theory, and this probability theory is required to express our expectations from measurements (quantum mechanics encodes our beliefs about what will be observed given some knowledge about a system) and this is fundamentally a "retreat" because we dont know how to describe the underlying reality. even though calculating the probabilitoes may be very precise.

but i am havig trouble distinguising quantum bayesianism from the standard "model vs reality" fare as the motovation seems very similar

The thing I say is "what underlying reality?" If you can't measure it, how can you make a theory out of it or research it (or publish papers on it unless you're a string theorist)? If something is not measurable, then how can you claim it exists or not?

Whenever people ask me these "deep questions" after I tell them I'm a physicist, I tell them that. Science is all about the reality you can measure, not about meaning and what lies "deeper".

I take it you are a fan of the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. its the right answer for making calculations. but how do come up with a new theory? you have to tell a story or envision an underlying reason to justify it. new theories dont come out of nowhere.

this is also like saying the universe in the time of newton consisted of only newtons laws, which is untrue. if the universe is science, then you have to say the universe is changing as science changes. unless the universe really is just made of published journal papers.

"model vs reality" implies a very clear delineation between theory and data. Bayesian models muddle that up - particularly with (based on my understanding of) the standard model. (Insert the classic statistical decision theory debate about classic/Bayesian models here.)

What I really wonder about is how, if ever, we will refine our abilities to observe the finer grains - and to what extent that's possible. I remember physicists discussing the observations possible given particle accelerator size from lectures in undergrad. The future was not very bright.

Sure, but string theory shows what happens if you can't come up with a testable theory in a reasonable timeframe.

It is the ultimate "version 2.0" product. Missing features in the original, vastly over-engineered, and never ready to ship.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge. It's pure research, and String Theory has pioneered a lot of new ideas that have successfully cross-pollinated into other fields. Even the LHC employs String Theorists with good reason.

Seems a mistake to write it off as "not delivering" simply because it hasn't given us exactly what we originally expected.

On a more social level, a focus on "delivering" and "impact" in pure science seems like it can be taken to the point of shooting ourselves in the foot. Think of all the discoveries from pure exploratory research that we recognized as useful only after the fact.

so quick? it's not as if string theory is just getting started.

That string theory is already compatible with everything we know about reality is a titanic achievement.

If you think it's not, go ahead and list all of the other alternatives that also have a hope of unifying gravity?

Except that string theory requires supersymmetry, and the latest LHC results are not happy for supersymmetry.

As for other unifying theories, loop quantum gravity is somewhat popular. And Wikipedia has a nice list of alternative theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity#Other_approach.... String theory is far from the only game in town, despite what string theorists would have you believe.

String theory is in fact compatible with a large number of possible realities. That's the problem.

When I say "reality" as a scientist, I mean experiment, and the standard model does a pretty decent job of fitting experiment/observation.

I just had this conversation last week actually, where a group mate and I were discussing "determinism" and basically, we agreed scientists have weaker definitions for words like "reality" and "determined" and such that essentially mean "within the error bars of repeatable experiment."