Quote by Chronos
handwaving objections are objectionable.

Indeed! And I've just finished pruning several of those handwaving objections out of this thread. Let us have no more talk of personalities, no more blanket charges of arrogance, and no more empty arguments propped up by quotes from famous people. Let's raise the standard here. Arguments against string theory should address the theory itself, not those who work on it or things that people say about it.
Juan R: I like what you are doing here. You're getting
specific. For instance:
Quote by JuanR
 Usual quantization of the classical bosonic string violates cosmological boundaries. (I wait that SMts will recognize this error before 2050 :).
 The spacetime used (CY, G2, etc.) do not account for the nondifferential character of stochastic processes. It will be funny like string theorists will attempt to model spacetimefoam noisy contributions to a triple D0brane collision. I wait to see their faces then!
 In the usual unitary vectors space of string mathematics the Lproduct of two elements is not defined. Only in the Lspace the relation I+(rs)I+(tu) = I+(ru)delta(st) is defined. No similar product relation exists in the Hspace (dimension n) because Lspace (dimension nn) is more general. That is, the supposed TOE cannot explain, for instance, Ernst’s work in NMR (that received the Nobel prize) :)
 The fixed background Smatrix is, undoubtedly, a funny caricature of realword processes. There are dozens of wellknown papers on the topic and even a new branch of string theory developed!
 Vector states used in the standard spectral decomposition of strings (branes) are of course valid only in the limit T > 0. This was known for decades in other fields of science like plasma physics (quarkgluon plasma). Only the last 5 years, after of three decades of totally wrong research and funny claims, SMts fixed this sound error and developed the very recent Dpbranes theory with the (~) operators, which only work in the linear regime. Far from eq. one cannot use the tilde (~) operators due to wellknown presence of dynamical bubbles coupling spacetime events. Of course, all this advanced mathematical stuff was/is ignored by leading researchers like Witten, Greene, Vafa, Schwartz, etc. Witten, the great genius, the great theoretician, the new "Einstein", did NONE contribution to recent doubled space Dpbranes theory. In fact, his great mind did not know the problem with the use of standard states because he like other string theorists study the topics just superficially. He is a great string theorist sure :)
 String theorists still claim for the derivation of an unitary theory, whereas people in other experimentally proved theories are working with LPS theory in Gelfand triplets. The theorems used are outside of the simple and outdated string mathematics, and one needs a lot of recent mathematical work in rigged spaces and involutive Banach algebra of bounded operators. These non C*algebras are, of course, ignored by SMTs and their irrelevant TOE. It is impossible to explain recent models for neutral Kaons and its counterparts in higherflavorgenerations from the basic mathematical framework of string, M theory. Concretely the models developed in the last decade by Sudarshan (e.g. generalizing the LOY model) does not fit to string Mtheory because are more general.
 Noncritical string theory is more advanced that usual critical (WittenSchwartzVafaGreeneetc.) one in fixed backgrounds but again irrelevant for a TOE. The most advanced formulation today in noncritical theory simply use “Lindblad–like” operators (which is only valid if one take the zero limit of the correlation functions for the different vacua) to take into account quantum transitions between different critical string vacua. Moreover, the noncritical string theory has unsolved problems. One can show (with the aid of mathematical methods unknown for SMts and still don't applied to noncritical formulation) that noncritical string theory formulation is just a shadow to more consistent and generalized theories.

I'd like to see the discussion follow these leads. How can we know that these points are true? Why would the truth of these points mean that string theory is wrong? Let's see more of that sort of thing, let's keep it dispassionate, and let's keep it specific. Otherwise I am going to shut this thread down.