And writing ptolemaic is probably too charitable because the Almagest at least predicted movements quite well at the time (apparently it now deviates too much).
I don't think it's too wild to suggest that, without the constraints of string theory imposed by advisors, lots of novel approaches would have been tried. We have no idea what could have been produced.
As for quantum gravity specifically, arguably not much progress will be made without more data, and we now have some proposed experiments that can be conducted here on Earth to test them.
I'm sorry, but string theorists absolutely do prevent funding other research because funding is finite, grad students have to research something their advisors think is worthy, and their advisors have their heads full of "beautiful math" so that's what they tell their students to work on if they want their PhDs, and that's what they hire their post grads to work on if they want a job.
Only now as the strong theory haze has started dissipating are we starting to see novel approaches, like Oppenheim's post quantum gravity theory.
By the way, I know Oppenheim personally. He gets funding from string grants. Nobody is angry about that. Anybody can do this. I don’t think his theory is going to pass any experimental validation (it requires a really severe violation of a physical principle we have tested over and over) but the entire community has always supported and listened. He gives talks at major universities. He’s not an outcast or renegade or something.
Which makes it an interesting mathematical construct, but in what way does that actually help physics? I included a link to one critique of Ads/CFT in another post, and others have critiqued its applications to QCD and other alleged "successes" because the important properties to do meaningful work in those domains just aren't there.
The versions of this correspondence that are easy to work with also depend on supersymmetry, for which every experiment has failed to find any evidence in the expected regimes. In the old days we'd call this "refuted", but these days it just means reworking it (adding a new epicycle?) to get "new bounds".
Ads/CFT is a mildly interesting mathematical derivation, but its actual utility for physics is questionable.
> He gets funding from string grants. Nobody is angry about that. Anybody can do this.
Maybe anybody can do this now, and I think that's because, as I said, string theory's stranglehold has weakened because of well-motivated criticisms over the past 15 years or so. The evidence of string theory's former dominance is right in what you said: string theory grants.
> but the entire community has always supported and listened.
I think some physicists are open minded, and some are not. You need only look at how physicists who work MOND are treated to see how not open minded some physicists are. MOND is not a final theory, but it and the people who work on it are scorned despite it's unreasonably good predictive success over the last 40 years.
Your complaint about supersymmetry is like saying that Newtonian physics can’t work because objects are not rigid, continuous solid bodies. And yeah, that’s true, there are none of those in nature. Does that mean Newtonian physics is not useful? NO! It’s a model that’s useful. Is it wrong? Kinda. And the models that have unbroken SUSY are “wrong” too, in the same way. But the point is—-it’s obviously useful!
Please try to be open minded about string theory, especially if you wish to lecture about small-mindedness around MOND. Diminishing the real accomplishments of physicists doesn’t make other fields more likely to get funded—it makes it more likely that bureaucrats defund everyone. That’s the lesson of the SSC.
This is a preposterously uncharitable characterization of something that again, was I think a triumph of string theory, the likes of which cannot be claimed by any competing theory. It is a framework for understanding black hole information loss, and it even has specific applications in condensed matter physics for modeling high temperature superconductors.
https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/66/4/9/414412/Stra...
Like I said, Ads/CFT's alleged "successes" are overblown.
As for it being a framework for understanding black hole information loss, it's merely one idea that has questionable application to our universe. We'll see if anything actually useful comes from it.
But I refuse to say "thank you very much" when sand has been thrown at my eyes for decades.