String Theory: peace in our time?

[Kea]

These days the forum and blog spheres are full of harsh criticisms directed at String theory. Indeed, I have been guilty of this behaviour myself. Many of these outbursts have been delivered by people that know absolutely nothing about current thinking in String theory, but are perhaps miffed by the prevailing String attitude that no one else knows anything.
I have thought about this issue, tried to see things from the String theory point of view, and have come to an interesting (at least IMHO) decision. It is now clear to me that from a String perspective everything in the Third Road, or in any viable model, should be engulfed by the big String blanket. When String theorists tell me that I'm actually doing String theory, they really mean it. And their reasons for thinking this aren't unreasonable, because the terrifying devil in the details is glaring at us all with blazing eyes, talking gerbes one minute and spin foam models the next. Just look at what John Baez and Urs Schreiber are doing.
So the decision is this: from this day forward I shall endeavour to consider myself a String theorist. I'm quite serious. Fear not that the revolution is being abandonned. I am simply joining those who feel that it is time to move it inside the city walls.
The cynical reader might conclude that I am simply considering my future job prospects! To you, I point out that (a) keas don't play those sort of sports, (b) I live in a String free part of the world anyway and (c) anyone who knows me knows that my creativity in the pastime of destruction of job prospects is Olympian.
This decision hereby gives me the right to think anyone else is an idiot.
Kea

 

[marcus]

... anyone who knows me knows that my creativity in the pastime of destruction of job prospects is Olympian.

there is something wrong with the adjective.

ingenious destruction of one's job prospects should properly be called Promethean, not Olympian.

Boundless, legendary, Titanic (as the Titans were unruly rebels who defied the gods of Olympus) can't quite think of it. Demonic?

 

[Kea]

ingenious destruction of one's job prospects should properly be called Promethean, not Olympian

Yes, Marcus! You are exactly right. Fortunately I don't believe in eternal Hades so the liver eating is restricted to a lifespan and the circling vultures are as harmless as those in the Zoroastrian sky.

 

[Chronos]

If string theory is the catch all, irrefutable theory of everything, you are correct. On the other hand, if category theory is an irrefutable theory of something actually testable... it might be a better idea to ride that horse.

 

[rtharbaugh1]

I propose that we each unilaterally declare a truce. We are interested, all of us, I believe, in seeing what can be known of fundamental truths. Our name definitions are hardly crisp. Call it string or loop or foam or cats or whatever works for you, I will try to understand your meaning. I am even willing to consider that evolution is an illusion. Let's just concentrate on presenting our evidence.

We are clearly engaged in an ongoing process of some kind, and each has something to contribute. If there is to be a new order, it is hardly likely to be any more tightly defined and controlled than was the old order. In fact, chaos theory leads me to the conclusion that the more tightly defined and controlled a system is, the more likely it is to achieve catastrophic system-wide failure. Strength, and the ability to survive this not-too-friendly universe, comes from diversity, not monoculture. We can join together and cooperate without surrendering Identity.

Let us be well, and help each other if we can.

Salve,

Richard

 

[marcus]

as a small-time observer of the QG scene I value the chance to report and comment.

If I ever see category theory gobble up string (as some have imagined it might, whatever that means) I will be eager to report that. Or conversely if string appears to gobble up category theory as Kea pictures happening.

It is not clear to me what that might mean either way, but if I recognize it happening i will try to accurately report.

In the meanwhile I try to follow a newspaperreporter-cum-librarian ethic
(would be pretentious to imagine oneself in a diplomat role, we small players don't negotiate)

Right now I see an amazing case of COOPERATION, between two major young figures: Nima (string harvard) and Laurent Freidel (foam perimeter waterloo). It is about 3D and doubly special rel.

Laurent would be an enormous catch if they could get him to come to harvard even for a visiting prof. for a year. he is one of the absolute top in non-string QG.

To be accurate I must report both cases of sharp conflict and cases of cooperation. To not report is to fail the enterprise in the only thing that I can do.

Also we have a refugee problem as growing numbers find they are not needed in string and cannot make research progress, these people may want to know the map to find their way into other fields. this is not conflict but it is also something to report.

 

[marcus]

These days the forum and blog spheres are full of harsh criticisms directed at String theory...

