Talk:Theory of everything/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Theory of everything. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Here's why I deleted the reference to the Reciprocal System of Theory from the main article: this "system" does not even mention the strong or electroweak interactions, therefore it is not a theory of everything in the sense of the main article: it is not a physical theory unifying all four fundamental forces.

It may be a "theory of everything" in the same sense that the Greeks had "theories of everything": they had metaphysical systems that internally made sense. That however is not what physics is about, and it is not what the main article is about. --AxelBoldt

I'm not a physicist, but I think to assume something "not observed" in the superstring theories is sophomoric, because the definition of a string states it is a hundred million times smaller than a hydrogen nucleus, or proton. In this area try not to think that even the distinguished scientists observe anything. This is highly theoretical, and no one on wiki needs to contradict a fair reporting on the current status of these string theories, unless of course they are working on them with the handful of physicists who proposed the theories. TEO may be an assumption. "...some of the less experienced participants in the enterprise thought that we were on the verge of constructing a complete fundamental theory of the physical world." Then the press began saying there was now a TEO. I think this entire attitude may come from excitement surrounding the first superstring theory's release in 1985. There really isn't a theory of everything... yet[added]~BF

String theories make some very clear predictions which can be verified, most notably the existance of new particles. In fact, the whole concept of supersymmetry should be open to testing, depending on whether or not we are able to find the supersymmetric equivalents of known particles. Btw, TOE not TEO.

I have now made subheadings to distinguish between the general concept of a 'theory of everything' in the sense that physicists use, and that which would be understood by the common meaning of the term. The Anome

Good. There is no sane reason why a Theory of Everything should come from, or be expected from, physics alone. Tegmark seeks it in mathematics directly - Gabora in cognition. Lakoff's view is hard to differentiate from Gabora's without a link so I left them together. I know of no other TOE class idea that is compatible with the cognitive paradigm - but Tegmark's "ultimate ensemble theory" does seem so according to himself (someone has to observe and believe in the isomorphism which implies a cognitive process as strong as anything else in experience).

Not sure if cognitive paradigm conflicts with GUTs - I do not think so but I know of no statement by cognitive theorists that GUTs are immune to the objection they make to non-isomorphic mathematical TOEs (like string theory).

It's also quite fair to consider 'meme theory' and 'gaia theory to be legitimate theories of everything - if culture and ecology are "everything", which to most people on Earth, they are. I object to physicists monopolizing the term but if we make note of the cognitive objection, I am satisfied that this is closer to NPOV. Physicists love to take over generic universals it seems, e.g. Standard Model. A bit like Microsoft that way...

OK, I see what you did, but why is Tegmark's theory "in the common sense" and not "in the technical sense"? And by "technical" you mean "physicists'" so you should write "physicists'", since cognitive scientists and linguists are also "technical".

There are probably three levels of rigor here: physicists using the Standard Model as a foundation ontology (your "technical sense"), those looking at any combination of isomorphism, cognition, and anti-reductionist ideas to arrive at a derivation of the Standard Model (or its irrelevance to the macroworld), which is still "technical" but not strictly "physical", and a "common" sense by which we would mean more or less a foundation ontology or a full and complete [cosmology]] - somewhere between memes and gaia on the credibility scale...

If you let physicists monopolize the word "technical" and make every other field or profession "common", what does that say about wiki? Hmm.... meta:cliques should say something about that.

I also don't see why physics and their untestable crap, i.e. string theory, get so much attention or space or respect when there are testable theories, e.g. post-Dawkins meme theory, that get none, according to LDC's "Royal Decree"

Thank you for your invective wrt physics. When I want more I'll pull the chain again. If you want to write about post-Dawkins meme theory (whatever that is) go right ahead. Noone is stopping you, and I wish you'd stop implying that anyone is. If you start claiming that post-Dawkins meme theory explains the interactions of the four fundamental forces, we'll certainly point out that no physicist would give such an idea the time of day.

As to your substantive point, which in the middle of your anti-physics and general anti-science diatribe appears to be that physics isn't the only place a "Theory Of Everything" can come from, is both right and wrong, IMO. Lots of attempts to explain life, the universe, and everything (to borrow from HHGTTG) have been made by people who weren't physicists, or for that matter scientists. By this definition, theists claim a "theory of everything" - namely God's responsible for the lot.

However, the overwhelming majority of people who use the term use it in the context of a theory that "unifies the four fundamental articles of nature". Any theory that purports to do so *is* a physical theory whether it comes from a physicist, wanker^H^H^H denizen of the trendier arts departments, or a monk down from the mountains of Nepal. The content referring to your idiosyncratic and entirely different definition should be shifted to another article. --Robert Merkel, who is actually prepared to identify himself.

WRT the criticism of Tegmark, I've just read his paper and had a poke around on his website, and while I don't claim to understand all of it from the substantial parts that do make sense to me it's clear that he *is* a physicist (at Princeton IAS) with a fascinating new theory., which AFAICT is, in essence that *every* mathematical construct has its physical counterparts, and our world happens to have physics corresponding to a certain set of mathetmatical constructs because the mathematical constructs are the the right attributes for the existance of what he calls "Self-Aware Substructures" (concious beings). Now, 24, why were you attacking physicists again? --Robert Merkel

I removed most of the article. Question: Do cognitive mathematicians call their ideas a "theory of everything". If they do, then feel free to add the contents back. If not, then it doesn't belong on the page.

Grape nuts - have no grapes and have no nuts. You can't derive the meaning of something by breaking it down into words.

United States refers to one particular collection of states rather than all of them.

Ironically, this brings up the big objection anti-reductionists have to a theory of everything. TOE assumes that you can figure out the entire universe by dividing it up into collections of particles, just as our friend seems to think that the term "theory of everything" is merely the sum of theory and everything.

In arguing the case for the Reciprocal System of Theory, I would point out that the reason the theory does "not even mention the strong or electroweak interactions" is that it is based on the premise that physics is the systematic study of physical reality, not the consistent integration of current theories and their models (e.g. Standard Model). If the interpretation of the term TOE is to be constrained to only include currently accepted physical theories, then it is not, by such a limited definition, a TOE. However, by this measure, a much more accurate and useful theory from, say, an advanced alien, would also not qualify, though most informed people would find that fact quite amusing.

If I recall during the discussions on the RS, the suggestion was made that a new classification (Alternative Theories, or something to that effect) would be a fair compromise. Now, here many months later, I don’t see anything like that. I would really like the RS article to have a legitimate place in the physics section that is NPOV. Where would that be?

- Doug

Removed from the article:

In less than four weeks, Jim Baker from Houston will announce in a press release that he has a new TOE (Theory of Everything). He says he has certain conditions for its release: namely a suitable peer group of physicists from across the country, along with proper media coverage and much documentation of the release from various entities. His website will be given in a few weeks which will have the press release posted, and/or information on how to obtain the press release.

Great. Good luck. But this does not, in itself, make your announcement of encyclopedic interest, Jim.

The above talk seems to indicate that various people agreed at one time that Max Tegmark had a point or at least an interesting TOE. So why isn't it mentioned?

