Is string theory still considered to be at the "cutting edge" of science?

Your problem stems from your obsession with Einstein and his "thought experiments" which eventually led him to world acclaim and the Nobel Prize.

As I said. You are doing well in the cutting and pasting class.

Are you ready to tell us about "operational functionality" re "multi-verses" as such are applied in quantum mechanics and string theory now?

Theories are not about "truth" in any absolute sense. Accepted theories are stages of operational functionality in what we call "scientific progress".

My niece is quite a good optician.

MWI is one of many multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy. It is currently considered a mainstream interpretation...

Roger Penrose could easily be excused for having a big ego. A theorist whose name will be forever linked with such giants as Hawking and Einstein, Penrose has made fundamental contributions to physics, mathematics, and geometry....

Penrose question[s] the central tenets of modern physics, including string theory and quantum mechanics. Physicists will never come to grips with the grand theories of the universe, Penrose holds, until they see past the blinding distractions of today’s half-baked theories to the deepest layer of the reality in which we live.

Penrose: "[QM] doesn’t make any sense...look at three of the biggest figures in quantum mechanics, Schrödinger, Einstein, and Paul Dirac. They were all quantum skeptics in a sense....People think of [Dirac] as this hard-liner, but he was very cautious in what he said. He said: "Quantum mechanics is a provisional theory. Why should I look for an answer in quantum mechanics?” He didn’t believe that it was true....

People don’t want to change the Schrödinger equation, leading them to what’s called the “many worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics....[S0] you’re led to a completely crazy point of view. You’re led into this “many worlds” stuff, which has no relationship to what we actually perceive.

You want a physical theory that describes the world that we see around us. That’s what physics has always been: Explain what the world that we see does, and why or how it does it. Many worlds quantum mechanics doesn’t do that. Either you accept it and try to make sense of it, which is what a lot of people do, or, like me, you say no—that’s beyond the limits of what quantum mechanics can tell us. Which is, surprisingly, a very uncommon position to take. My own view is that quantum mechanics is not exactly right, and I think there’s a lot of evidence for that."

[Interviewer]: In general, the ideas in theoretical physics seem increasingly fantastical. Take string theory. All that talk about 11 dimensions or our universe’s existing on a giant membrane seems surreal.

Penrose: You’re absolutely right...string theory has no experimental support.

A few theoretical physicists (notably Roger Penrose)* have argued that classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, whereas quantum mechanics can. The idea that quantum theory has something to do with the workings of the mind go back to Eugene Wigner, who assumed that the wave function collapses due to its interaction with consciousness. Physicist Freeman Dyson argued that "mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every electron."However, most contemporary physicists and philosophers consider the arguments for an important role of quantum phenomena to be unconvincing. Physicist Victor Stenger characterized quantum consciousness as a "myth" having "no scientific basis" that "should take its place along with gods, unicorns and dragons." Wikpedia

classical physics is intrinsically incapable of explaining the holistic aspects of consciousness, whereas quantum mechanics can.

There are plenty of reasons not to like string theory. Philosophical and logical arguments against the theory have long been apparent. Strong scientific evidence is increasingly joining them. The discovery of the Higgs boson exactly where the Standard Model says it should be last summer at the LHC was a first blow. Now, more evidence is coming in...

This week [CERN]...reported a major result.... its implications are general: big trouble for physics theories that involve supersymmetry (SUSY), string theory and many similar theories included. If SUSY is discarded, string theory goes right out with it...

Here's where the Standard Model (SM) vs. Supersymmetry (SUSY) argument comes in...If supersymmetry is correct, then this decay should occur far more often. In fact, by establishing this number, nearly all reasonable string theory models have failed in a testable prediction.

SUSY supporters had put forth a number for this prediction. Then they changed it when experimental data ruled them out. Then they were shown wrong and changed it again. Now the third prediction has proven wrong.