Hi Kea, please give an example of "harsh". what I hear around here is what I would call pretty mild if not bland. what we do is simply ignore string-biz for the most part and try to do an adequate job following Loll-triangulations (CDT) and Reuter-assymptotically-safe-QEG and the Freidel Rovelli spin foam developments. God knows that is hard enough.

I gave a link to the July Toronto conference video and took considerable care to emphasize what I thought were admirable statements by Andy Strominger. Anyone who thought it would help to be "harsh" could have talked about a bunch other things. I do not think your "harsh" characterization applies very accurately to PF, at least this forum.

 

[hossi]

optimist

Hi there,

peace? I don't think there is war. The question is, what does string theory aim at. You ask me, string theory is an absolutely beautiful theory which extends the point-particle-view in a necessary way. That does not mean, that string theory is able to be the TOE (I don't think it is). But I do think, that whatever the TOE is, it will need to have a big bunch of similairities with ST.

Seeing it that way, ST is a language to describe some part of nature, probably not the only way, and maybe no more fundamentally predictable than the knowledge that the Standard Model is a Yang Mills theory predicts the gauge groups.

I just can't understand why there should be a black-or-white view and sometimes the arrogance of string theorist's as well as that of proclaimed non-string-theorist's seems to me the biggest problem which avoids any progress.

Sorry, can not resist the temptation

Let no one build walls to divide us
Walls of hatred nor walls of stone
Come greet the dawn and stand beside us
We'll live together or we'll die alone

(The Internationale)

PS: It took some unpleasant surprises before I found out that in the US 'international' does mean, well, inside the US. In contrast to this, 'international' in the above should mean worldwide.

 

[Kea]

If string theory is the catch all, irrefutable theory of everything, you are correct. On the other hand, if category theory is an irrefutable theory of something actually testable... it might be a better idea to ride that horse.

Oh, Chronos! Please don't misunderstand me: I'm on the Category Theory horse all the way!

 

[Kea]

Hi Kea, please give an example of "harsh".

What about some of the things Peter Woit (not to mention Juan R) says?! I know he's not around here much, but he is a fairly prominent blogger.

 

[marcus]

hossi thank you for those words from the"International" I will get the French and German words

Kea I am delighted to be reassured that you are on the Category Horse all the way. clarity above all. and forthrightness. in the long run I feel sure, as you do, that you are riding a winner.

I just want to see a quantum law of gravity that WORKS before it is abstracted into something more beautiful

About "harsh" in fact I find that extreme statements on any side of the argument are SELF-DISCREDITING and that it is educational for everybody to hear what KIND of people come in here and deliver various pronouncements.

You mention JuanR. Notice that he does not ever promote LQG or spinfoam or CDT (QG approaches which interest me). At least I never heard him do that. He defies everybody in sight with grand impartiality. You cannot make a truce with such a critic. He is on no one's "side". You are certainly right that some of Juan's statements are harsh, they are also sometimes self-defeating because they are too extreme, dogmatic, and undocumented. But I think his contribution is highly ATYPICAL and also educational. If one listens carefully one can learn from Juan about the need to not be dogmatic, to not be always on the attack, to not make too many statements unsupported by links. So in the end I think his hot-tempered remarks DO NOT HARM anyone. and maybe they actually teach us valuable lessons. This is just my private opinion however.

 

[marcus]

hossi, it seems that the lines you quoted were written by Billy Bragg in 1990.
they are very far from being a translation of the original song. this is not good or bad but
it is more a case of NEW LYRICS vintage 1990 to an OLD TUNE.

the original poem was written in 1871 by Eugene Pottier
the translation into German in 1910 by Emil Luckhardt

orig. French:
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/int/int-french.html

German transl.
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/int/int-german.html

BTW I do not much like it as a poem. I think the American union song called
"Solidarity Forever" has better words. just my personal opinion

If anyone is interested in the new Billy Bragg words, go here and scroll far down the page, past the official UK and USA and Canadian versions of the song
http://home.planet.nl/~elder180/internationale/engels.htm

 

[Chronos]

We need more people like Smolin [and Kea] who want to join forces, not stake themselves to 'sacred' turf and defend it to the death. It's hard to imagine any correct theory of QG that would not submit to both ST and CAT treatments.

 

[dubmugga]

hey Kea...

pardon my ignorance but as non technically as you possibly can, could you give us a rundown on category theory, what some of it's predictions are and how it ties into string theory and the background dependence thing ?

