[John7149]

It is not really failed. It is more like a mathematical tools being forced to be the physic law. Think of it like Newton law without knowing relativity. You probably keep modifying to match the relativistic result. Instead of finding Einstein GR, that modified Newtonian equations grew into incredibly complex to match reality. Then declared it is so because it looks so nice and symmetrical instead of having actual physical result supporting it. Currently ST is so complex nothing in it can be proven and yet supporters declare it can "explain" all other theories/result. And each time it cant, they just up the dimension to show the math now corrected to match the physical result. It is no longer science at this point...and it is pity so many bright minds wasted their lives enhancing this branch of physics (or at this point more correct to say mathematics).

[jcranmer]

She bounces around a bit between characterizing it as a not-a-theory versus a failed theory. It's a failed theory in the sense that the framework hasn't yielded any predictive theories nor has it provided a simpler way to understand existing theories.

[taylodl]

It provides simpler calculations in some cases. That's why physicists today elect to use the standard model, string theory, or brane theory depending upon whichever yields the easiest calculation for the problem they're trying to solve. One thing of note is that there's never been a calculation that hasn't agreed with observation. We simply have three different models that all work equally well. I think it's dishonest to not point that out.

[ifdefdebug]

Newton law once explained everything human observation could see. It was perfect then and still is perfect today for subliminal speed. String theory never succeeded to explain any observation whatsoever. So this looks like an unfair comparison to me. Unfair for Newton.