The claim that this theory of Tegmark's had some resemblance to cognitive theories of mathematics seems justified somewhat, since those too say that all mathematical constructs have physical structures they describe - in the human brain or cognitive system (only or primarily). It's going too far to say that Tegmark and Lakoff had the same idea, but some statements they make are utterly equivalent.

String theory, also, has the notion of two mathematical descriptions, one 'too big to see' and one 'too small to see', that describe the same observed physics. This seems compatible with the idea that the observed phenomena might be 'too big' and objectively within the universe, or 'too small' and within the cognitive system of the observer.

Without talking about this stuff, a TOE can't really be distinguished correctly from a GUT, can it?

why should some links be included (espousing specific points of view) but other be deleted w/o prejudice ? (see deletion by wik of link to http://www.theoryofeverything.com ) on 10/04/03

That was an obvious junk site almost certainly inserted by its own creator. --Wik 08:27, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)

True - that was me. But it is also obvious the other two links are of a similar ilk. What differentiates them ? (are you one of those authors ?)

I hadn't checked the others. You're right, they're equally worthless. I deleted them. --Wik 02:26, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

A 'junk site'? Where do you get the authority to say what's 'junk' or not? This is a wiki, everyone is supposed to be equally represented. I know that there are hordes of authoritarian hall-monitors like you on this site that don't understand that at the moment, but perhaps one day it will sink in. Khranus

This site appears mostly comprised of people just doing their own thing who want to help the information organism that is wikipedia grow larger. Unfortunately, there also appear to be a large number of people on this site who are apparently only here to enforce the rules to a draconian extent and pick on people, often with no real justification. Worse yet, there are dogmatists who go around 'debunking' other peoples theories, or calling them 'hypotheses' when their own theory isn't any more tested than the one they're criticising. You'd fall into the draconian hall-monitor category. I'd appreciate it if you'd mind your own business and do something worthwhile, like thinking, rather than going around trying to fulfill your phallic need for control over other human beings. Khranus

Although I understand Khranus' POV - I (author / owner of http://www.theoryofeverything.com who's site reference was deleted by Wik) also very much understand Wik's desire to keep the NPOV consistency on this very cool topic. My question to Wik - what vital level of interest keeps you monitoring changes to this page (by the minute - based on how quick you respond to each and every change I make), while at the same time - by your own admitted oversight, had you overlooking the other references that were obvious and present for a relatively longer time ? It seems that your motivation for consistency is NOT being practiced consistently - does this indicate some underlying non-NPOV ?

Am I to believe (based on the evidence noted here...) that there is nothing significant WRT my simple URL addition which invoked your knee jerk reaction while you historically overlooked other similar content ?

Wrt the theoryofeverything.com site, for the purpose or reducing controversy, I suggest Wikipedia adopt the principle that if a domain name is identical to the topic of a Wikipedia article, there be a strong presumption that the contents of sites at that domain name are 1)relevant to the article and 2) of public interest.

In this case, given that strong presumption, theoryof everything.com meets those two criteria The third criteria for Wikipedia inclusion is that the matter be verifiable. In this case, it is not the verifiability of the TRUTH of the theory that is at stake (any more than an article on Christianity be required to present evidence of the verifiability of the truth of Christianity) but only the verifiability of the existence and nature of the theory. In this case, the criterion is clearly met because the theory is online.

(This may come across as an attack, but it's not meant as one.) In what sense is loop quantum gravity as it currently stands a "candidate for a theory of everything"? My understanding was that one of the main features of loop quantum gravity is its ability to quantize gravity alone, without needing to involve the complicated additional structure of the other forces. I am not in any way up to date with the current LQG literature, but I had been led to believe that efforts to unify the forces within that context were very much in their infancy and not yet at all compelling. Mind you, none of that means that LQG is less valuable or less impressive! It just doesn't seem to fit my notion of a physical "theory of everything". --Steuard 03:09, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

(And as a side note, there is no sense in which "string theory" and "M-theory" are different or competing theories of everything. They're part of the same structure, which will either work as a whole or not. --Steuard)

Just to underline Steuard's points: A theory of everything is *not* the goal of all people working in quantum gravity. Their goal is a quantum theory of gravity, which is just one of the four forces. It is the view of string theorists that you can't achieve that without bringing in the other forces, but quantum gravity is a broader topic than string theory. One could defend the view in the article from another angle, by saying that everything in physics is either quantum mechanics or general relativity, so once those two theories are united, one will have the template of the final theory. This line of argument treats the specifics of the Standard Model (which remains the empirical standard to which any TOE candidate must conform) as mere details, which is questionable. Mporter 10:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removed from article (and fixed the link):

Recently, an experiment (http://www.nature.com/nsu/nsu_pf/030324/030324-13.html ) was conducted to try to detect evidence for the existence of a smallest length scale (the Planck length). Measurements of a distant galaxy five billion light years away were compared with measurements of an exploding star 42 million light years away. The experimenters claim that if there was a quantization of distance on the order of 10^-35 m, this would blur the images of the distant galaxies. Furthermore, this blurring should be well within the detection capabilities of Hubble. However, no such blurring has occurred. This conclusion was obtained by two independent groups from the USA and Italy. Three explanations have been proposed: 1) Current theories of quantum gravity need to be revised. 2) Space and time vary together at the Planck scale so as to keep light waves in phase. 3) The blurring effect may reflect the square of the Planck length rather than the Planck length itself (which would make the effects almost impossible to detect experimentally).

This seems to be relevant and interesting, but it doesn't seem to me that a summary of one specific experiment belongs in a very general encyclopedia entry on this topic. (Also, it's been a year, but these observations haven't taken the physics world by storm: perhaps the early concerns listed above haven't proven to be as serious as they seemed.) --Steuard 20:38, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

a Relative Motion, Unified Field, Theory of Everything:source

The main argument against accepting any kind of a relative motion theory for the four fundamental forces was clearly stated by Robert Dicke who claimed that many relative motion theories for the invisible forces had been put forth but Dicke insisted that gravity could not be caused by relative motion because if it was then we would see interference fringes and we do not.

There is some interest now, however, in a wave related, relative motion, unified field Theory of Everything that would not produce any interference fringes which were Robert Dicke's main objection to any relative motion type of theory.

This new wave related, relative motion, unified field Theory of Everything is based on the scalar wave resonance of particles with their surroundings that Rhodes Scholar Milo Wolff discovered and on Caroline Thompson's discovery that repulsive force is always generated with out of phase waves but never with in phase waves.

Caroline H. Thompson, who graduated from Cambridge, and Bill Shockley, who won the Nobel prize for physics in 1956, have much in common.

The tensor math of general relativity uses space-time distortion instead of force. So does this new concept. But in addition this new hypothesis makes the claim that TIME is being produced at the scalar wave resonance frequency that Milo Wolff discovered and SPACE (repulsive force) is being constantly manufactured by out of phase, transverse waves that are produced at the scalar wave entity's spin/orbit frequency.