...please

 

[mccrone]

hey Kea...
pardon my ignorance but as non technically as you possibly can, could you give us a rundown on category theory, what some of it's predictions are and how it ties into string theory and the background dependence thing ?
...please

If Kea can't offer anything herself, perhaps she knows of a very simple category theories for dummies paper somewhere. I've looked for Lawvere and a few others she has mentioned, but I've yet to come up with anything that is non technical. Or better yet, gives some deeper metaphysical justification for category being ultimate - like the sort of arguments that used to bandied about for set theory.

Anything on this site for a start?
http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/index.html

Cheers - John McCrone.

 

[Kea]

If Kea can't offer anything herself, perhaps she knows of a very simple category theories for dummies paper somewhere.

Dear me, boys. Can't we just meet for coffee? I do try.

Kea

 

[Kalimaa23]

Hey, I'm all for working togheter.
I've never understood people like Lubos Motl (on the string side) or Juan R. (on whatever side) who just ridicule away people who work on approaches that do not seem proper to them. Altough I'm a string guy, this is not an informed descission, it's just what I'm studying right now. And learning a lot of mathematics and QFT along the way . I'll make up my mind later when I've been able to study all these things.

I think any approach is worth-while, it's not like there is a clear path to take (experiments?) with QG. I'm with Gerard 't Hooft, let's just let everybody stumble along and in the end we'll get it!

 

[marcus]

... let's just let everybody stumble along and in the end we'll get it!

may actually be the best philosophy of all

(as an observer on the sideline I don't need to take a position about what is the best strategy---the actual research people decide how they place their bets---I watch because it is an interesting time in physics history and not because they need my advice! but if I WERE one of them I think I might find Dimitri's simple sketch of an argument persuasive for multiple lines of attack----I might even be currently working on more than one line of investigation myself, if I had the good fortune to be able to do this. But I would not necessarily try to MERGE approaches at this point. it would be too likely to produce a collage of the worst aspects of each.)

 

[Juan R.]

These days the forum and blog spheres are full of harsh criticisms directed at String theory. Indeed, I have been guilty of this behaviour myself. Many of these outbursts have been delivered by people that know absolutely nothing about current thinking in String theory, but are perhaps miffed by the prevailing String attitude that no one else knows anything.

Typical but 'impartial' argument. Why do not also emphasize that String theorists critize other theories without knowledge. It is well known that Lubos Motl writes reviews of books that newer read with "I do not recommend this book because this guy is not a string theorist and, therefore, it is a stupid mo-on" This attitide is rather extended between string community. Some call it sect.

I have thought about this issue, tried to see things from the String theory point of view, and have come to an interesting (at least IMHO) decision. It is now clear to me that from a String perspective everything in the Third Road, or in any viable model, should be engulfed by the big String blanket. When String theorists tell me that I'm actually doing String theory, they really mean it. And their reasons for thinking this aren't unreasonable, because the terrifying devil in the details is glaring at us all with blazing eyes, talking gerbes one minute and spin foam models the next. Just look at what John Baez and Urs Schreiber are doing.
So the decision is this: from this day forward I shall endeavour to consider myself a String theorist. I'm quite serious. Fear not that the revolution is being abandonned. I am simply joining those who feel that it is time to move it inside the city walls.
The cynical reader might conclude that I am simply considering my future job prospects! To you, I point out that (a) keas don't play those sort of sports, (b) I live in a String free part of the world anyway and (c) anyone who knows me knows that my creativity in the pastime of destruction of job prospects is Olympian.
This decision hereby gives me the right to think anyone else is an idiot.
Kea

Hum! There is not string theory and that people has done during decades has been to modify string theory, very often taking parts of other theories. If you can write a theory where absolutely nothing is defined, then...

String theory is a "theory" with strings and without strings, with commutative geometry and without it, with 26, 10, 11, or 4 dimensions, reversible and irreversible, unitary and nonunitary, etc, etc.

Only two decades ago almost all string theorists claimed IN PUBLIC that LQG was acomplete nonsense (i still remember very hard discussion on the Wiki). Now Vafa and others string theorists are claiming that LQG, if correct, may be part of string theory. and they do emphasis on the 'if'

If LQG gravity is correct then it will be introduced into a NEW version of string theory, if it is not then will be newer introduced. It is very easy do this kind of research where your theory is not defined and you can modify it when you need either by experimental need of by theoretical consistency.

