mishaevtikhiev

Not exactly, I'd put it as follows: 1. In phenomenology (the science that looks into extending Standard Model) we'd definitely benefit from more data (with most viable data sources, in my opinion, being not the colliders but the detectors of extraterrestrial particles such as PandaX or Fermi-LAT). However, this doesn't stop us from getting new results, narrowing the window of possibilities for the properties of the Standard Model extensions. This "sorting a haystack in search of a needle" approach may not sound too cool, but this is exactly how we discovered the Higgs boson, for which we looked for more than twenty years. 2. In hep-th we currently lack either enough data (which we can't really collect now), or an ideological breakthrough in solving one of the hard problems. Unfortunately, the problems are indeed very hard, so that one of them (Yang-Mills existence) is a Millenium Prize problem. This caused the de-facto shift of hep-th into applied math, so now hep-th is not constrained by the data problem, and is developing as actively as an area of applied math can.

I have a PhD in high energy theoretical physics (hep-th for short) and I've written a paper on string theory, so I'd like to comment on some things:

1. I think there are two reasons why string theory is cool (other people may have different opinions). Please note that none of these two reasons are directly related to the extension of Standard Model. 1.1. String theory is the only theory so far that can mix gravity and quantum mechanics, and it can be even used to derive Hawking entropy of a black hole from "first principles" (see paper by Strominger and Vafa). The obvious trouble is that the black hole in question lives in five-dimensional space and is unrelated to the real-world black holes, but this is way better than what one can get from Standard Model physics (which is, no gravitons for you).

1.2. Through AdS/CFT correspondence, string theory can be used to describe quantum field theories that are not related to string theory by themselves. This gives a very strong tool to study these quantum field theories, and the paper by Maldacena that discovered this correspondence is one of the most important papers in the field.

2. It is true string theory is unusable as of now to derive the Standard Model physics (and provide extensions for it). Unfortunately, I would say that hardly any papers in high energy _theoretical_ physics currently address Standard Model physics. Roughly speaking, in late 1970s, after quantum chromodynamics was established and the asymptotic freedom was discovered, it turned out that it is extremely hard to compute many things we are generally interested in. At this point, high energy theoretical physics split in two sub-areas: phenomenology (which tries to extend the Standard Model to derive things like neutrino mass) and theory (which is a more formal theory and tries to answer questions like "how to quantize gravity"). One can argue that this makes hep-th an area of mathematics, and I would agree with that (eg in Cambridge theoretical physicists are in the same department with applied mathematicians).

2.1. The things theoretical physicists study tend to pop up in various places, even if the original motivation is misplaced. Even the string theory itself originated as a way to explain the Regge trajectories (which were explained with quantum chromodynaics afterwards), and not to quantize gravity. For a more practical example, Witten introduced topological quantum field theories long before anyone understood how to apply them to real-world physics.

3. I do not agree that string theory dominates the hep-th field. I would say that its popularity changes with the time, going up and down. While the main conference in the hep-th field is called "Strings", the talks at it are not necessarily related to strings theory, and at the 2025 conference I'd say that only 1/3 of the talks were anyhow related to the strings theory. Moreover, there is no hard division between people working on string theory and people working on other hep-th subjects, so that e.g. Witten made many contributions to hep-th which are not anyhow related to string theory.

3.1. As for the push to do string theory that eg Sabine Hossenfelder alludes to, I'd say that I experienced no such push during my MSc and PhD studies. I've written four papers, and worked on a couple of projects that did not become a paper, and out of those, only one was dedicated to string theory.

3.2. On the other hand, the more fringe theories that can provide alternative to string theory are also more high-risk endeavors (as you are quite likely to fail to produce anything coherent within a typical timeframe you allot to write a paper). Hep-th is strongly underfunded, and I believe, that with greater funding (and less need to publish-or-perish) some people would also pursue the more fringe directions in hep-th.

3.3. A comment on the naming: hep-th is a field which is very hard to name. The name I use is the traditional one (and is used as eg a name for the field on arXiv). However, many things derived by the physicists in the field are not anyhow related to the high energy in the literal meaning of the words "high energy". When talking to people at a party, I say that I studied string theory, because the name is catchy and it rings a bell, but this way of referring to the field is definitely a misnomer.

My perspective as a PhD in theoretical physics, who's been doing deep learning in the last 4 years:

1. The prize itself makes zero sense as a prize in _physics_. Even the official announcement by the Nobel Prize Committee, taken at a face value, reads as a huge stretch in trying to link neural networks to physics. When one starts asking questions about the real impact on physics and whether the most important works of Hinton and Hopfield were really informed by physics (which is a dubious link to the Nobel prize anyway), the argument stops holding water at all.

2. Some of the comments mention that giving prize for works in AI may make sense, because physics is currently stalled. This is wrong for several reasons: 2.1. While one can argue that string theory (which is, anyway, only a part of high-energy theoretical physics) is having its "AI winter" moment, there are many other areas of physics which develop really fast and bring exciting results. 2.2. The Nobel Prize is often awarded with quite some delay, so there are many very impactful works from 80s which haven't been awarded with a Nobel prize (atomic force microscopy is a nice example). 2.3. It is wrong to look at the recent results in some sub-field and say "okay, there was nothing of value in this field". For example, even if one completely discards string theory as bogus, there were many important results in theoretical physics such as creation of conformal field theory, which was never recognized with a Nobel Prize (which is OK if Nobel Prize is given to other important physical works, but is quite strange in the light of today's announcement).

To finish on a lighter mood, I'll quote a joke from my friend, who stayed in physics: "Apparently the committee has looked at all the physicists who left academia and decided that anything they do is fair game. We should maybe expect they will give a prize for crypto or high-frequency trading some time later".