If this new concept is correct then Einstein was right and the answer is indeed a simple wave explanation with scalar wave resonances giving us TIME and particle. The lower frequency transverse waves, produced by these spinning particles and particle agglomerations, are then giving us SPACE and force.

ALL spin/orbit frequencies then will be producing an AVERAGE, out of phase wave, force

Waves more in phase than average will cause ATTRACTIVE forces and waves more out of phase than average will cause REPULSIVE forces.

Using the above concept, you can even begin to understand why we must have general relativity and even the tensor math of general relativity won't show you that.

While this concept is simple, the math will be the very reciprocal of this simplicity because all surrounding waves must now be taken into consideration.

This new theory considers ALL waves including gravity waves. If all the forces in this universe are formed by Caroline Thompson's out of phase waves then we have indeed unified all the forces.

Milo Wolff, evidently, has given us the very first mathematical proof of Mach's principle, that surroundings are entering into this. This is why it must be considered a relative motion theory that seems to obey Ampere's 1825 laws.

I'll expand on this somewhat as I see how Wiki works. This is all new to me.

I'm presently talking to both Milo Wolff and Caroline Thompson.

What is emerging is extremely interesting --DPFJr 16:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the recently-added discussion of Burkhard Heim's theory from the article. As far as I can tell, this theory is not at all well known (yet, at least), and as such I don't think it really belongs in a general article like this. That could obviously change if Heim's ideas begin to gain widespread recognition, of course.

If there is a consensus that Heim's work should be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, I think the right place for it would be the List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories page. However, my current feeling is that Heim's work is not (yet) sufficiently widely known to avoid Wikipedia's No original research policy. I've made further comments on the Burkhard Heim talk page, and I'd welcome input there.--Steuard 19:58, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

See the talk page for Burkhard Heim, where in the meantime we have established that Heim is receiving more recognition - a major German e-magazine, Telepolis, had an article on his theory in their first print edition (Jan 2005) and papers on Heim theory have been presented recently at conferences on space propulsion in Europe and the USA and work in peer reviewed journals is to follow in 2005. --hughey 14:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some observations about the deletion

• if deleted, this theory has been added back in (but not by me)
• Wikipedia's No original research policy says no "new" theories; research that is 30-40 years old is no longer new
• a "Burkhard Heim" search of google in English found 91 hits and around 50 seem to be relevent to his theory; in my experience, 50 google hits is above the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia

Also, when I find odd claims on the web, I come to Wikipedia to get a balanced spin and, with 50 webpages out there, people are liable to run into this stuff. That said, inclusion in List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories would be fine by me; but there should be a link from this page to relevant items in that list.

Personally, I don't know enough to say if Burkhard Heim is above or below the threshold for inclusion here. However, I do want to get a synopsis and, especially, negative dirt on such theories so that I am well armed to fight off pseudoscience.

WpZurp 16:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The aspect of the "No original research" policy that I was referring to above was "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia". However, as was pointed out to me at Talk:Burkhard Heim, Heim does get many thousands of Google hits, mostly in German, so it's probably not unreasonable to include him in Wikipedia. (I don't think it's wise to set a specific number cutoff, and in any case 50 seems awfully low; even I get well over 4,000 hits, and I don't think I merit an article here.) I don't know whether he deserves to be mentioned prominently on this page as he is now. As for recognizing pseudoscience, one must always be careful not to reject new ideas just because they are unfamiliar or because they come from unconventional sources. Having said that, I have as yet seen no reason to believe that Heim's work is a TOE or the basis of one (admittedly, I haven't spent a lot of time on it).--Steuard 21:58, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

One cannot equate a former colleague of Heisenberg and Jordan, who was recognised as a genius already in the 1950s, with pseudoscientific theories. Heim's theory is dense in difficult, apparently self-consistent mathematics (his main work is of over 1000 pages) which no lunatic could have produced. Again as we have discussed on the Talk:Burkhard Heim page, Heim theory does fulfill the requirements for a TOE. All that remains is for more theorists to work through the formidable mathematics in Heim's legacy to confirm his calculations. As this is a difficult task, it may take some time to perform the full analysis. --hughey 14:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The only measure of pseudoscience is the science itself, not who is doing it or whom they knew. (For instance, existing claims regarding paranormal phenomena are generally considered pseudoscience, even though Nobel laureate B. D. Josephson supports them.) In Heim's case, I have pointed out at Talk: Burkhard Heim that the documents mentioned there reveal serious errors and shortcomings even without detailed study. Among other issues, Heim's theory has (at least) three timelike directions (unphysical), uses "1 meter^2" as a fundamental constant (unjustified), predicts a neutral version of the electron (unobserved), and doesn't provide uncertainties on its predictions (unprofessional). That makes me very doubtful that Heim's theory "does fulfill the requirements for a TOE". The place for further discussion of this is clearly Talk:Burkhard Heim, so I ask that any further comments be made there.--Steuard 19:53, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

To dismiss Heim in this way, by focussing on the supposed shortcomings, is rather limited. Curious that you never mention the positive points about Heim -

• the incredible accuracy of the mass formula - as we just dicussed on the Heim talk page, the probability of predicting the masses of 16 elementary particles to a relative accuracy deltam/m < 10**-4 is < 10**-64. Also, it is agreed amongst the Heim-theory group that vol.1 of Heim's Magnum Opus contains several errors that are in need of correction - the group members are currently active in that area (why not join them instead of sniping from the sidelines?). However, vol. 2 was cross checked more thoroughly and is essentially error free - and it is here that the mass formula is derived. As for the 1 Meter**2 business - it is premature to be propagating the notion that this is a fundamental error before we have the clarification of the origin of E from the Heim theory group. Again as I said in the Heim talk area, the healthy reaction of a physicist should be curiousity as to whether this prodigy of the 1940s/50s did succeed in his long years of hard work in solving the problem of finding a TOE. Heim is certainly of a far higher calibre than the other candidates in the 'others' section - e.g. it is somewhat innocuous to see the vacuous 'time cube' cited alongside Heim.
• The 8-dimensional extension by Droescher gives the interactions - and a group structure as in the Standard Model. It also gives 2 additional gravity forces - one that has the characteristics of quintessence. Thus the acceleration in the expansion of the universe emerges naturally in Heim/Droescher theory.
• There are only a handful of free input parameters - h, G, vacuum permittivity and permeability. From these one obtains ultimately the particle masses and lifetimes, as well as several other parameters such as the fine structure constant.
• It is a purely geometrical theory - space is quantised and all the forces arise in a similar way to gravity in GR.
• Some of the predictions are still outstanding - e.g. the neutrino masses (see selected results in http://www.heim-theory.com/Contents/Introduction_to_Heim_s_Mass-Fo/introduction_to_heim_s_mass-fo.html).