What string theorists do not publicy is that they call string theory to everything.

 

[Juan R.]

You mention JuanR. Notice that he does not ever promote LQG or spinfoam or CDT (QG approaches which interest me). At least I never heard him do that. He defies everybody in sight with grand impartiality. You cannot make a truce with such a critic. He is on no one's "side". You are certainly right that some of Juan's statements are harsh, they are also sometimes self-defeating because they are too extreme, dogmatic, and undocumented. But I think his contribution is highly ATYPICAL and also educational. If one listens carefully one can learn from Juan about the need to not be dogmatic, to not be always on the attack, to not make too many statements unsupported by links. So in the end I think his hot-tempered remarks DO NOT HARM anyone. and maybe they actually teach us valuable lessons. This is just my private opinion however.

I consider that none of current approaches to quantum gravity is correct. By this reason i am working in my own approach.

 

[Juan R.]

Hey, I'm all for working togheter.
I've never understood people like Lubos Motl (on the string side) or Juan R. (on whatever side) who just ridicule away people who work on approaches that do not seem proper to them.

Regarding Juan R. that is not correct.

If a string theorist (e.g. Brian Greene) wrote for instance

In my sincere opinion, if the reductionist approach is correct -which i have not proved- then our work in string theory would be considered the most fundamental possible inside physics, with the rest of disciplines being derived from it.

Then i would write that is incorrect and would point why.

But if he really writes in a dogmatic attitude typical of string theorists (e.g. in his lectures given at the TASI-96 summer school)

string theory continues to show ever increasing signs of being the correct approach to understanding nature at its most fundamental level.

Then i say that he is completely wrong and just proves his ignorance of other disciplines. And I would add that before doing so fantastic claims Greene would study a bit of other disciplines.

If Witten openly arrogantly claim that chemistry has been reduced to physics. He even says 'of course'. Then i am open to say that Witten is an ignorant in chemistry -in fact many papers on Foundations of chemistry journal proves that he is completely wrong-. If Witten openly publicites in media like string theory is revolutioning our understanding of quantum mechanics. Then guys like specialists Zeh publicy claim that Witten may misunderstand QM. This is the play.

People 'atack' string theorists BECAUSE string theorists attacked first. During decades string theorists claimed in an arrogant way that string theory was the ONLY approach to quantum gravity and LQG theoreticians were forced to correct this nonsense not only stating that LQG IS one of approaches studied but also stating why string theory was wrong. In fact, LQG theoreticians were correct, and now even string theorists agree that string theory does NOT fully quantize GR (Therein M-theory which nobody formulated still).

People as Glasgow or Anderson were ridiculized. Even Glasgow was forced to abandon university by string community pressure, etc. and now both are atacking lack of results of string theory. String theory is a futile exercise as physics Anderson said.

Peter Woit has been durely critized and attacked by string theorists therefore it is natural that his reply was hard.

In cosmology string theorists wrote papers durely critzing inflationaory theory. It is natural that reply from Andrei Linde was hard, proving that 5D brane theory, epiroktic scenario and all of that was a complete nonsense.

If a guy now lauch a preprint and begins to say in PUBLIC that the standard model is reduced to one Calabi-Yau configuration. It is natural that people from others approach critize the claim as unfounded.

Etc.

 

[Hans de Vries]

let's just let everybody stumble along and in the end we'll get it!

This is actually one of the most successful concepts in evolution with as
interesting examples the complex societies of ants and bees.

Many individuals searching relentlessly for food. A few lonely ones, advanced,
covering large and unknown area's. When they find something then they get
company. When there's real success is then you see this big stream of followers.

The dead of the society would be this behavior where everybody just follows
blindly the single big stream to the place where they only hope to find food
one day, and where different alternatives are frustrated and punished.

These type of ants became extinct hundreds of millions of years ago...


Regards, Hans

 

[marcus]

Hans, I like the parable
yes

 

[Kea]

People 'atack' string theorists BECAUSE string theorists attacked first.

I'm sure you've heard this before:

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Mahatma Gandhi

 

[dubmugga]

Dear me, boys. Can't we just meet for coffee? I do try.
Kea

sweet...

