Fundamental particles are excitations of one-dimensional strings, requiring additional compactified spatial dimensions
Weak-link patterns
Brief §8's named failure modes, computed from this claim's own paper roles and status -- not a single weakness score. Patterns B and E aren't implemented yet (need dependency-graph machinery, docs/BASIC_ROADMAP.md Phase 11).
0/8 non-retracted rows are empirical testing of any kind (needs 0, and n>=3)
stored status is 'speculative'
Open questions
Pattern G. Human-written, never generated -- deliberately no importance or priority score (docs/BASIC_ROADMAP.md's own precedent against inventing one, matching innovation_considerations).
What observable, even in principle, would distinguish string theory from its competing frameworks, given this claim has zero empirical rows of any kind?
Motivated by: Pattern A (highly cited, effectively untested) and Pattern D (untested theoretical assumption)
Evidence map
Position shows direction, circle area shows citation count. Click a paper for the reason its role was assigned.
Evidence dimensions
Eight independent 0–5 judgments, each with a written rationale. Deliberately never summed into one score.
Enormous and sophisticated theoretical development, and zero empirical evidence bearing on whether the claim is true of nature. Not 0, because internal mathematical consistency and the recovery of general relativity in a limit are real constraints the framework satisfies.
NULL, not 0 (v8): nothing to replicate. Mathematical results are checked by other theorists rather than reproduced experimentally, which is a different kind of activity than an empirical replication attempt failing. 0 reads misleadingly like people tried and failed — see Pilot 6 log Finding 4.
NULL, not 0 (v8): same as replication — not applicable to this evidence culture, not a failed attempt at zero. Does not change this claim's own derived status (rule 8 fires first and never reaches rule 9, which is the only rule this dimension gates that could see a NULL).
All lines of work are mathematical. There is no second, independent KIND of evidence - which is precisely the claim's problem.
The mathematics is rigorous and checked by an exceptionally capable field. Quality of method is high; it is the kind of method that is at issue, and this dimension is not the place to record that.
No unique, tested, confirmed prediction. The most-discussed one - supersymmetric partners at accessible energies - is a feature of some constructions rather than the claim as worded, and has not been observed.
Genuinely divided and durably so: a large research community sustains the programme while prominent physicists argue it should be abandoned.
Loop quantum gravity, asymptotically safe gravity, causal set theory and others remain live, and none has been ruled out by evidence either.
Scored by human.
Why this status
The derivation rule, evaluated top to bottom, first match wins. This is the rule itself — not a confidence score standing in for one.
- 1Unknown — unexplored
8 paper rows (needs <3) and evidence_strength=1 (needs <=1); both required
- 2Unknown — conflicting evidence
(a) 0 failure vs 0 success rows -> no; (b) 1 review rows — opposite-verdict test is a human judgment, not a count; (c) 0 conceptual failure vs 0 conceptual success, 1 original -> no
- 3Unknown — underdetermined
alternative_explanations=1 (needs <=1) AND evidence_strength=1 (needs >=3)
- 4Established
independent_replication=None (>=4), evidence_strength=1 (>=4), consensus=2 (>=4)
- 5Strong, domain-limited
evidence_strength=1 (>=4) AND independent_replication=None (>=3), plus a written scope limit (human judgment)
- 6Active consensus, incomplete
consensus=2 (>=4) AND (methodological_quality=4 <=3 OR alternative_explanations=1 <=2)
- 7Plausible, under active investigation
independent_replication=None (needs ==2) AND evidence_strength=1 (needs 2-3), plus recent activity (human judgment)
- 8Speculativematched
0/8 rows are empirical (needs 0) AND evidence_strength=1 (needs <=1)
- 9Preliminarynot reached
2 non-theoretical row(s) exist AND independent_replication=None (needs <=1)
Recorded rationale
v7 rule 8: zero empirical rows (all 8 are original/review/theoretical_support/theoretical_challenge) AND evidence_strength=1. Naive citation-only guess was 'established'; divergence material. Pilot 6 (theoretical physics; prior familiarity disclosed HIGH). Corrected from v6's unknown_conflicting: the two critical review rows (Ellis & Silk 2014; Woit 2006) were purely theoretical opposition misfiled as 'review' for lack of a directional counterpart to theoretical_support, which incorrectly fired rule 2 clause (b). v7 splits theoretical_support/theoretical_challenge (see BASIC_CLAIM_EVIDENCE_SCOPING.md §4) and fixes rule 8 to test 'no row is empirical' rather than requiring literal uniformity of one role value, which made rule 8 unreachable by construction for any claim with an original row. This claim is now fully machine-derivable with no human-judgment clause blocking it — the 8th of 9.