--hughey 12:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just saw that Heim is now in a section listed ' Amateur' or theories outside the professional physics community. This is a grave insult to Heim - cited by Stern as the successor to Einstein and sounded out by Von Braun and others on the progress of his theory. To see him lumped in with purely philosophical or otherwise hair-brained schemes is vile in the extreme. Is a theory for which someone who has won a major science prize ' amateur'? See New Scientist on Jan 7th. If Heim ever does oust string theory as the major TOE, I demand an apology from the ' genius' that continues to categorise Heim along with less worthy if not wholly unscientific efforts. --hughey 16:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Although Heim was indeed trained as a physicist, it is my impression that most of his work on his TOE was done after he had left the physics community. He published almost none of his results in professional journals, and his ideas are essentially unknown in the professional physics community (if Stern had been that excited about Heim's ideas, he would have worked on them himself). Yes, his training places him somewhere above "amateur", but his TOE work seems to fall well short of "professional". (And as for that recent prize, I would point out that it was granted by aerospace engineers, not theoretical physicists. I hope you'll forgive my doubts that they would be more able to judge a theory of quantum gravity than I would be able to design a reliable airplane.) In any case, I've argued (below) for the removal of the "amateur" section here entirely, precisely because there are so many less-accepted theories with such different levels of sophistication: the current presentation is not fair to any of them.--Steuard 15:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got to agree with the above comment. I am surprised that Heim is among the amateur section, simply because he was not an amateur physicist. It is especially galling to see an honest attempt at a TOE by a professional physicist being lumped with Douglas Adams and the Timecube. Whether the attempt was successful or not, it deserves better than this. 60.234.148.152 09:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that user Steuard is not objective. It appears he is a professional Heim theory detractor.--Will314159 12:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Edit--Will314159 16:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the discussion here about reductionism and whether a physical TOE is a true TOE just doesn't belong in this article. The place to argue about whether a Reductionist idea such as a physical TOE will be able to explain everything in the world is the article on Emergentism or Scientific reductionism, or even a new article called, say, "Physical Reductionism." This is an article on Physics, not Philosophy. If such material is put on another article then it'll be a good idea to place a link here to that article, but it's just not relevant enough to be put on this article. It's about as relevant as inserting into the article on Nuclear fission a discussion of the morality of using Nuclear weapons.

Also, unless there're any serious objections, I'm going to kill the part about the Time Cube in a few days. String theory, Supergravity, and Loop quantum gravity all have proponents in the mainstream physics community and are supported by many published papers. The Time Cube does not; it's not even the most widely known crank theory; many of the world's religions, including Christianity and Islam, claim to be theories of everything, and are obviously far better known that the Time Cube. If there's no discussion on the "God is responsible to everything!" TOE then there shouldn't be anything about the Time Cube.

~ Alon Levy, 2004-11-22 12:06 UTC

Hmm. As I've pointed out before, LQG isn't even trying to be a TOE, and as far as I know, the hope that supergravity would be a stand-alone TOE died in the 80s. At the moment, strings (and related things) are the only game in town. As for the Time Cube section, I think the real issue here is whether any "speculative" ideas should be listed here at all. (I don't think that your religion analogy really applies, for the record: things like the Time Cube or Heim's theory actively try to present themselves as scientific theories, though I'll admit that for the Time Cube, that's a stretch.) If we want to include some of them, then the Time Cube is a pretty classic example. If not, then they should all go (but note that my attempt to delete the Heim section a while ago was reverted). In any case, this page shouldn't become a clearinghouse for speculative TOEs.--Steuard 16:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I included Loop Quantum Gravity and supergravity simply because they were alternative theories that at least at one point were touted as competitors to string theory. The physics community by and large supports strings, but supergravity et al are scientific theories that at the very least try to make falsifiable predictions, something that cannot be said about the Time Cube (or creationism for that matter; it's as much of a TOE as Time Cube, pretends to be scientific, and has the distinction that most people on the planet believe some variant of it). ~Alon, 11/23, 20:15 UTC.

They still are competitors to string theory, or at least, LQG is (as I understand it, supergravity didn't work out on its own, and most work on it now is within string theory). It's just that LQG "competes" with string theory in just one (crucial!) area: quantizing gravity. Nobody (or almost nobody) has touted LQG as a stand-alone TOE. (Gotta love those TLAs. :) ) Let's not get into creationism; I think they've generally avoided focusing on the physics-related aspects of their claims. --Steuard 22:09, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'm ok with either deleting or keeping the Time Cube and Heim theories. However, I believe that even the nuttiest theories help illustrate a process of scientific thought. The Time Cube nonsense needs to be refuted and not simply excised; otherwise Wikipedia just presents a phony, santitized science without the scientific method. Presenting suspicious theories and giving concrete reasons to reject these theories is a service to knowledge. Let's helps arm people against all the pseudoscience garbage that mars the popular understanding of science. You know: give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime. So, at the very least, please include a list of "disputed pseudoscientific and protoscientific theories". WpZurp 16:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, the proper treatment for Time Cube should be something like, "There is the theory of the Time Cube, which asserts XYZ, but crucially fails to take into account ABC and isn't supported by any peer-reviewed article in a reputable physics journal"? That, I think, will cause more NPOV-related uproar from Time Cubists than simply killing the reference to the Time Cube. ~Alon, 11/23 20:15 UTC.

Er, well, I suspect that the treatment of the Time Cube here should be rather different than the treatment of Heim, to say the least. In particular, Heim's theory apparently makes predictions about the sorts of quantities measured in physics experiments, and comparison to peer-reviewed experiments is precisely the right approach to take. As best I've been able to discern, the Time Cube's predictions are more qualitative in nature (except for its dedication to the number four, which seems more like a postulate). And the ongoing debate about the content of the Time Cube article shows just how difficult it can be to "refute" something here (at least when its supporter(s) are active in its defense and remain unconvinced that it's wrong). For the record, I absolutely agree with WpZurp that if discussions of specific speculative or disputed theories are removed from this article, the article should still contain or link to a list of them (preferably the latter, in my opinion).--Steuard 22:09, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

mappin consiquences which are incomplete are impossible to say randomness is dominant when all possible aspects have yet to complete and seem repetive in a vast space time continium is impossible since no one can see from one end of the universe to the next at all given times all the time . Randomness would require repetivness and to say everything is predetermined is impossible untill the end has come and it becomes analyzed. How can I post my own theory "T.O.N.E." to wikipedia ? 172.131.98.184 07:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been tracking down and reverting changes made by 202.138.119.193 over several scattered pages, and the only one left is this deleted paragraph. It looks to me like this deletion was not warranted and should be reverted, but the article has changed a lot since then, so I'm unsure of what the correct course of action would be. Fbriere 00:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I put that one back near the beginning of the page, at the end of the introduction. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 19:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This section reads like blatant advertising, and lacks NPOV. I say, remove it. The crackpot pseudoscientific theory doesn't merit attention to begin with. Anyone agree?Atraxani 08:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I take it everyone agrees. I'm going to remove the section. Atraxani 20:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I object, Atraxani. The section on McCuthcheon's Final Theory should be restored. McCutcheon's Theory may be scientific garbage; that is irrelevant. It is also not for you, me, or Wikipedia to judge. McCuthcheon's Theory deserves inclusion because it is A) Explicitly a Theory of Everything, B) It is published (therefore its existence and nature are publicly verifiable, and C) it is of public interest (as evidenced by the fact that copies of the book have been sold and a newspaper article has been written about the book.