...I say the arts centre in the cafe by rutherfords den, a more apt place might never be found

and so we don't not recognize each other again what say we all wear birthday hats...

...we can talk arts, science and nonsense and feel right at home

BTW McCrone I had a hard enough time pronouncing some of the titles let alone the subject matter in that site you linked to...do you think you can draw me a picture ?

cheers
dumbugga

 

[dubmugga]

...a complicated issue which is rendered even more difficult by the fact that the foundations of category theory itself still have to be clarified

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-theory/

In light of that I can understand a reluctance to say too much about what it is cos it's not what it is that seems important, it's what it's not...

...shades of M-theory and it's possible relation to strings ?

The philosophical implications are what interest me but other than that it makes my brain hurt to think about it too much...

...gonna have to take some time to assimilate and internalise this, don't hold your breath though

thanx...

 

[rtharbaugh1]

I prefer the twin wisdoms of not appealing to authority and not using the pathetic fallacy. By correlation I also prefer it when writers do the same, but we are not perfect. Sometimes people with gross eating habits are still welcomed at the table. String theorists may have snot on their noses but still be welcome if they bring in the roast beast, or even a tray of minor delicasies. Even the generic wanderer may be welcome from time to time, if only to contribute a song or an interesting story. I therefore try to read Lubos Motl, even when he talks with his mouth full, and also read others less exhalted who may happen by with strange tales.
If we are to declare truce in order to get on with the current work, we might begin by abandoning our jibes and personal attacks. Then we might also try to explain our sources, or at least provide adequate links. We might expect to be asked to explain what we mean when we use shorthand terms, such as DSR and TSR or Cat One and Naked Singularity, especially if a quick google or wiki search does not turn up an answer.
Aha! Perhaps I have found a new niche. Anyone want to nominate me as the maven of PF ettiquite?
Oh.
Well.
salve,
Richard

PS great link, Dubmugga. Thanks! R

 

[Juan R.]

I'm sure you've heard this before:
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Mahatma Gandhi

Do a simple statistical research on sociology, Kea.

Write down all attempt to unify physics, all different schools on quantum gravity, etc.

Then detail what schools, guys, or lines of thought are attacked in a pure academic sense -"this argument is not convincing", "this is technically wrong by this and this", etc.- and what communities or guys are also personally atacked -"string theorists are very arrogant", "Kaku is dishonest", "string theory comunity is a sect" "string theory is a kind of church", etc.-.

After ask why the asimmetry did arise. That is, why does many people claim that string theorists are crakpots but nobody durely critizes in public practicioners of triangulation for example? perhaps is because the latter are more honest and less arrogant in his writtings? Perhaps does people not personally attack loop quantum theoreticians because later newer claim that LQG was the only approach to quantum gravity?

I NEWER have personally attacked all string theory community.

I have attacked string theory from a pure academic point of view in several ways. For example, in sci.physics.strings you can debate if i am wrong or correct in my "String theory is not a TOE" thread, where i write why string theory is, in many ways, outdated and, therefore, far from being a theory of everything, it is a theory of rather simplistic stuff. One thing is to read popular treatises on string theory where all is fantastic, all is beatiful, all is computed etc. and other is to read real published literature on the topic, then one finds a mathematical gulash rather ugly, and that predicts exactly nothing.

I have also 'personally' attacked some string theorists like Witten, Grene Schwartz, etc. but ONLY because they began first. Witten said first that chemistry was 'trivial' -well he does not used exactly the word but was the general feeling of his discourse- and then i said that he is completely ignorant on that and that before doing irrelevant claims that can be danger for other disciplines, Witten would do some relevant contribution to the topic. Brian Greene emphasized first that ST was the more fundamental discipline, and then i proved why his work on Calabi Yau (a 'simple' differential manifold) was not the more fundamental possible (curiously now Greene agrees that differential manifolds are not sufficient), etc.

 

[ahrkron]

then i proved why his work on Calabi Yau (a 'simple' differential manifold) was not the more fundamental possible

That's impressive. Can you post the reference?
In what sense is Green's work not "the most fundamental possible"?

 

[Kea]

I have attacked string theory from a pure academic point of view ...

Really. I haven't seen anything you've written that I would consider academic.

Well, you're doing a good job of spoiling the spirit of this thread, that's for sure.

