Abstract

The search for a complete quantum theory of gravity has been a vigorously studied upon subject for
physicists in the past couple of decades. The key issue with this is the difficulty of the quantization of
gravity, as it is distinct from the other fundamental forces in the universe. The two most promising
theories that were invented are String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity—both of which are incomplete
still. I have conducted extensive secondary research, as well as primary research to some extent, in order
to find out about the two theories, and which one was superior to the other, as the most promising
candidate for a quantum theory of gravity. Through research, I’ve found that the two theories are distinct
and different ways of approaching quantum gravity, as they deal with different aspects of space-time.
However, String Theory appeared to be the more desirable theory of quantum gravity due to the fact that
it unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity, and provides a ‘Theory of Everything’ by unifying all
fundamental interactions as it does so. Though String Theory also remined the more popular theory out of
the two, from my findings I reached the conclusion that the two theories are incomparable since they both
succeed in explaining different components of space-time and predicting some real-life phenomena that
we have already observed/discovered.

Introduction
In the current century that we live in, there’s a significantly larger amount of acquired knowledge of how
our universe functions compared to how much we knew in the 1600s, or ever, for that matter. In fact,
most of the knowledge acquired about the physical realm was discovered no more than a century ago.
History has seen geniuses like Isaac Newton, Einstein, Dirac, Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, and Schrödinger
come and go, each contributing something more, the missing piece needed for another great mind to
discover another great thing, only for the cycle to repeat until we reach perfection, perhaps. (These names
are only very few and are the ones that would appeal easily to the reader, though it will only be a matter
of time before rather less infamous ones like Gabrielle Veneziano or Carlo Rovelli are mentioned, both
physicists who are highly crucial to the world of quantum gravity, and to the main topic of discussion in
this paper.) Yet, is this idea of ‘perfection’ ever reachable, in any case? The way we discover more and
more about the universe every single day, even in this current state of science, would suggest that we
would’ve reached such ‘perfection,’ or a similar phenomenon of the sort, in our knowledge of physicality,
way long before. Unfortunately, that is not the case; and it is rather frustrating.

–General Relativity and Quantum Theory

Over the last several decades, there has been a prominent issue with gravity that physicists have been
keeping themselves busy trying to solve. Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces that shape the
physical realm alongside Weak Nuclear Force, Strong Nuclear Force, and Electromagnetic Force 5. (It is
more fitting to use the word ‘interactions,’ as Einstein showed us how gravity is not a force but rather the
fabric of spacetime42. Therefore, I will refer to this set of three forces + gravity as ‘interactions’ in this
paper.) I will spend some time briefly outlining what these forces are, though the only important aspect to
keep in mind—just as of now—is that these last three are already quantized (or can be quantized. Same
thing). Gravity, on the other hand, is not. Instead, physicists cannot seem to find a way to quantize it43.
(There is work going into doing so, and this quantization is of such significance that we cannot be
anything but grateful to all the people in the field trying to come closer to reaching the said solution [the
experimental results, or the lack of them, however, are more than just disappointing].) And that is where
the problem rears its head. Gravity not being able to be quantized means that you cannot incorporate
gravity in quantum mechanics (quantum theory or quantum field theory, whichever you want to say is
fine, we are talking about the same thing regardless), one of two theories alongside general relativity that
we consider fundamental. (At least, we are sure that these two theories are definitely what we know about
the universe). And, if our knowledge of gravity already comes from general relativity (thanks to Einstein),
this leads to the inevitable conclusion that the two fundamental theories we know seem to be in contrast.
They don’t work together.
They are incompatible.

This incompatibility has raised several questions over the past few decades, and physicists have found
themselves trying to theorize how gravity could be quantized44. Some attempts infamous, and some lesser
known; String Theory (and forms of it, such as M-theory and Superstring Theory), Loop Quantum
Gravity, Causal Dynamical Triangulations, and Euclidean Quantum Gravity1. Surely, there is much to
talk about for all of these candidates, though in this paper, I will focus on the first two: String Theory and
Loop Quantum Gravity. These four are only the most studied candidates; there must be a few more
theories with smaller communities of scientists following them. As mentioned before, I will not mention
these as I lack sufficient knowledge of them (or any apart from String Theory and LQG, for that matter).
Though it is a fact that I am not the only one guilty of this. Even one of the two most popular theories to
be discussed (Loop Quantum Gravity) has lost some of its followers and, therefore, its popularity over a
decade or so. Finding enough information to even consider writing about the latter two would be a
miracle.

So, it is appropriate to say that String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity have been leading the search for
quantum gravity since their discovery, and even more so recently, considering the developments made to
both theories in the past years. It seems as though the two approaches contradict one another, the
followers of the two views think one is superior to the other. Overall, the worlds of String Theory and
Loop Quantum Gravity appear to be in constant belligerence. One of my favorite examples to use for this
is from my favorite sitcom, The Big Bang Theory, Season 2 Episode 2, titled ‘The Codpiece Topology’. It
is where our beloved Sheldon and his nemesis Leslie are on opposing sides of the argument, with Sheldon
arguing in favor of String Theory and Leslie doing so of LQG2. (Assuredly, this distinct separation has
been changing recently, with younger minds taking the spotlight in science. More on this later in the
paper.) In short, followers of the theories walk around saying, “We are the only game in town,” as Jorge
Pullin puts it3, following his statement by saying how he doesn’t “subscribe to this way of arguing” and
that both theories are vastly incomplete (Hossenfelder & Quanta Magazine, 2016). I, however, am also
opinionated regarding this; String Theory happens to have attracted my interest more than anything. And
thus, in this paper, I will argue why String Theory is the most promising candidate for a quantum theory
of gravity (and a potential Theory Of Everything…but once again, more on this later.)

Section 0: The issue of gravity

As I mentioned previously, the main issue that has caused such division in the world of Theoretical
Physics is gravity. This is ironic, as it is the most influential interaction, yet we know less about it than
other forces. Dr. Spenta Wadia puts this beautifully in a TEDx talk4 in 2015 as he says, “Gravity shapes
our universe more than any other force; however, it is still the least understood of all the forces of nature
that we know of.” One of the significant—and most obvious—pieces of evidence to back this up is the
said issue of incorporating gravity in quantum theory. Why is this the case? Since gravity isn’t necessarily
a force like the others and instead is the fabric of spacetime that shapes it42, quantizing it isn’t the easiest
of tasks for physicists. In accordance with the Standard Model5, the other forces mentioned, such as weak
nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and electromagnetic force, all have certain fundamental particles that
carry them (in the most straightforward words possible). To be precise, these are called exchange
particles. In our case of the four fundamental interactions, each of them—well, except for gravity, which
will be talked about in a moment—has a corresponding boson. They are as follows: W & Z bosons,
gluons, and photons, respectively5. Then, it should already be clear what the issue here is. If gravity isn’t
a force, it doesn’t necessarily have a corresponding exchange particle. Physicists have theorized that such
a corresponding particle (force carrier)—if it exists, that is—would be the ‘graviton’46. It is useful to use
the word ‘theorized’ as such a particle has not yet been found—primarily since our technology, as
advanced as it may appear, is not yet advanced enough to detect gravitons (if they exist, once again).
Additionally, the main issue with gravitons lies in renormalizability, which is in simple words, keeping a
track of them. A graviton carries energy, and responds to mass and energy—so it will respond to other
gravitons. It will emit gravitons and these gravitons will also emit gravitons, and at the end, you cannot
keep track of it all15. And perhaps, with regards to the detection of gravitons, it is more so that “nature
herself forbids the observation of gravitons” 6 (Subramaniam, G. 2018). Maybe not forbidden, but the
observation of gravitons is extremely unlikely. You’d need a particle detector with a size and mass so
great that it would collapse into a black hole7. We are talking about a mass of tens to hundreds of solar
masses here.

