Quote:

However I do not understand why you dont accept that the new generation particle accelerators can cast a light also on this theory,
It is a very well known fact.



Simple. Because I'm a physicist and I know what the new particle accelerators can and cannot do.
As any scientist, I admit I could be wrong but ONLY in light of evidence.
Thus you will have to present me with an experiment that will be conducted at CERN with the LHC which will directly (not indirectly) deal with String Threory. AFAIK (and that's the important part here), AFAIK all the experiments mean to strengthen the SM, not Strings.

Quote:

It is evident that SM can not be the final answer as far as the physics of the particles are concerned.
It contains many non explained parts



Agreed. But this is a far cry from saying that SM is wrong, or made up, or that scientists tweak it to make the math work. Obviously SM isn't the final answer anymore than Newton was the final answer or Einstein is the final answer. Lord Kelvin made a famous statement in the late 1800's in from of the Royal Academy of Science after Maxwell's EM equations I belive stating that (paraphrase) "Science has discovered all there is to know... the rest is mere details".

It is folly to think that for a moment we have reached (or may ever reach) the "final answer" which is why theories like String Theory are worthwhile to examine. BUT this DOES NOT invalidate the theories in the energy realms where the theory focuses in. For example, Newton's gravity formulation is still accurate on Earth and at Sub Light speeds... merely because Einstein gave us more insight and showed divergence at high speeds does not mean that F DNE ma or that the kinematic equations are wrong.

Likewise with the SM. It is precisely accurate at the energy levels where it was discovered/made up. String theory aims to take it to realms where the SM doesn't work by design but that doesn't invalidate it.

Quote:

By the way he is against the string theory
Not only he is also against the opinion that modern physics is pure math



I get the feeling we may be talking in circles for I agree completely with this (as can be seen in my previous posts). String theory is pure math and thus not physics. But what I'm saying is that SM is NOT pure math, it is based on experimental evidence, and thus is Physics!


FUTUR-E-SCAPE: The Future Landscape of Education and Entertainment.