You offer no evidence of the lack of neutral POV in the section as listed. The section was in fact neutral - it simply reported the claims that McCutcheon's book makes. The section cited a verifiable source (McCutcheon's web site) for this information. It is not required that the section attempt to refute McCutcheon in order to be considered neutral. In fact, it would violate neutrality to attempt to refute McCutcheon, though it would be appropriate (but not required) to include criticisms of McCutcheon that appear in other, verifiable sources. Your claim that the section "read like blatant advertising" is utterly unsupported and moreover false. There are no testimonials, epithets of aggrandizement (e.g., "great", "wonderful", "best ever") or other rhetorical strategies used that are uniquely characteristic of advertising. There is further, no ordering information, no price, no publisher listed, no book retailer listed, no link to a book retailer, and indeed no indication that the book is even for sale. The section makes no claims about the quality, veracity, interest, or merit (scientific or otherwise), or value of the book (claims that would presumably be required for "advertising"). I have restored the section. Do not remove it until you present a justification for doing so. If you wish to make MINOR revisions to enhance the neutrality of the section, do so, but do not distort the substance of McCutcheon's theory. --146.201.98.90 22:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia once had an article on the theory, but it was deleted. Reasons, details, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Expansion_theory . The section read like an advertizement. It mentioned McCutcheon 8 times, said nothing about the assertions of the theory other than the obvious buzzwords and ended with a convenient link to the author's site. It isn't simply my opinion that the theory is incorrect, it's the understood consensus of the scientific community.The fact that the theory is garbage is not irrelevant. There are a plethora of sensationalist pseudoscientific theories like this plaguing the internet that are not important enough to merit attention in wikipedia. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Importance Atraxani 09:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: the above: You have failed completely to respond to my arguments. I am not concerned with nor will I read the previous debate re: McCutcheon, which is irrelevant to the present question at issue. You criticize the section for mentioning McCutcheon 8 times!? The section is ABOUT McCutcheon's theory. It only mentions McCutcheon in the context of saying that McCutcheon makes certain claims in his theory (and one breif mention of McCutcheon's educational background, which is certainly of interest to many who would be interested in the theory itself). Your reference to buzzwords is bizarre. Buzzwords? The section simply explained some aspects of what McCutcheon's theory actually claims (the subject of the section!) Your labeling some of McCutcheon's words "buzzwords" is quite arbitray. And I iterate, it is not relevant whether the theory has scientific merit or even whether the theory is rejected by every physicist who ever lived. This article is not a physics textbook. It is an encyclopedia article on the idea of a "theory of everything". McCutcheon offers such a theory (however flawed), the existence of his theory is verifiable (because published), and it is of public interest (it has been reported on in a magazine article). I have restored the section.--71.49.21.45 07:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The section that you restored doesn't discuss the claims of the theory. It mentions that the theory discards special relativity and quantum mechanics and introduces a "new subatomic principle" that explains a number of phenomena. The section doesn't list a single tenet of the theory, but instead lists a series of buzzwords. What good is it to say "new subatomic principle" without, uh, mentioning anything about the principle? What information does the section present that is not included in my own? Unlike your section, my section mentions some of the theory's claims. As it stands now, your section is redundant, uninformative, and you haven't presented any argument for its inclusion. Also, explain why you removed the comment that many scientists consider it to be a form of pseudoscience, and that the theory makes predictions that have been empirically refuted. Atraxani 09:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The new section is better than the original section, so I have allowed the new section largely to stand. However, I have deleted the claim that Expansion Theory is "pseudoscience". As the Pseudoscience article itself makes clear, that term is not rigorously defined. The Pseudoscience article claims that a theory that does not correspond to an already completed experiment would be pseudoscience. By this standard, Einstein's theory of relativity would have been "pseudoscience" when it was first published. Moreover, it is not Wikipedia's role to judge scientific merit.

I didn't write that Expansion Theory is pseudoscience, I wrote that many consider it to be pseudoscience. I wrote that the theory has little to no acceptance within the scientific community. This is arguably fact. The theory has not appeared in any peer reviewed scientific journal, is not part of curriculum at any educational level, and has suffered much attack and criticism from physicists within the scientific community. It's crucial to mention the theories poor acceptance in the article, or we run the risk of distorting the relevance and importance of the theory. Provide a reason why this shouldn't be included.

Re: the pseudoscience article--Where does the pseudoscience article claim that "a theory that does not correspond to an already completed experiment would be pseudoscience" ? The article states that a theory might be pseudoscience if it makes "claims which contradict experimentally established results." -- that's very different. A new theory can and should make new and "risky" predictions that are testable. You're also wrong about relativity. GR predicts that if let go of an apple, it will fall, in correspondence with existing theory. It also predicted the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, which existing theory could not, although the observation was not new. Atraxani 22:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It did say that at one point. I deleted it; I don't know if its there now; I don't care because that entire page should be deleted in my opinion. "A theory that does not correspond to an already completed experiment would be pseudoscience" is also false. Newton's mechanics, for example contradicted experimentally established results for quite a while before that theory was supplanted by Einstein's relativity. The claim made here represents a radical version of falsificationism that does not reflect actual scientific practice. In real science, no theory is ever perfect, theories are not immediately dismissed upon the finding of contradictory evidence, and competing theories may coexist, each having different strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, previously scientific theories do not become pseudoscience even if they have been extensively falsified and dismissed by the scientific community. Newton's mechanics, for example, is STILL not pseudoscience even though it has been supplanted in large part by more sophisticated theories. Ptolemy's astronomy is STILL not pseudoscience to this day. It is science because it makes empirical predictions that are IN PRINCIPLE falsifiable. The only coherent meaning of pseudoscience is non-science (which could be anything from religion to philosophy to incoherent rambling) that proponents claim to be science. Therefore the label of pseudoscience depends not only on the nature of the ideas themselves but on the claims that someone makes about the ideas (that they are scientific). Therefore nothing can be, in and of itself, pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is a mere concept; it belongs in the dictionary; it does not merit an encyclopedia entry. Particular examples of pseudoscience may merit encyclopedia entries, if they are of general interest and their nature is verifiable.

You are right about the perihelion of Mercury, but that is beside the point. Even if Einstein's theory had failed to solve any particular existing anomalies, that would not have prevented it from being a scientific theory. (It may have prevented it from gaining the attention of the scientific community, but that is a sociological issue, not an epistemological one.) Now, it is true that relativity's ability to explain the perihelion added to the theory's scientific merit, but it was not strictly necessary to qualify the theory as scientific. A theory can be scientific, yet completely false. Scientific theory is simply falsifiable empirical claims or that from which such can be logically deduced. This definition is completely independent of any historical context (such as what observations happen to have been made), as philosophical definitions should be.

Now, I have removed the following text from the expansion theory section:

"in that it [McCuthcheon's Final Theory] predicts yet doesn't explain Action at a distance, violates its own conservation laws, and fails to live up to experimental data or"

Rather than assert these things, you should report what recognized expert has made this claim and cite a verifiable source. (Note that since this section is about McCutcheon's theory, McCutcheon is not required to be a recognized expert and yet his critics are. McCutcheon's ideas are of interest in themselves; other peoples ideas about McCutcheon's ideas must meet a higher standard of merit.)