–Quantizing gravity?
So, since there’s this lack of an exchange particle to carry our gravity around, the job of quantizing the
interaction is made numerous times more challenging (Furthermore, there’s the issue of black hole
information: quantum mechanics says it is impossible to retrieve information, whereas in general
relativity it is possible45) . Well, more so than challenging, it simply does not seem possible. In order to
make it possible, physicists have come up with several different theories over the years in search for the
one true quantum theory of gravity (or, a quantized version of general relativity). As mentioned
previously in the Introduction section, many of these theories exist—they all have their own community
of devoted followers, I am sure. Though in this paper, I will discuss only the most infamous two of them
all: String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity. I will argue in favor of String Theory, but later in my
discussions you will see how the process of researching about the said theories have altered where my
opinions lay on the spectrum of theories of quantum gravity and of physicality in general. (But more of
this in later sections).

Section 1: String Theory

–Background
String Theory, or specifically, Superstring Theory, is one of the most infamous candidates for a quantum
theory of gravity—as in, it is probably the more known one of the two theories that I will be discussing.
Despite what the recently increasing popularity of the theory may suggest, it is still very much new. Its
origins date back to 1968, pointing towards the Italian Theoretical Physicist Gabriele Veneziano, who
wrote a paper titled “Construction of a crossing-symmetric, Regge behaved amplitude for linearly-rising
trajectories.”8 He was aiming to explain one of the four fundamental interactions, Strong Nuclear Force.
He used the Euler Beta function in order to do construct a model which then could be used to explain the
physical properties of strongly interacting particles and certain particle collisions8. Long story short, over
the years, this paper came to be the root of String Theory. This was no longer than 80 years ago, so it is
safe to say that we’ve progressed a lot with regards to developments made to String Theory considering
just how young the theory is.

–Basics of String Theory

In the shortest words possible, String Theory suggests that all matter is made up of tiny strings that
vibrate. If we go deep into the subatomic world, there’ll be the particles we know such as electrons,
protons and neutrons. Then, if we look further, we see that these are also made up of even smaller
subatomic particles called quarks, and then held together by ones called gluons. The conventional idea of
the subatomic world would simply stop there, meaning we can’t really pry any further than that47.
However, String Theory says that these quarks, gluons and other elemental particles are made up of an
even smaller quantity: strings. Most of the introductory—non-scholar—material for String Theory will
choose to say ‘strings curled up upon themselves’, though I will simply say strings as said strings can be
stretched out between two points (we will talk in detail about what these ‘points’ are, but as of now, they
are simply points) and are not just curled up to give the shape of a circle. Another focal point of String
Theory is that it does not work in our three-spatial-dimensional universe, it only works in those of higher
spatial dimensions. The number of those dimensions differs when looking at different variations of String
Theory; the initial String Theory required 26 dimensions, whereas the form of String Theory that is the
most accepted as of now, Superstring Theory, reduces the number of dimensions required to 10—then,
there’s the 11-dimensional M-theory (from which many other types of String Theory were derived, like
Type IIA, Type IIB, Type I, SO [32] Heterotic and 11-dimensional Supergravity9, which is what people
usually refer to when they say M-theory), a type of String Theory that many had faith in, including
Stephen Hawking10.

If our universe—as we know it—has 3 spatial dimensions, then how is String Theory, which works in
higher spatial dimensions, even an option for a quantum theory of gravity? Well, here’s the catch: our
universe simply has more than 3 spatial dimensions. Since the strings that are mentioned are so small and
beyond the scale that we can observe, the idea is that these strings curl up upon themselves and create
mini-extra spatial dimensions—ones we cannot interact with, as they are way too small to even be
noticeable for us. The easiest way to visualize this is the overused ant-light pole model12—as said, this
model is more than just ‘overused’, but it works the best in building the understanding of these extra
spatial dimensions that String Theory works with. To get the point across more efficiently, the model will
be altered swapping the light pole with rope. A rope has length, and it also has thickness—one of its
dimensions is its length, and the second is its thickness. When observed from far away, the rope will
appear like a line, with just one dimension which is the length of it. However, if you imagine an ant
placed on the rope, it can still move left and right across the length of the rope as well as forward and
backward, circling around the circumference of the rope (which has a circular cross-section). For the ant,
that dimension (thickness) is still very much there, and it can interact with that dimension—but for us,
who’s staring at the rope from afar and observing it as a one-dimensional line, that second dimension that
the ant interacts with is not there. The idea of the extra dimensions in String Theory is the same: there are
the 3 spatial dimensions in our universe that are large, that we can see and interact with—and there’s
additional spatial dimensions, resulting from strings curling up on themselves, that are so small that we
cannot see, nor interact with, but still exist on a quantum scale too tiny for us to observe. In the case of the
ant-rope analogy, the circular cross-section of the rope that the ant circles around would the string that is
closed upon itself12.

–Strings in String Theory (with analogies)

Let’s talk a bit more about these ‘strings’ in String Theory now. The ones in Superstring Theory, that is. It
is useful to make clear now that the points I will be discussing will be aspects of Superstring Theory
rather than String Theory (unless mentioned otherwise). The difference is that Superstring Theory has
supersymmetry incorporated in it. Supersymmetry, also a theory per se, is the idea that those elementary
particles (bosons, specifically, which are force carriers) that were mentioned such as quarks have ‘super-
partners’, or ‘superparticles’ (fermions, matter particles)11. So, essentially, this theory predicts that each
elementary particle has a partner particle—and this prediction doubles the number of the elementary
particles in the universe11 (and leads to the inevitable conclusion that there’s symmetry in the universe;
hence, ‘supersymmetry’). Below is a table of standard particles in Superstring Theory and their
superpartner. (If these particles were discovered, String Theory would be closer to being proven right—or
at least, the non-supersymmetric theories would be somewhat disproven.)
Standard Particle Superpartner
Higgs Boson Higgsino
Neutrino Sneutrino
Lepton Slepton
Z boson Zino
W boson Wino
Gluon Gluino
Muon Smuon
Top quark Stop quark
[String Theory For Dummies, Andrew Zimmermann Jones, 2010, p.173]
The strings in Superstring Theory are called superstrings, though when I say ‘string’, know that it is
mentioning those of the 10-dimensional Superstring Theory. A string in String Theory has some small
mass of 10-34m, and it is not point-like12. The conventional idea from the Standard Model suggests that
elemental particles such as the electron, gluon, quark, are all point-like. And even when I mention a
particle or an atom, you’d probably imagine a small circular object in your head. String Theory assumes
that is not the case, and that all of the elemental particles that we know of (and predict within the theory)
are different modes of vibrations of strings12. So, if a string vibrating in one pattern produces the electron,
then another string vibrating in a different pattern will correspond to a proton, and so on. An analogy to
better understand this would be playing a string instrument—if you pluck an A-string, it will vibrate in a
certain pattern and produce an A note; if you pluck a B-string, it will vibrate in a different pattern to
produce a B note. The benefits of using such model instead of the particle model is that string interactions
are smooth12. (I will not talk more about this at is it simply another aspect of String Theory, you can read
this short explanation by Steuard Jensen here:
http://www.slimy.com/~steuard/research/StringIntro/slide23.html) This smoothness aspect makes dealing
with these theorized gravitons a lot easier.