 

[hossi]

Hi Marcus, yeah, these are not the original lyrics but I like the billy bragg version for *aeh* personal reasons - and he has a very pleasant voice.
Some more lyrics from him

'You can be active with the activists
Or sleep in with the sleepers
While you’re waiting for the great leap forwards'

I don't think that 'merging' different approaches will lead to anything but more confusion and more people working out more details which might or might not have something to do with nature.

Instead, I think that we should focus on the similarities between different approaches (such as e.g. a minimal length scale, black holes, etc) and see what we can conclude out of this.

I also would like to add that even though stumbling along might lead eventually SOMEwhere, it is an enormous waste of young and potentially ingenious brains to be lead by stumbling leaders. It is a matter of responsibility to look for the best possible way.

Take Care,

Sabine

 

[mccrone]

The scientific method is optimised for extracting local control models rather than global truth models. The sociology of academia works well in the middle ground (where the modelling is tied to the business of creating Western technology - he who pays the piper, etc) but creaks where people are tackling the extremes of mind and matter - the biggest questions, that are also the self-referential ones.

Better metaphysics is the answer. But technicians don't really have the time or desire to learn philosophy. Indeed, their careers depend on learning not to be distracted by what can be more usefully ignored.

The pharmaceutical industry perhaps is our shining example of how science is actually done in a complex environment. Take something very ecologically intricate and organic like a brain and then assault it randomly with new chemicals and observe the effects. If you see anything at all like an effect you want, which is of course unlikely to have been the effect you were seeking using some "designer drug" theory, fine-tune the experiments to increase the apparent crispness of the effect (enough to paper over side effects and get FDA approval). Sometimes science even lucks out and the randomly acquired chemistry actually works in significant fashion. Recent studies show that only 80 percent of the efficacy of Prozac need be credited to placebo, so Prozac can claim the remaining 20!

The common belief is that evolution is blind darwinism - throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. What is good enough for nature should be good enough for (technological)science. Young thinkers who look before they leap would only slow down a scientific method that relies on many small sacrifices for the sake of the occasional big mutation.

Well obviously I'm being satirical now because we know that evolution does not work by hopeful monsters but the fine-grain tinkering of gene pools. So the blindness applies at the population level - the clumps of careers tied up in strings or LQG.

Still, makes you wonder how science would actually be run if it was optimised for global rather than local modelling.

I would say strings are global enough that they would still be encouraged. LQG seems too bogged down in the local view the way it is currently framed. Bigger picture guys like Prigogine would certainly be getting more respect.

Cheers - John McCrone.

 

[Kea]

Bigger picture guys like Prigogine would certainly be getting more respect.

Humph. I met Prigogine once and he came across as a rude old bastard. Pity.

 

[mccrone]

Humph. I met Prigogine once and he came across as a rude old bastard. Pity.

For sure. This is true of many people who worked hard to get things right and then find the world still ignores them (Nobel or not, chemists don't count in the grand scheme of things).

On the other hand, some of those who are most deeply wrong - like Francis Crick was about consciousness - are immensely charming and graceful.

If you've been reading up on Peirce, you may think he would make Prigogine seem an angel by comparison.

 

[Juan R.]

That's impressive. Can you post the reference?
In what sense is Green's work not "the most fundamental possible"?

I cannot post the reference still. But you will can access to it in brief and check details. Let me now focus in work of others.

You would know that now string theorist know that differential manifolds are not sufficient, but that already was known in other disciplines.

Fundamental means that you can derive the rest of known science. If your work arises from the approximation of the work of other then that is not fundamental is an approximation. If Schwartz string theory is based in HS math and Prigogine theory is based in RHS (with HS being an approximation oif the RHS math) then string theory is not the most fundamental view of nature.

Remember also that M-theory clearly states that Calabi-Yau manifolds are a approximation that arise when coupling constant vanishes. In the full non-perturvative regime the 'correct' (i do no mean the correct manifold of nature!) manifold of M-theory is a 11D manifold.

Therefore, again, Brian Greene early work on Calabi-Yau manifolds was not the most fundamental possible. Now people is working with a substitute of Calabi-Yau manifold, so far as i know the best candidate are G₂ manifolds.

No problem if the work of one is improved by work of others. This is a standard tendency on science. The problem is that string thoerists claiming in public that their work was the most fundamentla possible and the rest of people was second class scientists, when was not true.

Or at least was more true that Saddam...