"concur with the laws of common sense"

The above critique applies to this remark, as does the additional criticism that it is widely known that the laws of physics are not accountable to the laws of commonsense. Therefore you would have to cite respected expert sources justifying not only that this claim is true but explaining why McCutcheon's theory is held to this standard while other physics theories are widely believed not to be held to it.

Do not break apart other people's messages. If you need to, just quote the message, but not in the format you did. It was causing severe and unreadable page widening, so I reformatted.

I cited McCutcheon's website, where he made these claims. I originally stated that The [Final] Theory argues that current scientific theory is inconsistent and incomplete in that it predicts yet doesn't explain Action at a distance, violates its own conservation laws, and fails to live up to experimental data or concur with the laws of common sense.

I can defend this statement:

1)..."inconsistent"

McCutcheon writes "How can a fridge magnet cling against gravity endlessly without draining a power source? It can't ... fridge magnets are impossible according to today's science."

2)..."incomplete"

McCutcheon says science doesn't have answers for why protons are able to bind in a nucleus, or why freezing water expands, or why light speeds up upon entering a vacuum.

3)..."violates it's own conservation laws"

McCutcheon writes that "Despite the ongoing energy expended by Earth’s gravity to hold objects down and the moon in orbit, this energy never diminishes in strength or drains a power source – in violation of one of our most fundamental laws of physics: the Law of Conservation of Energy.

4)..."concur with the laws of common sense"

McCutcheon writes "Ever heard the one about the astronaut who speeds off in a spaceship, only to return to Earth shortly to find that his twin brother is now an old man? If you thought this concept was very odd when you first heard it, you were right. Not only is it against common sense, but even Einstein's theory, which was used to invent this story, shows that it falls apart upon closer examination." He uses common sense appeals very frequently.

It is clear that your edits have all been unwarranted. You restored the original section without first discussing it, you removed my version without first discussing it, and you have removed that sentence without first discussing. I am reverting your changes. Do not make any more changes without discussing them first.

The pseudoscience article explains that pseudoscience often makes predictions that contradict established experimental data that is predicted by established theories, and your personal opinions are irrelevant. I stated that some scientists have labeled the theory as pseudoscience. That's relevant.Atraxani 04:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• You know annons who use the imperative tense tend to draw the wrong sort of attention to themselves 146.201.98.89; you might try to use more polite language. DV8 2XL 05:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just reverted a series of edits by Duduong to the "Mainstream physics" section. There is probably a good way to address his apparent concerns about string theory in the article, but these edits as they stand are strongly POV and (to my perhaps biased eye) largely unnecessary here.

First, I don't understand Duduong's isertion of the word "previously" before the statement that string theory is the only current mainstream TOE candidate. If he has another such candidate theory in mind, he should probably mention it here. As it is, he only mentions LQG, which the article already explained is not primarily aimed at being a TOE. Second, his additions seem focused on accusations of laziness or opportunism against string theorists (attributed to unnamed "cynics"), and make the frankly ludicrous claim that calculations in string theory are "easy" (if he finds them so, Duduong has a brilliant career ahead of him). His detailed criticisms of string theory seem most appropriate in the dedicated string theory articles; here, the mention of string theory should be confined to a brief description of its relevance for the TOE project.

Finally, Duduong inserts a full paragraph on the failure of current physical theories to address his personal philosophical concerns with quantum mechanics. (As he points out, many physicists are more or less at peace with the philosophical state of the enterprise.) Again, these concerns are valid and are shared by many others (both professional physicists and laymen), but it's not clear to me that they have anything to do with the notion of a TOE. If someone can make a convincing argument that the philosophical underpinnings of quantum mechanics are relevant here, I'll welcome some comments about them (though even then, I doubt that we need to include a plug for incomplete recent studies of the issue in this article).--Steuard 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I added the expert review templete to the section "other efforts" I'll try to recuirt but I wanted to put that there to make sure people are aware that section could be inaccurate.--Scott3 04:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What sort of "experts" are you looking for? Experts in mainstream physics, or experts in each listed "other effort" (and in any other "other effort" that we somehow decide merits inclusion), or experts in "physics out of the mainstream" generally (maybe historians of science, in that case, perhaps with a specialty in fringe theories)? (As usual, I still nominate all but the basic summary of "Other Efforts" for "Sections for Deletion", due largely to the difficulty of filtering the countless non-mainstream theories out there.)--Steuard 20:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'll remove it and put "Sections for deletion" this is about mainstream physics and not for some guy with no degree in physics who tries to rewrite the laws of physics.Maybe another article but not this one.

@Heim theory: "although some have questioned whether an aerospace engineering prize is a reliable guide to the validity of the underlying theoretical physics".Slicky 02:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"Critics contend that these claims are invalid and that work on Heim theory is flawed in a variety of ways." Section needs a more critic POV, but quotations are needed.Slicky 02:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Point taken on the need for citations, or at least on the phrasing of those comments. The first of these is, I think, an important point to make in any discussion of Heim Theory's recent recognition: the fact that said recognition came from a group with no expertise in theoretical physics is crucial in making judgements about its significance. Perhaps there is a more encyclopedic way of raising that issue. Any suggestions?

As for citations regarding flaws in Heim Theory, they will probably be difficult to find. As the theory itself has not been formally published in scientific journals or gathered much attention from the mainstream physics community, comments on it have probably not been frequently published either. Heim Theory's lack of publication itself could be seen as a comment by mainstream science; the article's current implication that only the unfamiliarity and complexity of Heim Theory has prevented its publication may unfairly obscure that point. (Speaking of which, if the current article is going to talk about a large number of "recent papers" on Heim Theory, it should make it clear that those papers have not in fact passed scientific peer review.)

You could, of course, include Prof. Carroll's comment as cited below. In general, physicists don't spend a lot of time on detailed debunkings of theories they consider to be crackpot material. It's even possible that the half dozen or so major concerns that I've raised on Talk pages here are the most careful consideration that Heim Theory has gotten from mainstream physics in some time (most of my physicist friends think I'm too sympathetic toward this sort of thing).--Steuard 03:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well my take is that speculations should be excluded. It is better to cut Heim down to the minimum rather than be too positive or too negative or speculative. The problem is that his theory certainly still merits it`s place. As for crackpot theories the same hold true for string theory, unless you dear stuard have already narrowed down your POV to only see string theoriests in the physics community anymore. But believe me the physics community is greater than that, and just because i have no intentions to major in string theory doesn`t make me any less a future physicist. I do have great respect for you, except your extreme bias towards string theory, then again i find it hard to ask you to be less motivated about your work. Well it is a double edge sword, but WHAT I CERTAINLY CAN ASK you to restrain from writing if you cannot maintain an half assed attempt of NPOV. Because that is really all that is required, no one is NPOV, but together the more experts working on an article the more angled it becomes to a point where it reaches a "tepid form" of neutrality. Then again given the popularity of TOE in populace, and considering how many edits this page gets i should rather thank you for at least maintaing article quality to some extend.Slicky 05:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be merged with Unified Field Theory? I do not see how they differ in topic and scope. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.156.34 (talk • contribs) on 03:05, 21 May 2006.

