If you look at the symmetry breaking E8 --> E6 x SU(3), then 248 of E8 transforms under the low energy group as, (1,8) + (78,1) + (27,3) + (27bar, 3bar). Then we get three chiral families of fermions in (27,3). Now 27 contains 16 of SO(10) plus a 10 and a 1. Then, apart from getting three families of chiral fermions and three right handed neutrinos, it predicts existence of a few exotic fermions. Mirror fermions cancel anomaly. You can expect it naturally as 248 is the adjoint representation of E8 being anomaly free.

OK, thanks for answering. Has any predictions been observed?

Nothing other than the neutrino mass, which requires the existence of a right handed neutrino if the mass is of the Dirac type. According to Edward Witten, the main reasons to think that string theory is in the right track are,

• It can be used to understand quantum gravity.
• It automatically offers gauge theories at low energies, which are indeed observed in laboratories today.
• "The successes of the theory depend on a sequence of amazing discoveries that is just not plausible if the theory is an accident, rather than part of the description of nature."

So the natural question would be: Could other, possibly simpler theories have explained that neutrino thing?

Dear Mr. Sharifi, thank you for sharing your paper. It is good that somebody has the gut to propose a new confinement model. May I cite your paper?

Now on string and superstring, I think it is super-theory devised to deceive many physicists on the ground that they do not understand it. See Peter Woyt's book. However, philosophically the basic idea that the essence of physical world is wave/vibration is intuitively appealing, just like what is known as Huygens Principle.

so in the past 3-4 years, I tried to come up with a simpler model, which I called: fractal vibrating string. it is based on physically tenable vibrating string, but it is fractal so it can model large scale structures too. I can give you my books if you are interested.

moreover, there is other thing interesting me, that is Prof. Gerard 't Hooft's model of cellular automata QM. We worked out a molecular model based on cellular automata, but based on wave mechanics.

enclosed are two papers;

a. HUygens principle and maxwell

b. cellular automata molecular model

hopefully you will find them useful

humbly yours,

Victor

The answer to the question raised is a simple No.

String Theory is not a theory in the sense of a 'physical theory' *). It is a collection of mathematical ideas and promises for the future. From Wikipedia: "It is not known to what extent string theory describes the real world." Nevertheless, there is a lot of public propaganda (“The Elegant Universe”) and hopefulness (in 2001), as expressed by the sentence:

"The successes of the theory depend on a sequence of amazing discoveries that is just not plausible if the theory is an accident, rather than part of the description of nature." (E. Witten: Lecture notes "String Theory", Princeton, Oct. 2001)

Considering that the 'amazing discoveries' are of purely mathematical nature (without any hope of experimental verification), everybody can agree that they are not 'an accident'. But the conclusion that, therefore, they must be 'part of the description of nature' is not based on empirical observations, but rather on this argument: The mathematics is too amazing not to be the real description of nature.

* A physical theory is a model of physical events. It is judged by the extent to which its predictions agree with empirical observations (from Wikipedia: Theoretical Physics). An Advocatus Diaboli could ask: Where are the physical events, where are the predictions, where are the empirical observations, on which String Theory is based.

Then it's difficult to connect to real world things. We are told that strings are orders of magnitude smaller than the usual elementarity particles, so how can we ever hope to observe or interact. then there are the many extra dimentions and the necessary rolled up dimensions like snakes or garden hoses, it gets rather ugly. 

"... it gets rather ugly"

Ugly instead of elegant is the right word. In the meantime some former string theorists think alike. Did you read Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics"?

to revise the entire physics I am using Distributions theory where the variables of the functionals are the values used in the laws of physics. (s. unification of relativity & quantum without using strings published here on RG).