–Branes in String Theory

Now, recall the ‘points’ that were mentioned in one of the previous paragraphs—I said that strings aren’t
always curled up open themselves with a circular shape, but can end on these objects in space-time,
‘points’. These points are called branes9. Specifically, strings can end on D-branes12. There are many
different types of branes that String Theory works with, and different types of String Theory work with
different types of branes (This will be briefly mentioned later). The fundamental thing to remember about
branes is that they can be X0, X1, X2 branes and so on (where X is the type of brane such as D-brane or
M-brane, etc.…) The ‘0’ means that it is dimensionless, ‘1’ means that it is point-like, and ‘2’ means that
it is like a string, a line. So, given that we’ll be working with D-branes mostly, a D0-brane will be the
simplest of D-branes. A string will be stretched between two D0-branes, which are point-like particles.
With regards to the vibrations of the string, each string with a different vibrational pattern will have a
different value for its energy, therefore a different mass (as E=mc 2 and the speed of light2 is constant)12. A
string in the lowest quantum energy state will have a negative value for mass2, and this state of the string
is called a tachyon. Tachyons are particles with velocities that exceed that of light14. An issue arises here,
as tachyons are considered to be an instability. Steven S. Gubser in his book titled “The Little Book of
String Theory” describes this instability as “similar to the instability of a pencil balanced on its point.”
He then continues, “If you’re extremely persistent and skillful, maybe you can balance a pencil that way.
But the least breath of wind will knock it over.” Gubser also points out how String Theory in itself is full
of these instabilities distributed throughout space, highlighting how the theory is still very much
incomplete and full of uncertainties. A related issue with the tachyon is that no matter how you collide
particles (different vibrational modes of strings), you never make a tachyon. (I will continue to quote The
Little Book of String Theory a lot in the following paragraphs, as the main source of information with
regards to the technicalities of the theory comes from the said book.)

–Solving the tachyon problem

Fortunately, this problem with the tachyon is solved in Superstring Theory. How is this done? I will need
to skip ahead a few points in order to explain this. D0-branes have a charge about +1 (and also some
mass), and as all superpartners have opposite charges, the charge on an anti D0-brane is -1. And as the
case with colliding particles and antiparticles together, colliding a D0-brane and an anti D0-brane will
lead to them annihilating each other. If one stretches a superstring out between two D0-branes of charge
+1 each, nothing noticeable will take place—the like charges repel electrostatically, but since both branes
have some mass, they attract gravitationally, this simultaneous repulsion-attraction cancels out and the
forces barely have any effect on the strings. However, if one stretches a superstring between a D0-brane
and an anti D0-brane, this is not the case. Remember: D0-branes and anti D0-branes have opposite
charges, so they will electrostatically attract each other—they also attract each other gravitationally as
they both have some mass, therefore, the two branes move closer together. When this happens, the strings
stretched out between the branes become tachyons as the branes experience this mutual electrostatic-
gravitational attraction. This is very unstable, as discussed before—and bringing the D0-brane and anti
D0-brane closer causes annihilation. The branes annihilate and release energy (as E=mc 2), and that is one
way in which Superstring Theory cures the tachyon problem12. (See fig below for demonstration.)

Fig #1—D-brane annihilation. (The Little Book of String Theory, Chapter 5: Branes, Andrew
Zimmermann, 2010.)

–String dualities
One thing to mention about String Theory is the String dualities. String dualities (there’s different types)
swap certain components of the theory in such way that the theory still functions. Steven S. Gubser
describes a string duality as “a duality relation between two apparently different string theories or
between two apparently different constructions in string theory.” An infamous string duality is the S-
duality—which interchanges superstrings with D1-branes. So, if you start with a string, you’ll end up
with a D1-brane48. There’s many more technical aspects of string dualities and Superstring Theory in
general, though the last that is useful to mention is the different types of String Theory—as this is
important when talking about string dualities since different variations of the theory work with different
branes.

As per S-duality, we’d be talking about Type IIB which has D1, D3, D5, solitonic 5-branes and some
more. S-duality also interchanges D5-branes with solitonic 5-branes. There’s also Type IIA which works
with D0, D2, D4, D6 and solitonic 5-branes (and once again, some more complicated ones). In this
variation of the theory, as string interactions become stronger, new dimensions open up. The best
understood string duality is T-duality which relates both of these variations of the theory (when string
theory has 9 dimensions, you cannot tell the difference between Type IIA and Type IIB) 12.

Steven S. Gubser himself says that “It’s not clear to [him] that the eventual relation of String Theory to
the world has to involve extra dimensions per se.” Which reminded me of a discussion I had on the topic
about a month ago, where the interlocutor told me how String Theory, because of its extra dimensions, is
far from what the real world is like. At hindsight, this comment seemed rather stereotypical to say—it
sounded like a remark with no real argument behind it. Though after sitting down and thinking about it,
perhaps, our world really isn’t as complicated as what string theory, and its variations would suggest. (But
more on this in the The Philosophy section). And the theory really is complicated, as unlike general
relativity which has some certain mathematical equations that make up the mathematical building blocks
of the theory, String Theory seems to be a bunch of “overlapping bits rather than an elegant monolith
like GR [general relativity]” 16 (John Rennie, 2013).

–Evidence?
What about the experimental results? As briefly mentioned how those were rather disappointing for both
cases of String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity, and if anything, the lack of significant results does
nothing but discourage the community of scientists following either theory. Some even call it
‘pseudoscience’ as the theory seems “impossible to test”17 (Brendan Z.F., 2020). Nevertheless,
considering the small scale that String Theory works with (Planck scale, where quantum gravitational
effects become significant), perhaps the fact that it fails to describe what we can see on a daily basis is a
positive thing. The theory fails to describe what we can see, and what we can interact with—even though
it works on a scale so small that we cannot see nor cannot interact with. Perchance it’s even natural that it
fails to bring us significant experimental results—because it’s not meant to. Though this gives me hope
with regards to where the theory will be in the future, it is with no doubt that this kind of thinking leads to
an inevitable conclusion: until we manage to pry into the world at the Planck scale, where all these
quantum activity takes place, we will not be able to prove or disprove String Theory in any way. Our
technology may be advancing further every single day, but I am not sure whether we’ll be able to do such
a thing. (At least for the next century or so) If we do so, it is certain we would come close to finding out
about…everything in our Universe. (Observing and experimenting on such scale would be a miracle, a
modern physicist’s dream even.)

–General Criticism
Most argue that the reason String Theory is wrong is because it simply strays from the truth of our
universe, what we observe on the daily and so on. In the “Why Trust a Theory?” conference in Munich,
2015, Eva Silverstein argues that the same has been said about scientific discoveries back in time—
discoveries that we consider to be correct as of now. She says, “It is sometimes that theory has strayed
too far from experiment/observation. Historically, there are classic cases with long time delays between
theory and experiment—Maxwell’s and Einstein’s waves being prime examples, at 25 and 100 years
respectively…One thing that is certainly irrelevant to these questions is the human lifespan. Arguments of
the sort ‘after X number of years, string theory failed to produce Y result’ are vacuous.”18, and this is
true. If anything, String Theory might as well be correct, and the human population would become extinct
before we can even come close to producing experimental results to prove its nature. (The use of the word
‘prove’ very lightly here—we don’t really ‘prove’ anything in science, we make a prediction and collect
data to support such prediction.)

Silverstein received a lot of criticism for most of her statements in the conference, with Peter Woit
(alongside others in the comment section of the rebuttal he wrote) arguing against most in his “Not Even
Wrong” series here: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375. Though some arguments
(most even), hold value, over an extensive period of research with having read many articles on the topic,
it seems as though there’s this apparent annoyance with String Theory. Having been around for longer
than Loop Quantum Gravity (and most theories of quantum gravity, that is), it has gained more fame than
any other theory—this appears to have drawn some scientists to argue against it, more than anything. This
is more distinct in followers of Loop Quantum Gravity—even Carlo Rovelli (one of the main founding
fathers of LQG and a physicist I respect a lot) in a podcast titled ‘Conversations at the Perimeter’ by
Lauren Hayward and Colin Hunter, says “…because people are tired and sick of String Theory, they just
couldn’t stand String Theory anymore…”19Here, the Italian theoretical physicist refers to one of the
reasons why he wrote his book titled ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’—and let’s keep in mind this was
back in 2014. Though his statement is an obvious exaggeration, it connotes that perhaps people thought
String Theory couldn’t strengthen anymore, and so they were fed up with it. It is rather improper to say
that a theory, in its current youth too, cannot be subject to any developments in the future. (From
Rovelli’s statement, it even reads as though people were actively looking for a different quantum theory
of gravity, one that is not String Theory.) The case is quite the contrary, actually.

