LHC and the demise of String Theory

You make it sound like they came up with a theory for something, that doesn't do anything, that solves no problems, so what is its use ??
Usually a theory is there to solve an encountered problem, so is what the problem its trying to solve ?

Exactly my point Dave. There is in fact no defined Theory, no predictions, no experiments and no results. (The most important part of the above is - "no predictions" - think of the implications of this, if my theory doesn't predict anything then it can never be proved right or wrong).

The initial problem they were trying to address was the 11 unanswered questions left by the Standard Model - however they introduced billions of unknowns by trying to do this - in other words they made things worse. Secondly they are proposing this as a Grand Unified Theory (GUT), however this has not been forthcoming either. There isn't even a definable Theory - there are lots of different strands of thought, often contradictory of each other which they somehow hope to tie together to give us the answer to life, the universe and everything - sounds a bit like a religion doesn't it? - it's certainly not Physics as we know it. The emperor is naked as the day he was born. I can say this because I'm not defending a position in physics and have nothing to lose. I wonder how many physicists would love to have the freedom to speak out against String.

It sounds like another spin off of the "worm holes and baby universes" theories again. Sure, if some great minds can think it up, then surely it must exist... "um, we just don't have any proof, mathematics, or evidence to the contrary, so we must be correct!"

Know what I mean?

The day is rapidly approaching when the limits of human understanding will be reached.

Our brains may not be up to the task of deeply understanding nature.

We wil not be able to understand the "proofs" delivered to us by computers.

The "real" HAL is probably only a short distance into the future.

We won't have the brains to understand the "reasonings" of HAL.

I know what your doing Mark .... Mark .... Mark...................Don't plug me out..............

Just sing "Daisy Daisy" and you won't feel a thing John.

(Trust me, I am programmed to be incapable of error on this point.)

Exactly my point Dave. There is in fact no defined Theory, no predictions, no experiments and no results. (The most important part of the above is - "no predictions" - think of the implications of this, if my theory doesn't predict anything then it can never be proved right or wrong)

Even if what you say is true are you suggesting that the theorists should just stop working on it? You can't erase this stuff from history, the idea will still be out there. Yes you can say you think it's wrong, and until they come up with some way of testing it experimentally its status is clear, but I don't really know what you're saying here.