Nov 17, 2025 07:48 PM
https://gizmodo.com/whatever-happened-to...2000686064
INTRO: Believe it or not, physicists want to keep it simple. That’s why many scientists, including Albert Einstein, believe physics could eventually converge into a single, overarching paradigm that describes the universe—a theory of everything.
Enter string theory. Very broadly speaking, string theory is a mathematical framework that replaces point-like particles with one-dimensional “strings” as the fundamental building blocks of matter. It was initially proposed as an explanation for a different phenomenon but quickly caught the attention of physicists working to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity—two extremely successful, equally valid theories that notoriously don’t get along.
Then followed two “superstring revolutions,” which saw impressive strides in mapping out the details of how string theory could capture the complexity of our universe. The fervor of string theory naturally leaked over to popular conversations—science enthusiasts of the 1990s and 2000s, I’m looking at you—producing famous documentaries such as PBS’s The Elegant Universe and a trove of popular and academic books.
With the turn of the century, however, the limelight over string theory appeared to fade. Granted, public opinion is fickle and blasé, and that non-academics don’t care doesn’t mean that the idea is dead. Still, if Google’s Ngram viewer is any guide, string theory’s clout has staggered over the past decade or so.
That’s the question we posed to physicists for this Giz Asks. Whatever happened to string theory? Clearly, physicists haven’t given up on a theory of everything. But is string theory the leading candidate—if it ever was? Or are there now better alternatives? Has it truly diminished in popularity and significance? If so, why?
The following responses may have been lightly edited and condensed for clarity... (MORE details)
Daniel Whiteson
John H. Schwarz
Thomas Van Riet
Carlo Rovelli
Hiroshi Ooguri
Cumrun Vafa
INTRO: Believe it or not, physicists want to keep it simple. That’s why many scientists, including Albert Einstein, believe physics could eventually converge into a single, overarching paradigm that describes the universe—a theory of everything.
Enter string theory. Very broadly speaking, string theory is a mathematical framework that replaces point-like particles with one-dimensional “strings” as the fundamental building blocks of matter. It was initially proposed as an explanation for a different phenomenon but quickly caught the attention of physicists working to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity—two extremely successful, equally valid theories that notoriously don’t get along.
Then followed two “superstring revolutions,” which saw impressive strides in mapping out the details of how string theory could capture the complexity of our universe. The fervor of string theory naturally leaked over to popular conversations—science enthusiasts of the 1990s and 2000s, I’m looking at you—producing famous documentaries such as PBS’s The Elegant Universe and a trove of popular and academic books.
With the turn of the century, however, the limelight over string theory appeared to fade. Granted, public opinion is fickle and blasé, and that non-academics don’t care doesn’t mean that the idea is dead. Still, if Google’s Ngram viewer is any guide, string theory’s clout has staggered over the past decade or so.
That’s the question we posed to physicists for this Giz Asks. Whatever happened to string theory? Clearly, physicists haven’t given up on a theory of everything. But is string theory the leading candidate—if it ever was? Or are there now better alternatives? Has it truly diminished in popularity and significance? If so, why?
The following responses may have been lightly edited and condensed for clarity... (MORE details)
Daniel Whiteson
John H. Schwarz
Thomas Van Riet
Carlo Rovelli
Hiroshi Ooguri
Cumrun Vafa