–New studies in String Theory

Recent calculations made just last year, in 2022, which some call a mere ‘numerical coincidence’, showed
evidence for String Theory, and physicists even say that the calculations suggest some corrections to
Einsteinian gravity. Pedro Vieira, Andrea Guerrieri and João Penedones used a bootstrap method and
found that their bootstrapped number matched the prediction that String Theory made for the number 20.

Furthermore, physicists in CERN are still actively working on the theory21—which is, if nothing, an
indication that there’s still some research going in the field. However, it is also factual that String Theory
doesn’t attract as many people anymore, and the ‘Third Superstring Revolution’ that certain string
theorists have promised to the physics community does not seem anywhere in reach as of now. The
number of papers written on String Theory follow an increasing pattern up to about 5 years ago, followed
by a massive drop—this is caused by the attraction towards other alternative quantum theories of gravity
such as Loop Quantum Gravity (which perhaps relates back to Rovelli’s words, and how physicists were
bothered by how frequently String Theory was brought up that they sought for another way of quantizing
gravity.)

Although all of this sounds exciting for String Theory, there’s certain observations and experimental
results that also work to disprove it, which the String Theorists cannot escape from—though it seems to
me that such observations drive them further in their studies to try and prove the theory correct, perhaps if
anything, such acts of disproval only turn out positive at the end. (More on this in the following sections.)

Section 2: Loop Quantum Gravity

–Background
The second theory to discuss is Loop Quantum Gravity. Contrary to String Theory, this theory doesn’t
come close to being considered ‘infamous’ or ‘popular’—though, due to it being younger than String
Theory, it is appropriate to say that Loop Quantum Gravity has been gaining some more fame in the last
few years (though, it still doesn’t compare to String Theory in the slightest, in that sense). The origins of
this theory date back to 1986—about 18 years after the beginnings of String Theory—and point to the
theoretical physicist Abhay Ashtekar22—his name and his genius is rather infamous within the small
community of Loop Quantum Gravity followers. In 1980s, Abhay Ashtekar, an Indian Theoretical
Physicist, swapped vectors used as connections (instead of coordinates in space time) with spinors—
which are also vector-like, and represent a quantum of angular momentum, or spin22. Ashtekar then
rewrote Einstein’s general relativity in terms of these spinors which after came to be known as the
Ashtekar variables. This simplified the ‘space of metrics’, making it appear simply like a space of fields
in quantum field theory. This then led to the involvement of other physicists such as Carlo Rovelli and
Fig #2—A diagram of spin network. (Researchgate.net, Lee Smolin, who are also considered one of the
2022)30 founding fathers of Loop Quantum Gravity22. These
two in particular used the Ashtekar spinors to solve
the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (an equation quantizing
position and momentum)—they evaluated these
connections over closed loops, each point connecting
back to its own self. This way, they could describe
and define any geometry of 3-dimensional space with
these closed loops (which, in very simple words, is
modestly the essence of the theory.) In Loop Quantum
Gravity, each of these loops is like an ‘elementary
closed circuit of gravitational field’22. These networks
of loops of gravitational fields are called spin networks23 (see fig below). Surely, there’ll be many more
physicists who have contributed to Loop Quantum Gravity and its developments such as Krasnov, Pullin,
Di Bartolo, Marolf, Thiemann and more25…and one can check out the works of these contributors if they
wish to—though in this paper I will mostly be mentioning Carlo Rovelli, as he is rather the most recurring
name you’ll be hearing when anyone is talking about the topic of LQG in general, and his studies cover a
wider range of the matter rather than specializing in certain aspects of it. (LQG: will be used instead, short
for loop quantum gravity.)

–Basics of Loop Quantum Gravity

Though already mentioned, in its most elementary form, LQG suggests that these spinors evaluated over
closed loops are what make up the fabric of 3-dimensional geometry of space22. And these loops,
(‘elementary circuits of gravitational field’) are a lot easier to quantize, leading to a nice and neat
quantum theory of gravity. That is Loop Quantum Gravity, in its simplest of terms. It is important to keep
in mind that this quantization is done in a background independent manner25—in fact, this background
independence is an important aspect of General Relativity to keep in mind when building a quantum
theory of gravity. Background independence, or a background independent theory means that the space-
time is not fixed, therefore you have no specific space-time to be used within the theory. Contrastingly,
then, a background dependent theory would be a theory whose space-time is fixed, for example Euclidean
space-time or Minkowski space-time specified—where your theory would be built specifically in one
type of space-time24. This is another factor that differentiates LQG from certain variations of String
Theory (only certain variations of String Theory, not all) as there’s no background metric on spacetime in
LQG. Normally, the space-time metric would be split into a) background (metric structure) and b)
fluctuating quantum field—meaning that causal structure of space-time depends on the background metric
(hence, background dependent, unlike String Theory). This is not the case in LQG, as the space-time is
not split into these two components in the first place, and there’s no background metric (the metric is a
quantum variable)25 that determines the structure of space-time; hence the theory is background
independent. There’s also some confusion with regards to these loops of LQG and the strings of String
Theory—in LQG, these loops result from spinors being evaluated as closed loops, so we are not assuming
the existence of any new objects in space-time49. String Theory on the other hand assumes not only the
existence of strings but also, like said, these extra spatial dimensions in the universe (which renders LQG
a more conservative approach to quantizing gravity). Furthermore, LQG is a non-supersymmetric theory
of quantum gravity, so it doesn’t predict any superpartners to the elementary particles we have
discovered—which is also useful to keep in mind (the observation or lack thereof of any superpartners
that supersymmetry predicts will bring us closer to being able to prove and disprove either of the two
theories).

–Why LQG might be the true nature of our physical realm

In a number of ways, LQG appears a lot less complex than String Theory—the most noticeable of those
ways is how it doesn’t require any higher spatial dimensions in order to function. (And this aspect is one
that followers of LQG never seem to forget to mention in every debate comparing the two theories.) This
also goes with respect to the fundamental mathematics required for each theory (in addition to deep
understanding of quantum field theory and general relativity)—for LQG, one would need to know
differential geometry (which is about most of LQG) alongside some basic understanding of the concepts
of Lie Groups, Fiber bundles and differential forms26. With String Theory, the list starts from algebraic
geometry, then goes on to topology, characteristics classes, moduli spaces—each being more than
challenging per se27. You can go far into your LQG studies with a basic understanding of the listen
concepts, a lot farther than you’d do with String Theory given you had the same ‘basic’ understanding on
topics of topology etc.…The math in String Theory comes off tougher than the one of LQG, and most of
the time it is rather absurd and indeterminate—whilst LQG provides a conscientious, solidly defined set
of mathematical foundations.
As well as String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity is a promising quantum theory of gravity—and in fact,
the significant results of the latter theory even overshadow those of String Theory. Loop Quantum
Gravity successfully predicts black hole entropy (only for ‘normal’ black holes, though the idea is that of
the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy [distinct from the usual Hawking radiation] however recently this was
also derived from String Theory), solutions to Hamiltonian constraints, derivation of Planck scale
eigenvalues of geometrical quantities and more, including its application to other theories. Though the
theory fails to address problems of quantum cosmology, origin of the universe, masses of the elementary
particles (you cannot use LQG to compute masses from quantum gravity)—and most important of all,
unification of all fundamental interactions25 (This will be talked about more in the following sections).

–Differences between the two theories

The two theories of String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity also have vastly different ways of
approaching quantum gravity. String Theory assumes main characteristics of quantum theory, LQG does
so of general relativity49. LQG then is based on general relativity, hence, the theory approaches quantum
gravity from quantizing the gravitational field. String Theory assumes the existence of strings, and that all
the matter in the universe is built from them—then works to quantize these strings. Loop Quantum
Gravity on the other hand constructs space-time using quantized loops of spin networks—it quantizes the
fabric of space-time itself. This declares another main difference between the two theories, String Theory
studies the behavior of objects in space-time whilst LQG does so of the bits of the fabric of space-time28.

