Would like to read the book to know more. While the criticisms of "we're wrong headed to try this" might be valid, I don't know if anyone really has a better id

Would like to read the book to know more. While the criticisms of "we're wrong headed to try this" might be valid, I don't know if anyone really has a better idea of what would be the "right headed" direction to go in. If string theory shows 10^500 possible universes, then what if tomorrow we come up with a way to identify which universe we're in? Would we still discard string theory just because it wasn't developed with an empirical footing and start over, or would we begin to examine its other consequences? That string theory is pretty much just a theory at this point is, I think, not a strong enough argument to not pursue its mathematics. Especially since the theoretical effort has apparently yielded interesting mathematical tools for other areas. If that contribution is discounted, then it pretty much becomes an argument about funding. Secondly, I'm not sure why time needs to be any less 'real' if it happens to be emergent. The expression "it all adds up to normality" has some power to it. If you think about our current notion of time which holds that a photon crosses all points along its path "at the same time", but that isn't true of the electron or proton, what could we even mean by "time is real"?