That first sentence is peculiar in its own right in a way. We're one of those macro objects that we're familiar with -- the face, body, we see in the mirror -- yet we are atoms, which are 99% space. You don't look in the mirror and see that chubby face and say "Well, its not real, I'm just about all not there, so it can't be bad, huh?"
What I'm trying to point out (badly, most likely) is that maybe string theory isn't at a wall, it just needs a more realistic mirror. Maybe a new face to look into it. It's no secret that the "young lions" are the ones who often come up with something the "old heads" have been working at for ages. Perhaps string theory will suddenly come into really being like quantum mechanics. A little fresh air is all it might need, or a new perspective on it by one of those "young lions" yet to come, or in the wings.
mismused,
..."99% space"... i agree. in my opinion there is a good chance the ratio of visible potential (matter) to dark potential (matter), put at 10% to 90% approx, carries through for all 'things' as well. In other words that ratio is throughout the universe. As to strings (which i do not hold to) i have considered a model of the "strings" as being 'seen' much like looking into a container jam-packed with very long rubberbands all jumbled together and intermingled, with each 'rubberband' allowed some sort of 'autonomy', so that what happens 'here' affects 'somewhere' else along the 'strings path'.
np
Dude, until you learn capitalization, no one's going to take you seriously. Presentation is everything, don't you know that? I didn't read half of what you just wrote, and I'm willing to bet no one else did. Compose yourself and try it at an eigth-grade reading level. These breathy diatribes may be fulfilling, but they ain't getting your point across, know what I'm saying?