Carlo Rovelli says, in his view, “loop quantum gravity is the best we can do so far in trying to understand
quantum spacetime, from a nonperturbative, background-independent point of view.”25. And the theory is
in fact very promising—one of the major arguments that suggest LQG is the true nature of our Universe is
the fact that it’s a finite theory29. Units such as areas and volumes, and certain expressions are always
finite. This finiteness aspect gives LQG an upper hand in this debate between the two theories, as it hasn’t
been strictly proven whether String Theory is finite or not30.

–Flaws of the theory

So far, we haven’t discovered any major flaws about LQG, though one of the main concerns is that we
don’t know whether the theory turns into general relativity in the large scale where our experiments and
observations take place—as we move from the Planck scale, where all the quantum activity happens25.
However, the mathematics of the theory is well-defined, and overall, the theory is more understood in its
community in comparison to String Theory. Though once again, it is useful to mention that there’s no
direct or indirect evidence or experimental result that either proves or disproves Loop Quantum Gravity—
there’s been certain tests proposed by physicists that could potentially come close to proving the nature of
the theory. One relates to the black hole entropy derived from the theory, suggesting that studying
evaporating black holes could lead us to LQG—although this is rather difficult to carry out, and physicists
have not observed radiation from such a black hole yet31.

–To conclude…
Perhaps, such an observation could bring us closer to an answer, nevertheless, it can be believed many
more discoveries are surely to be made in order to ‘prove’ LQG (or any theory, for that matter) and
declare it as the true nature of space-time and our Universe. The real question is whether we’ll be able to
acquire knowledge at a level that is perchance beyond our understanding in our lifetime, or not. Loop
Quantum Gravity brings me hope with regards to this, as the theory is a lot simpler and more well-
defined…it feels as though testing for LQG would be undisturbed and less burdensome—it may be that
this is due to the overwhelming security, trust and devotion LQG physicists possess for their theory, and
that their ambition could conceivably overpower that of String theorists, to bring us a complete answer.
(the connotation here is not that String Theorists do not feel secure in the theory or that they aren’t
devoted to it—it is only a simple fact, perhaps an observation of mine, that at times, even String theorists
themselves don’t seem to grasp the implications of their theory. And there’s also the youth aspect I
mentioned earlier in the section—LQG is maturing more and more as time progresses, and the fact that it
is a theory no more than a few decades old means that its community surely is growing day by day. Even
if not, LQG physicists seem to be firm in their beliefs and aspirations with where the theory could be
going to in the future.)

Section 3: Unifying String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity

As mentioned in the Introduction section, the two theories, or at least their communities, seem to
constantly be at odds with one another, and it is in fact true that the physicists of LQG and String Theory
have vastly different ways of understanding the concept of gravity, which of course, then leads to their
distinct approaches to a quantum theory of gravity. However, recent studies have managed to find ways in
which the two theories could be combined to give a single description of quantum gravity. (The idea
seems bizarre at first, given the current state of the communities of LQG and ST, though these studies
might show us that perhaps, the two theories are the two sides of the same coin…)

–Links between the two theories

For instance, a group at the Friedrich-Alexander University in Germany managed to extend LQG to
higher spatial dimensions, as well as include supersymmetry, which were both formerly features of String
Theory28. As mentioned previously, Loop Quantum Gravity doesn’t need any more spatial dimensions to
work, and that it is a non-supersymmetric theory—with this recent alteration, both the theories seem to
work at higher spatial dimensions; so, such a feature is not only limited to String Theory now. The same
goes with supersymmetry as well—therefore, saying that LQG is a non-supersymmetric theory isn’t
necessarily the most accurate of statements (though in its essence, LQG is meant to be non-
supersymmetric, so initially it is indeed non-supersymmetric). This already gets rid of about a great
majority of the main distinctions that separate String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity. (Another aspect
that ties LQG and ST together is the manifold called Anti-de Sitter space, I will not get into the details of
this phenomenon, though you can read more about it in this article by Sabine Hossenfelder here:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/string-theory-meets-loop-quantum-gravity-20160112/ )

It is mostly the more recent studies that aim to describe ways in which these two theories could somewhat
be combined. The conventional idea is that both the theories are concerned about two very distinct aspects
of gravity and the quantum world, but it seems like we’re finding methods to compensate for the features
that one lacks and the other has, and in a sense, we are imitating the fundamental characteristics of one
theory and trying to apply it to the other. Something unambiguous is to be found about one theory, and
then we think the following: ‘How can one make this work in Theory X?’. This way of thinking is in most
ways beneficial, and it is in some cases—like this one—useful to move away from the traditional way of
thinking (‘LQG and ST don’t work together’, etc.…) and instead open our minds up to newer ideas and
viewpoints—it is only this way that we’ll come closer to a Theory of Everything, if such a wonder exists
in the first place (it is always good to be hopeful).

–Popularity of String Theory over LQG

As mentioned, String Theory in its current state—though incomplete—remains the most promising
candidate for a quantum theory of gravity. (Though it is useful to keep in mind, LQG and about every
theory that aims to quantize gravity is incomplete to a great extent.) It also remains most popular amongst
physicists as well—and not just physicists, but I’ve found that generally, String Theory seems to be well
known amongst different groups of people, not only ones that have a PhD in some branch of Physics. I
conducted a survey for students in years ranging between Year 11 and Year 13 (ages 15 to 18), where I
asked several questions about String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity and other quantum theories of
gravity (if the participants knew any other)32. Below is the distribution of answers to the first main
multiple choice questions, which helped me investigate the number of students who have heard of either
of the theories:
Fig #3—Response details to question 1 on survey “ (Kucukerdogan. I,
2023)32

About two thirds of the participants said that they’ve heard about String Theory, which shows that the
phenomenon appears to be popular even amongst a small group of high school students. In comparison, I
also asked whether they have heard about the theory of Loop Quantum Gravity, and the responses were
distributed as follows:
Fig #4—Response details to question 3 on survey “ (Kucukerdogan. I, 2023)32

Almost 80% of students answering the survey did not know about, or have not heard about Loop
Quantum Gravity—further demonstrating how unrecognized the theory is within the said group of
students. It is appropriate to say this has been the case with the distribution of popularity within the two
theories, though perhaps this might change in the future, with the increasing attraction Loop Quantum
Gravity has been gaining over the last few years.

Furthermore, when the same students were asked what they knew about either theories, the answers given
followed the same pattern. Most students who had previously answered ‘yes’ to whether they have heard
about String Theory or not responded in rather detailed general descriptions of the theory—which was
unexpected considering the age range of the group and their level of acquired Physics knowledge. As
expected, this was not the case with LQG. One student briefly outlined that it was a ‘theory of space-time
that has quantum mechanics and relativity’, which is a very general statement that could apply to about
most quantum theories of gravity. In conclusion, it was apparent that String Theory remained the more
well-known theory out of the two—not only within the community of physicists, but also within a group
of high school students with ages ranging between 15 and 18. (However, the group of students surveyed
was small—though it mostly likely that the patterns in the answers given to the questions here will follow
for a bigger group.)

I also conducted a survey with a teacher of Physics for high school students35—which will be mentioned
in detail in The Philosophy section—who also had not heard about Loop Quantum Gravity, also showing
that the theory is unpopular in a wider range of different groups of individuals. (More on this later.)

Section 3.1: Theory of Everything: Unifying the Universe

As previously mentioned in the Introduction section as well as sections of String Theory and Loop
Quantum Gravity, the two theories are based on different aspects and have different approaches to a
quantum theory of gravity. In particular, the initial constituents of String Theory came from quantum
theory49—the three fundamental forces that were talked about also in the Introduction section. This
eventually leads to the fact that String Theory unifies all four of the fundamental interactions that exist in
the universe—the three fundamental forces (strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electromagnetic
force) and the interaction of gravity. Therefore, the theory not only quantizes gravity, but also combines it
with the other three fundamental forces to give a unified theory, a “Theory of Everything”.

