If it does work out, the first thing I'm going to do is build a new house that doesn't touch the ground (at least in the three dimensions we percieve).

You should read the book "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin (sp? I can't find my copy...I think the cats carted it off somewhere).

It details, step by step, why string theory is not viable, simply because there are too many permutations to be accurately tested, and those that are testable (or will be soon) are ones that could easily be proven through other, less complicated theories.

Another problem is that string theory is reliant on a specific set of variables, well, not being variables at all, but constants. The results of an equation can be made to wildly fluctuate by the introduction of a different space-time configuration.

Basically, if the space-time background is not rigidly held in place, the strings either disappear, or become so large that they are visible to the naked eye. This means that for each space-time configuration, a new set of equations must be created.

What a unifying theory must have, above all, is a background-independent basis for the equations. Without that, there are too many different results for the theory.

I hope that makes some kind of sense. I'm trying to distill a bunch of years of study into a few paragraphs.

If I'm right, the results at the LHC should, once and for all, put to rest the concept that string theory is viable. If the expected results are not found, they will never be found. The constants and variables involved have been pushed to their limit in the last decade with every new particle accelerator built, because none of them show the expected results. The LHC is the last chance, because it's dealing with the largest sub-atomic particles available...the bosons. There's a whole variety of theories involved here, including supersymmetry, which is the basis for string theory.

I'll stop now. *blush*

Thanks! I've spent nowhere near as much time on physics as I do history, but what little I've read, even from its proponents, tracks closely to what you're saying. Definitely something to keep watch on.

Something showed up in Scientific American that was talking about this. The premise was that strings don't work, but triangles do. I could get my lazy arse off the coach and grab the magazine to quote it a bit better.

Nor was I able to find it on the site. But go buy the latest article and read it for yourself.