String theory in physics claims that particles are really strings that vibrate in particular ways that give themselves unique properties (like how much a particle might weigh in terms of mass). It was a popular theory back in the day, but since it is hard to actually prove and isn’t always reliable, it has not gained mainstream scientific appeal. It’s one of the scientific theories that point to multiverses and so on.

One thing proponents of the theory do like though is how beautiful the math works out. Scientific theories are based on mathematics showing a new possibility, whether in physics or evolutionary biology or what not. If the math leads you to a conclusion, and if the math is neat and ties other theories into it neatly as well, then it’s beautiful to see from a perspective of something being elegant, but it still has to be proven. For example, Einstein proved that gravity affects light in 1919. His math said the light around an eclipse of the sun should bend in particular ways, and he was right after the experiment occurred. He made the prediction years before that though on just math alone. It is called the Eddington experiment if you want to read up on it and is what made Einstein famous around the world.

In any case, the scientific process is about coming up with an idea, figuring out the math that shows your idea might be right, get evidence, set up your theory, and then set up an experiment to see if the results of the experiment match what you predicted. That’s what science is, attempting to accurately predict something based off of data over and over. If the results start to change in the future though, or maybe a theory does not work in one specific experiment, then that means the original theory and data need to be looked at again. The theory no longer works, even if it looked and seemed beautiful. The math might be amazing, but if we cannot test it at all or use it to make accurate predictions about the world and universe, then it’s just beautiful math to look at and that’s it and nothing more.

Aristotle thought the planets where perfect with perfectly round orbits that satisfied his idea of a beautiful universe. But it turned out that planets are not perfect spheres and neither are their orbits, they are oblong/elliptical. His personal expectations of scientific beautify did not match the data being collected, but my question is, why did he think it was a beautiful idea to begin with? What made him value symmetry as ‘perfect’?

To me, the answer is the same reason string theorists stick with string theory, regardless of impractical it is at making predictions. Do you want some help in coming up with the answer? Sure. Just ask the a string theorist to draw a face on a paper, or any person who has a beautiful/elegant theory on anything that they cannot prove. Regardless of their artistic experience, you will get your answer.