–Theory of Everything
Theory of Everything is a theory not yet achieved, but if achieved, would be the one theory to describe
and explain all of the interactions that have been discovered and hence the true nature of the universe36.
This is significant as currently, we have distinctly separate explanations for what happens in space-time at
a large scale (in daily life, for instance) and what happens at a rather smaller scale (Planck scale, where all
the quantum activity takes place). Finding a Theory of Everything would unify the descriptions for large-
scale and small-scale events, producing one explanation/equation/sets of equations (whatever it may be)
that could be used to describe anything.

One aspect that creates distinction between String Theory and LQG is the fact that String Theory
promises to produce a Theory of Everything by unifying all the fundamental interactions—which is one
of the several reasons why certain physicists prefer this theory over the other. So, if String Theory is
proven, we would reach a Theory of Everything—hence have one single description for everything in the
physical realm.

The physics community seems to share differing opinions on this matter. Many are excited about
potentially being able to reach such a phenomenon, but others have opposing views—it is still questioned
whether a Theory of Everything is reachable or not, and whether we’ll be able to achieve such a theory.
Others appear to have lost hope in the potential theory, and have terminated their studies on the said
hypothesis that everything in the universe could be explained in one single description. For instance,
Stephen Hawking, the infamous English Theoretical Physicist—after much research done in his
lifetime—gave up on a Theory of Everything (in 2010, after he said it was possible in 200033). Even
Einstein attempted to create a Theory of Everything, and given the state of Physics at the time—with
Strong and Weak Nuclear Forces not being discovered yet—failed to do so34.

Section 4: The Philosophy

As mentioned previously, many have differing views on the topic of a potential ‘Theory of Everything’.
Additionally, there’s a debate between physicists on whether a Theory of Everything, and a unification of
the Universe is reachable or not. Despite whether such a phenomenon is ever reachable or not, it is
convenient to discuss if doing so is necessary—and the possible aftereffects of coming to the said theory.

–What it really means to reach a ‘T.O.E’

All the works of Newton, Einstein, Dirac, Bohr and more done over numerous centuries, combined with
modern physics and quantum field theory under one big title and equation, “Theory of Everything”—and
this would mark the conclusion of our search for the answers to everything that we experience and don’t
experience, all the activities that take place on a large scale as well as on a quantum (Planck) scale, and
overall, the true nature of the Universe. Not necessarily through String Theory, but if a Theory of
Everything is ever reached, this would lead to the inevitable conclusion that we have reached the end of
our journey in the search for one unification, and that we’ve simply discovered a way to explain
everything in the Universe—how everything behaves on every scale ever. We’d have quantum field
theory working perfectly with general relativity, and a nice and neat quantum theory of gravity along with
it. A singular equation would conclude decades and centuries worth of studies—and from then, the future
of Physics would be unknown.

We’d have found all of the answers we were looking for. So, what’s next?

Carlo Rovelli speaks on this in the same podcast mentioned in Section 1: String Theory; General
Criticism, as he talks about his studies and research within the Loop Quantum Gravity field. He mentions
how he, indeed, does not want to reach said theory, and that having nothing left to discover would be
rather depressing.19 This is absolute, and it is important to add that we don’t know what’s beyond a
Theory of Everything. If there truly is nothing else, there’ll be no future for Physics, as we would have the
answers to everything—the subject would be rendered extinct eventually. (This is a rather pessimistic
view and perhaps an exaggeration, but it is a fact that most activity in the field of physics would come to a
halt with the discovery of a Theory of Everything.)

–The non-physical
Another reason why this idea of a ‘Theory of Everything’ isn’t looked upon with the utmost amount of
hope, is that many have beliefs in the non-physical—and it is suggested that it is impossible to reach one
‘equation’ or one ‘description’ of everything in the Universe, because not everything is physical—there’s
the non-physical realm, which some consider to be spirituality or a higher power, a God. I’ve conducted
an interview with my Physics teacher, where we discussed the two candidates for a quantum theory of
gravity, and mainly, the Philosophy behind a Theory of Everything and unifying the Universe. He was
asked if he knew about either of the two quantum theories of gravity mentioned, or any other theory, and
he replied, “Last time I talked about it [String Theory] was in 1987. I haven't looked into it too much
since then. It is promising as a concept, philosophical concept, because it basically is…to me, a better
understanding of how matter is created than the particle model.…Particles are a manifestation, and a
perception of whatever is causing them. That is my understanding of String Theory.” 35 He then talked
about how, rather than quantum loops, he was used to hearing about people talk about zero-point field
energy (he briefly mentioned how he hadn’t heard of Loop Quantum Gravity before). I then questioned,
“Do you believe that there should be a ‘Theory of Everything’? One theory that combines everything?”,
to which he replied with, “I think that Physics is misunderstood by physicists—not that I'm a great
physicist, I'm a bit more of a philosophical person, spiritual person—and I think that Physics and science
generally thinks that everything can be understood through reductionism. And I don't believe that it does.
It cannot answer all the questions. So, I think, unless physicists open their mind to non-physicality as a
pre-determinant art of physicality, they're going to go around in circles. I think the physical came from
non-physical. That's where the zero-point energy comes in as well.”35 (This idea of reductionism suggests
that an explanation about the universe must come from smaller, fundamental entities.) Here, he talks
about how physicists must move away from the reductionist idea, and start thinking about the non-
physical as the core of all physicality—which leads to his conclusion that unless this is done, a ‘Theory of
Everything’, a full theory (not just of the physical Universe but the non-physical too, he suggests), cannot
be reached. Many may agree with this including the existence of the non-physical, either from a spiritual
or religious point of view—hence, there’s some discouragement with regards to the discovery of the
theory.
As mentioned previously, it is also useful to consider: why do we need to unify everything? “A belief that
we can find a unified theory of everything implies a belief that (1) the universe is intelligible to us and (2)
it is ultimately deterministic requiring no agents of any sort.”36 Says Frank Hubeny, when asked the same
question. He then continues, “I think the first is true, but the second is false.” With this, he suggests that
us as humans are perfectly able to comprehend all phenomena that occur in the Universe, which many
physicists and philosophers (mostly philosophers) tend to disagree with (alongside myself). For instance,
Stephen Hawking once said to logician Kurt Gödel, “No matter what you did, there would be stuff that
was true in the universe that you still needed to prove.37”

Once again, we are edging between the line separating ideas of physicality and the non-physical here—
whether we are even able to know everything about the universe or not is a massive debate per se. Many
like me believe that no matter how advanced our technology might be, there’ll be some aspects of the
universe and reality in general that we won’t ever find the answers to in our lifetime. It is also possible
that the universe is meant to exist without one grand theory of everything, and that gravity and the three
other fundamental forces are meant to have different descriptions which allow them to function. A
suitable analogy would be the basis of Bohr’s works in 1920, ‘the principle of complementarity’, and this
relates to the wave-particle duality of light. John Gribbin talks about this in his book titled ‘In Search For
Schrödinger’s Cat’ as he says, “wave and particle theories of (in this case) light are not mutually
exclusive to one another but complementary. Both concepts are necessary to provide a complete
description…”38 Perhaps, not only to the phenomenon of light, but this could also apply to the universe as
a whole—maybe, we need both the concepts of general relativity and quantum field theory, separately, to
be able to explain the nature of the universe. No unification needed.

“There is no reason that nature should actually be described by a theory of everything. While we do need
a theory of quantum gravity to avoid logical inconsistency in the laws of nature, the forces in the standard
model do not have to be unified, and they do not have to be unified with gravity.” Says Sabine
Hossenfelder in her 2020 article titled ‘Do We Need a Theory of Everything?’ on Nautilus—where she
appeals that the three fundamental forces and gravity do not need to be unified, and what we need is a
quantum theory of gravity. Referring back to Section 3.1, this would eventually support comments made
on String Theory which suggest that it is overly ambitious—as it aims to provide a complete Theory of
Everything alongside a quantum theory of gravity, which Hossenfelder says to be unnecessary. She then
continues, “Some people would like the laws of nature to be pretty in a specific way. They want it to be
simple, they want it to be symmetric, they want it to be natural…So they have an idea of what they want to
be true. Then they stumble over some piece of mathematics that strikes them as particularly pretty and
they become convinced that certainly it must play a role for the laws of nature. In brief, they invent a
theory for what they think the universe should be like.”39

So, perhaps, it’s all rooted within the nature of human curiosity, and our undying desire to figure out
everything we possibly can—which, as Hossenfelder suggests in this case, leads to the rise of numerous
assumptions stripping away the sense of reality that the theory should have its basis on. Our curios nature
reflects on our work and how the physics world seems to be in a ‘hurry’ to find answers, which—even
there is a single answer to be found or not—isn’t the right viewpoint and approach one must have in their
studies.

