Thank you for making a show like this once in a while. These subjects are popular, not only in your e-mails but all of us who talk about, or teach astronomy will frequently encounter them.

String theory has been a favourite among European popular science magazines for a long time and even though it may not quite deserve to be associated with pure fiction like time travel or warp speed, I certainly understand why you put it there so as not to be forced to do an extra show on it.

A question: Would it be correct to quote Pamela saying that so far, no version of string theory has come up with even one prediction that, if it could be tested, would be a proof supporting string theory alone? That is to say that, as far as string theory is concerned, experimental science can not even get started since succeeding to prove one of the existing predictions would not prove anything at all.

A comment: Pamela is making a good point when saying that “Science has to explain why a ball I toss into the air goes up and comes down. Science does not have to be able to explain why I decided to throw the ball.” That well defines what science is and is not. As for the scientist and for the rest of us, those original questions might very well be important, that is: “Why was the ball tossed?” and “Who or what made that ball anyway?”. Those questions will always be around and should not be ignored but science is not the place to look for answers.