As mentioned above, my understanding was that the term "unified field theory" refers to a specific (though fairly broad) class of ToE: those implemented using the mathematical framework of quantum field theories (hence the name). I've posted a request for clarification to the WikiProject Physics talk page. --Christopher Thomas 05:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a contradiction within this article. The article confidently states that:

The only mainstream candidate for a theory of everything at the moment is superstring theory / M-theory; current research on loop quantum gravity may eventually play a fundamental role in a TOE, but that is not its primary aim

Yet a few paragraphs away we find it stated that:

There have been several attempts to advance the general theory of relativity as a theory of everything. As mentioned above, Einstein was responsible for one of these: in collaboration with Rosen he attempted to model particles as tiny wormholes, hence the term Einstein-Rosen Bridge.... Such theories face a number of hurdles: the creation of wormholes changes the topology of spacetime by creating a new "handle" which implies violations of causality (see Hadley [2]), and the general theory of relativity predicts its own breakdown at a Gravitational singularity by theorems of Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose. A recent effort to surmount this hurdle notes that the equivalence principle can be applied along curves rather than at a single point (Iliev [3]), ....

Should, then, we revise the statement to say something like:

There are currently two mainstream candidates for a theory of everything. The candidate with the most attention by professional physicists is superstring theory / M-theory. (current research on loop quantum gravity may eventually play a fundamental role in a TOE, but that is not its primary aim.) However, another active field of research - pursued by a smaller group of professional physicists - is to use Einstein's general theory of relativity as a theory of everything....

Is this wording more accurate? Or are the number of people following the latter GR path so small as to be not worth stating in this fashion? Any thoughts would be appreciated? RK 15:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As a graduate student in high energy theory, I certainly haven't heard of any substantial work on this "GR alone as a TOE" approach. I'm not sure what evidence exists to support the idea at all, to be honest. Certainly the vast majority of people working on LQG (which is just aiming to be quantized GR) don't expect it to explain anything beyond gravity on its own. If the "GR as a TOE" folks were making a substantial impact on the field, I would expect that attitude to be different. If anyone has substantial references to the contrary, please do share them, but I would be tempted to refrain from mentioning any ongoing work on the "GR as a TOE" idea under the "no original research" policy here.--Steuard 03:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

General relativity is not a candidate for a Theory of Everything. One of the goals of a TOE is to provide a unified description of fundamental interactions. Einstein and Schrodinger spent part of their time trying to develop a unified field theory that would unify electromagnetism with gravity. This Einstein-Schrodinger theory isn't part of General Relativity and it also doesn't unify physical interactions. It exploits some useful analogies between the tensor fields governing gravity and electromagnetism, but doesn't truly unify them. GR and Einstein-Schrodinger Theory say nothing whatsoever about nuclear interactions. There is no such thing as "GR as TOE", because GR is only a theory of gravity. Tomm

My understanding of the idea being discussed here (which I'll admit I hadn't heard of before in any serious context) was as a notion that various topological effects in gravity alone might give rise to particles and the other forces. As I said above, I'm not aware of any mainstream work on such a model, and it goes against the general understanding of what GR describes by physicists in related fields.--Steuard 13:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much for this info, Steuard. So here is the big question: Aside from superstring theory (and related M-theory, branes, etc.) are there any approaches in physics to the theory of anything? Or are superstrings the only feasible path actually being studied by professional physicists? I am aware of Woit's "Not Even Wrong" website and upcoming book, but surely he isn't raging against superstrings without proposing a few alternate paths, right? (Maybe not...) I haven't been able to find any info at all on physicists working on ToE's outside of superstrings, so if this is the case (for the moment?) then the article should reflect this. Maybe we should remove the GR topology, under our policy against No Original Research, and not include it again unless someone can offer peer-reviewed references (or at least a few ArXive papers) on this topic. RK 00:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not Even Wrong

Generally speaking, my impression is that most physicists who disapprove of string theory think that we're just not in a position to develop a TOE right now (due largely to a lack of experimental data). We string theorists tend to sympathize with their concerns, but we're still optimistic about string theory and experiment eventually making contact (presumably in some indirect way).

I know that there are efforts to include matter and the other forces in theories based on LQG, but even then I'm not sure that those efforts are really aiming at complete unification (I think they're just trying to show that matter and interactions can live in an LQG universe). Given that strings and LQG are the only two major efforts toward a theory of quantum gravity today (I recently heard a reference to an approach called "CDT", but I know nothing about it; it sounds quite young and undeveloped at this point), and that any TOE must include quantum gravity, I think that leaves string/M-theory as the only mainstream TOE candidate.--Steuard 17:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Marxian theoretical contribution to the Theory of Everything. The Theory of Everything it at its outset a silly sounding concept. But thinkers throughout history have searched for and explored the idea. Is it a pattern perceived in the physical sciences, the social sciences or even a growing sense that there is a growing awareness in our time that there are patterns, scientifically based, that patterns are emerging in our understanding of our history and present condition and our future? This contribution intendeds, to explore Scientific Marxian concepts towards a theory of everything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John gowland (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is not an art gallery. The picture shown as no relationship whatsover to string theory. I'll remove it again. --Pjacobi 18:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that the "impression" has nothing to do with the physical strings. It may however be useful if someone starts an article on moldy donuts. Friendly Neighbour 19:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove time cube. It's not even pseudoscience, it's just pure entertainment, and only belongs in articles on entertainment/humour. It has absolutely nothing to do here. Remove immediately.

The article does not purport to cover only one type of theory. Your anon. POV is an opinion. Wiki is not a filter for certain opinions. The range of human thought is presented, as long as it is respectful. --Blainster 21:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And even sometimes when it's not. siafu 02:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So because ONE senile old man has a crackpot theory, and somehow figures out how to post it on the internet, and it becomes popular purely out of mockery, it's somehow encyclopedic? Give me a break. I hope it doesn't get reinserted. Ever. 68.205.78.247 09:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the cube of theories you get when you let ${\displaystyle G,h,1/c}$ (Gravitational constant, Plank's constant, Reciprecal of the speed of light) vary between 0 and their finite values should be mentioned. Namely Newton Mechanics when all the constants are assumed to be 0, going through varyous theories, arriving at the TOE when all the constants have their finite values. --SurrealWarrior 8 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)

The universe seems to be arranged in hierarchies. There are various levels at which you can understand it. The level we are most famililar with is the level of everyday life. Going down we run into the levels of organs, cells, molecular biology, chemistry. Each level has its own laws which work in certian "special cases" with all violations at the "extreams". Complex Adaptive Swarms exhibit similar layered behavior also, at each layer the swarm is made of smaller complex adaptive systems. This layered behavior doesn't appear in swarms made of simple systems. This all seems to imply that either there is no bottom to the layers of the universe(and no TOE) or, the bottom layer is made of smart, adaptive particles.--SurrealWarrior 01:49, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The bottom layer of particles are smart? Sounds like bogus new age pseudoscience that sometimes is pushed by Art Bell types. But, if you have any references, I'd be interested in reading them. Given my understanding of artificial intelligence, fundamental particles can't possess intelligence because intelligence is made from many component parts. (See Society of Mind). WpZurp 03:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

This poor Surreal fellow is spamming identical comments from his talk page (which he is using as a blog) on many different articles, some of them with duplicate entries. Please help to keep an eye on him. --Blainster 14:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think these sentences in the Limitations of TOE section lack appropriate evidence:

...the finding of the TOE cannot (dis)prove the existence of a God, gods or other supernatural ultimate being. While it is permissible to have other literary interpretation, it is best to confine it in its subject matters, i.e. physics and other related fields. It would not have much significance to, for instances, phycology and social complexity.