On the same survey conducted that I mentioned in Section 3, the students were also questioned about their
thoughts on whether a grand unified theory of everything was in our reach or not. The responses to the
question “Do you believe that there should be a Theory of Everything” 32 are distributed as follows:
 Fig #5—Response details to question 6 on survey “ (Kucukerdogan. I, 2023)32

Most people (67%) said that there should be a Theory of Everything, whereas 33% (still a large portion)
said that such a thing is not necessary. No students answered a clear “no”, which was interesting. Then,
the students were asked to reason as to why they chose their answers the way they did. One student who
answered ‘yes’ explained, “Yes, because everything in the universe is bound by the same laws of physics,
with the forces being the same everywhere, and must be calculated using equations, making a theory of
everything.”32 On the contrary, one of the students who said that a Theory of Everything was unnecessary
started, “I believe that everything in the universe has something (separate) behind it…”32 Which supports
Hossenfelder’s argument in the previous paragraphs. However, it is evident that a majority of the students
thought that there must be some unification behind all the interactions that we have in the universe, which
is the type of thinking that could be harmful in the long run, when trying to achieve the answers to
everything and anything. (There is the obvious impact of the education system on the thinking patterns of
such students, so it is not essentially their fault that they are programmed to think in a deterministic
manner. Especially with science subjects, the content taught in schools encourages students to ignore
small probabilities, uncertainties and overall think in an unscientific premise, and at the end, calculations
to be to achieve the highest of marks on a physics test end up being unrepresentative of real-life
phenomena that we experience. It is unrealistic and reductionist.)

In ‘Why curiosity fuels the human spirit’ by Robert’s Theory40, it is stated that without curiosity, there’d
be no motivation—and this is true. In contrast with the previous point made, our curiosity can also act as
a catalyst in the pathway to a Theory of Everything rather than a hinderance. The narrator states in the
video that you can “either be skilled but stuck, or artistic (ingenious) but ineffective.” I believe that
despite being the smartest of species that we know of, we are yet to have the ingenious to figure out the
true laws of nature. So, my beliefs lay in the latter part of the statement, that we are skilled but stuck (and
perhaps, digging too deep for answers may leave us without one). Nevertheless, the attempts to reach a
grand unified theory are still going, and there’s a chance that String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity and
all the other quantum theories of gravity are measures that will bring us closer to the answers, in
whichever form they might come in (even if the candidates we have for quantum gravity as of now might
be discovered to be inaccurate). And, as mentioned in Introduction, it might only take another great mind
to come and discover another great thing, for us to finally find the true path towards a resolution.
Section 5: Last notes and discussion

Apart from String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity, there’s also some other number of theories of
quantum gravity1 (with smaller communities of physicists following them) that are also in the process of
development—which is useful to keep in mind, as the two main theories discussed aren’t the only options
for quantum gravity. In fact, around 30% of students who participated in the survey conducted said that
they believed there’s a separate theory (other than String Theory or LQG) that quantizes gravity and/or
unifies all interactions in the universe32. Furthermore, as time progresses and we move further and further
away from conventional deterministic ideas in physics, more and more people seem to be dropping topics
of Theory of Everything and such, and focusing more on trying to achieve quantum gravity. In addition,
with younger scientists pondering on the topics of String Theory, LQG and quantum gravity in general, it
seems that there’s been a shift in the approach we take towards the said topics. Physics seems to have
progressed in the last couple of years to be more open-minded and versatile.

Section 6: Conclusion

Finding a theory of quantum gravity is a subject matter still studied upon, and though String Theory
appears to be more promising—due to its ambition and how it promises to provide a Theory of
Everything—all the candidates we have for a quantum theory of gravity have no experimental results that
prove their nature25. It is not for sure that the heated debate between String theorists and LQG followers
will continue in the future, with the now-increasing attempts to unify the two theories. Through my
studies, I’ve shifted where my thoughts lay in the said debate—initially supporting String Theory more
than any, I’ve grew impartial with regards the subject matter. Perhaps, both of the theories may turn out
inaccurate at the end of our journey, but one can’t say for sure what the future of quantum gravity is. It is
also possible due to the decreasing attention to String Theory and the continuous criticism it receives, that
the field has been declining as of recently. Afterall, the main issue to be found with String Theory is that
the mathematics is not yet well-understood enough—and I believe that working towards this in a more
rigorous manner could show us that String Theory is the true nature of the Universe. It is in no doubt that
the same case could be applied to LQG, instead of the mathematics, we’d be talking about its
unpredictable nature and how we don’t know for sure LQG will develop into General Relativity on a
larger scale. Overall, the arguments for both sides are endless—what we do know is that we are majorly
lacking in quantitative (and qualitative) evidence for both cases. Devising new equipment and new
methods of testing for these theories could turn out to be fruitful, who knows—like Albert Einstein said,
“Learn from yesterday, live for today and hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop
questioning.”!41
References

#1—Theories of quantum gravity (2008) Scientific American. Scientific American. Available at:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/theories-of-quantum-gravity/ (Accessed: January 12,
2023).

#2— Zarhejo (2008) TBBT S02E02. loop quantum gravity vs string theory, YouTube. YouTube.
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMSmJCKaaC0 (Accessed: October 15,
2022).

#3— Hossenfelder, S. and Quanta Magazine moderates comments to facilitate an informed,

substantive (2022) String theory meets loop quantum gravity, Quanta Magazine. Available at:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/string-theory-meets-loop-quantum-gravity-20160112/
(Accessed: December 5, 2022).

#4— Wadia, S. (2015) String theory and the hidden structure of space-time | Dr. Spenta Wadia |
tedxstxaviersmumbai, YouTube. TEDx Talks. Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1abyP4zfGg (Accessed: December 14, 2022).

#5— The standard model (2n.d.) CERN. Available at:

https://home.cern/science/physics/standard-model (Accessed: January 24, 2023).

#6— Subramaniam, G. (2018) Is a grand unified theory in physics possible? - quora, Is a Grand
Unified Theory in physics possible? Quora.com. Available at: https://www.quora.com/Is-a-
Grand-Unified-Theory-in-physics-possible (Accessed: November 18, 2022).

#7—Wolchover, N. and Quanta Magazine moderates comments to facilitate an informed,

substantive (2018) Physicists find a way to see the 'grin' of Quantum Gravity, Quanta Magazine.
Available at: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-find-a-way-to-see-the-grin-of-
quantum-gravity-20180306/ (Accessed: January 15, 2023).

#8—Chalmer, M. (2019) The roots and fruits of string theory, CERN Courier. Available at:
https://cerncourier.com/a/the-roots-and-fruits-of-string-theory/ (Accessed: December 30, 2022).

#9— Admin (2022) String theory - definition, theory of everything, types, branes, limitations,
faqs, BYJUS. BYJU'S. Available at: https://byjus.com/physics/stringtheory/ (Accessed: February
10, 2023).

#10— Geere, D. (2010) Stephen Hawking U-turns on god's creation of universe, WIRED UK.
WIRED UK. Available at: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/hawking-god (Accessed: March 9,
2023).

#11—Supersymmetry (no date) CERN. Available at:

https://home.cern/science/physics/supersymmetry (Accessed: February 9, 2023).
#12—Jones, A.Z. and Robbins, D. (2010) String Theory For Dummies. Indianapolis, Indiana:
Wiley Publications, p. 137.

