> I think the opposite? Ie most problems are far more intractable using string theory It's a better framework for some problems as a model of other (comparativ

> I think the opposite? Ie most problems are far more intractable using string theory It's a better framework for some problems as a model of other (comparatively mundane) quantum phenomena. But yes, generally you're far better off sticking with QFT or GR separately for observable physics. In theory, future technology will be able to observe some of the regimes string theory (and other attempts at unification) throw at us. But this of course requires experimenting in places where quantum and specifically general relativistic effects (QFT already incorporates special relativity) are both strong. We don't really have any places where we can observe distinctly GR effects that aren't on some sort of literally astronomical scale (the closest we can go is Earth's orbit with timing for satellites). Since QM likes to stick with the small, this puts us in a real bind until we can do something crazy energy-wise. > It seems like there's some lack of imagination here, like physics is "done", there's nothing more to answer Physics isn't more done than any of the other sciences: there's an incredible breadth of active research that makes up most of the fields of physics (condensed matter, quantum information, atomic/molecular/optic). We might have a formulation of most of the fundamental ground rules, but then so do biologists and chemists by the same token. I think the unofficial motto of condensed matter physics sums up the opportunity for exploration pretty clearly: "More is different".