#13— Jensen, S. (2004) An introduction to string theory, An Introduction to String Theory:

String Interactions are Smooth. Available at:
http://www.slimy.com/~steuard/research/StringIntro/slide23.html (Accessed: February 10,
2023).

#14—Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica (1998) Tachyon, Encyclopædia Britannica.

Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/science/tachyon
(Accessed: February 13, 2023).

#15—Steven, S. G. (2010) The Little Book Of String Theory. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, p. 35-45.

#16—Sigma and Rennie, J. (1960) Fundamental equation(s) of string theory?, Physics Stack
Exchange. Available at: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62117/fundamental-
equations-of-string-theory (Accessed: December 8, 2022).

#17—Foster, B.Z. (2020) Will string theory finally be put to the experimental test?, Scientific
American. Scientific American. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-
string-theory-finally-be-put-to-the-experimental-test/ (Accessed: December 14, 2022).

#18—Woit, P. (2017) The dangerous irrelevance of string theory, Not Even Wrong. Available at:
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375 (Accessed: December 4, 2022).

#19—Rovelli, C., Hayward, L. and Hunter, C. (2022) Carlo Rovelli on physics and
philosophy, YouTube. Perimeter Institute. Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSv0cMfxsqk (Accessed: February 14, 2023).

#20—Wolchover, N. (2022) In a numerical coincidence, some see evidence for string

theory, Quanta Magazine. Available at: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-correction-to-
einstein-hints-at-evidence-for-string-theory-20220121/ (Accessed: February 15, 2023).

#21—Lerche, W. (20n.d.) Recent developments in String theory - cern, Recent Developments In

String Theory. CERN. Available at: https://lerche.web.cern.ch/papers/strings.pdf (Accessed:
February 15, 2023).

#22—PBS Space Time (2019) Loop quantum gravity explained, YouTube. YouTube. Available
at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2suMPiuog4 (Accessed: October 24, 2022).

#23—Tate, J. (2016) What is loop quantum gravity?, Universe Today. Available at:
https://www.universetoday.com/50702/loop-quantum-gravity/ (Accessed: December 21, 2022).

#24—selfAdjoint (2004) What does it mean by background independent and background

dependent?, Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion. Physics Forums.
Available at: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-does-it-mean-by-background-
independent-and-background-dependent.26568/ (Accessed: February 19, 2023).

#25—Rovelli, C. (1998) Loop Quantum Gravity, Living reviews in relativity. U.S. National
Library of Medicine. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5567241/
(Accessed: November 20, 2022).

#26—Marcus (2007) Prerequisite mathematics for string theory and loop quantum
gravity, Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion. Physics Forums.
Available at: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/prerequisite-mathematics-for-string-
theory-and-loop-quantum-gravity.156873/ (Accessed: February 20, 2023).

#27—Anonymous (2015) How do string theorists study the mathematics

required?, PhysicsOverflow. Available at: https://www.physicsoverflow.org/32850/how-do-
string-theorists-study-the-mathematics-required (Accessed: February 20, 2023).

#28—Hossenfelder, S. (2022) String theory meets loop quantum gravity, Quanta Magazine.
Available at: https://www.quantamagazine.org/string-theory-meets-loop-quantum-gravity-
20160112/ (Accessed: November 12, 2022).

#29—Jones, A.Z. and Robbins, D. (2016) Benefits and flaws of loop quantum gravity, dummies.
Available at: https://www.dummies.com/article/academics-the-arts/science/physics/benefits-and-
flaws-of-loop-quantum-gravity-177740/ (Accessed: January 16, 2023).

#30—Zyga, L. (2012) Physicists propose test for loop quantum gravity, Phys.org. Phys.org.
Available at: https://phys.org/news/2012-01-physicists-loop-quantum-gravity.html (Accessed:
February 23, 2023).

#31—Vyas, R.P.K. (2022) 2: A diagram of Schwarschild' black hole in which the stretching of
..., 2: A diagram of spin network. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-diagram-
of-Schwarschild-black-hole-in-which-the-stretching-of-spacelike-slices_fig4_363368362
(Accessed: February 23, 2023).

#32—Kucukerdogan, I. (2023) Unifying the Universe, Microsoft Forms. Available at:

https://forms.office.com/Pages/DesignPageV2.aspx?origin=NeoPortalPage&subpage=design&id
=1_vxrTwrRka6ruc7aJjFnv9mRfW8AeZBlYv9jw9j7TNUQk1MUDFNNUI0TTkxWTk2RlMz
UU1TWUpWNS4u (Accessed: February 28, 2023).

#33—Callender, C. (2019) Stephen Hawking says there's no theory of everything, New Scientist.
New Scientist. Available at: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727776-700-stephen-
hawking-says-theres-no-theory-of-everything/ (Accessed: December 10, 2022).

#34—Powell, C.S. (2015) After Einstein, a new generation tries to create a theory of
everything, Scientific American. Scientific American. Available at:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/after-einstein-a-new-generation-tries-to-create-a-
theory-of-everything/ (Accessed: March 5, 2023).
#35—Kucukerdogan, I. and Shahparaki, M. (2023) “Quantum Gravity and Physicality: An
Interview With Mark Shahparaki.”

#36—Verma, D. and Hubeny, F. (1965) Why do we want to achieve unified theory of

everything?, Philosophy Stack Exchange. Available at:
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/49613/why-do-we-want-to-achieve-unified-
theory-of-everything (Accessed: December 16, 2022).

#37—Díaz, D., Hössjer, O. and Marks, R.J. (2021) Why did Stephen Hawking give up on a
theory of everything?, Mind Matters. Available at: https://mindmatters.ai/2021/09/why-did-
stephen-hawking-give-up-on-a-theory-of-everything/ (Accessed: December 20, 2022).

#38—Gribbin, J. and Gribbin, J. (1984) “Part Two: Chapter 5: Particles of light,” in In search of
Schrödinger's Cat. Bantam Books, p. 83. (Accessed: January 12, 2023)

#39—Hossenfelder, S. (2020) Do we need a theory of everything?, Nautilus. Available at:

https://nautil.us/do-we-need-a-theory-of-everything-237888/ (Accessed: March 9, 2023).

#40—Robert's Theory (2020) Why curiosity fuels the human spirit, YouTube. YouTube.
Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6dTqdd2rb0 (Accessed: December 28,
2022).

#41—Einstein, A. (2017) A quote by Albert Einstein, Goodreads. Goodreads. Available at:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9093409-learn-from-yesterday-live-for-today-and-hope-for-
tomorrow (Accessed: March 14, 2023).

#42—Powell, D. (2020) How to understand Einstein's theory of gravity, Discover Magazine.

Discover Magazine. Available at: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-to-
understand-einsteins-theory-of-gravity (Accessed: March 20, 2023).

#43—de Souza, M.E. (2002) Gravity cannot be quantized, arXiv.org. Available at:
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0208085 (Accessed: March 20, 2023).

#44—Gravity probe B (2n.d.) Gravity Probe B - Special & General Relativity Questions and
Answers. Available at: https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11758.html (Accessed:
March 20, 2023).

#45—Ghosh, P. (2022) Scientists claim hairy black holes explain hawking paradox, BBC News.
BBC. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60708711 (Accessed:
March 20, 2023).

#46—ain' (2013) Graviton (the force carrier of gravity), Graviton (the force carrier of Gravity).
Available at: https://quantumna.blogspot.com/2013/04/graviton-force-carrier-of-gravity.html
(Accessed: March 20, 2023).
#47—Greene, B. (2019) What is string theory?, World Science Festival. YouTube. Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI6sY0kCPpk (Accessed: October 20, 2022).

#48—Bandos, I. (2001) Superembedding approach and S-duality: A unified description of

superstring and super-D1-brane, Nuclear Physics B. North-Holland. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0550321301000074 (Accessed: March
20, 2023).

#49—Kuma (2016) Difference between string theory and loop quantum gravity, Pediaa.Com.
Available at: https://pediaa.com/difference-between-string-theory-and-loop-quantum-gravity/
(Accessed: March 22, 2023).