Why is it best to confine a TOE to physics? Is it because it could have religious implications that some people may dislike? And why wouldn't it be significant to other areas as well? We need references here, and until someone finds them, I'm removing these sentences. 04:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The recent discussion about "Expansion Theory" highlights the trouble of including a section here on "Amateur" or "Speculative" theories of everything. I certainly agree that such efforts should be mentioned, but I've come to believe that a complete list of them could quickly grow to overwhelm the central content of the article (especially if the list included summaries as the current one does). There are dozens (hundreds?) of these alternative TOEs out there, and as their authors or proponents discover this article they will all want to be included.

Thus, I believe that a better approach would be to move all of these to a separate list somewhere: either to a separate article on amateur TOEs or simply into the physics section in the list of alternative, speculative and disputed theories. The discussion of amateur theories in this article would be limited to something like the current introductory paragraph and a link to the longer list.

Any thoughts?--Steuard 19:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Thar's the best idea since girls. You are absolutely right that the article will get swamped by this if it isn't dealt with now DV8 2XL 19:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I support this proposal. The existing summaries of these theories are of little value. It's not possible to fairly or neutrally describe them within such confines to begin with.Atraxani 21:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Theories of everything must meet the following criteria to justify inclusion:

1) They are explained in a verifiable source (available online or in a published text.)

2) They are of general public interest (have been described in widely circulated publications.)

Therefore it will not be possible for random jackasses to just put their theories on the article. McCutcheon's theory has been described in a published book and reported on in a magazine article; therefore it meets the criteria.

Your attempts to suppress amateur theories of everything are doomed to failure as they are un-Wikipedian.

You would be taken more seriously if you had an account, signed your name, and used less accusatory language. DV8 2XL 20:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a better way to discourage every Wikipedia user's TOE editing whims than saying "What you're thinking has probably already been thought of and is probably wrong." Hopefully I've found it. CleffedUp 05:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Religion in general has no clear relationship to a physical Theory of Everything. Most theists believe the universe should operate according to consistent principles because they believe it to have been designed by a good God. Some theists believe no ToE will be found, perhaps because of a desire not to exclude God from the normal workings of the universe. Others speculate that a ToE would provide a new conception of religion. Finally, many expect that a ToE, like modern physics, would be agnostic as it would by definition describe only the universe.

Some theorists believe that a comprehensive ToE will, out of necessity, include information on how the primary creative force relates to the rest of creation.

Gravity theory and Quantum Mechanics are the two pillars of modern physics. A TOE obviously has to encompass the two and resolve any weakness or inconsistency in them. Granted, LQG is still in its infancy, but it shows the unmistakable potential to fulfill the role of the TOE by building a quantum gravity theory based on plausible assumptions. String made some ridiculous assumptions so that the perturbative technique of QFT can be recycled, ending up with a lot of even more ridiculous "predictions". It is highly disingenuous of String people to criticize LQG for its lack of calculated results so far, since slow progress is the expected price to pay for making honest assumptions.

As for the meaning of QM, can anyone really honestly live with either the Copenhagen interpretation (basically, "don't ask, don't tell") or the many world scenario ("reality, what reality?)? The question here is not just about QM but about reality, which is probably the most fundamental question one can ask in physics. If a TOE cannot answer it, what will? If this is not physics, what has Prof. 't Hooft been doing?

Science, or at least Physics as I know it, is all about CYNICAL comparisons between mathematical models and measurable reality of our universe. Since such comparisons have been and will continue to be impossible in the case of String, one should be constantly amazed by the following facts:

1. String followers draw numerous employments and sizable funding from supposedly physics-focused departments and institutions.

2. String people continue to get their papers published in otherwise respectable academic journals on physics.

3. String people label their own creation "Theory" with a capital T and have been successful in co-oping the mass media to propagate the misnomer. This is actually more significant than it would appear to laypeople because, in science, a "Theory" is something that is tested and accepted, as in the case of "Theory of Evolution". This is actually part of the arguments at recent trials regarding Intelligent Design. Luck that the Intelligent Design proponents did not think of citing "String Theory" as a rebuttal.

Talking about Intelligent Design, an interesting comparison exists here. Superficially, there are many similarities between String and ID. Both are faith-based believes that nominally attempt to explain the world. Both are safely tucked away from any foreseeable experimental checks. Both are zealously guarded by their followers who do not care about reality. Yet, deep down, there are significant differences:

1. String inspires new math, not necessarily very interesting in its own right, but interesting enough to mathematicians when it is wrapped in the clothes of a "physics" "theory". It has not occurred to Intelligent Design proponents yet that a little math may be just the magical ingredient for legitimacy.

2. String people are insiders of academia. They work hard to get fellow followers hired. The same people also make sure String papers get published, which in turn justify more hiring, making String a perpetual motion machine. Intelligent Design proponents have no clues how this works.

3. String zealots are motivated by self-interest beginning as young adults. Intelligent Design proponents are driven by doctrines imposed on them during childhood.

4. String has no mature competitors yet, while Intelligent Design (or Creationism) has been on the endangered list since Evolution came out.

I am neither a String disciple nor a LQG pioneer, so I believe my comments are a lot less self-interested as far as TOE is concerned. Unfortunately, String proponents continue to behave as if they are God's chosen people and entitled to censor any suggestion to apply objective, scientific criteria on String. The sad truth is that they remain an insignificant and unproductive minority among Homo Sapiens and that their beloved faith remains just that, a faith and nothing more. At least, LQG followers have the integrity to base their theory on plausible assumptions, however difficult the calculations become. Do String people honestly believe that, at Planck scale, space-time will remain a smooth BACKGROUND and not participate in the dynamics? Maybe they have enough faith to do so, but real scientists do not have to buy it, unless the experiments say otherwise. Before then, String people should refrain from posting self-aggrandizing changes to this article, if they have any human decency left.

You note that you are neither a string theorist nor an LQG expert. So why do you feel so confident in making claims about what "String people" believe about fundamental physics? Of course string theorists don't think that space-time is a background at the Planck scale: the whole point of the Planck scale is that it's the scale at which quantum gravity becomes important. We simply take a different approach to the issue than the LQG folks do: we start with the perturbative regime and work toward an understanding of the non-perturbative, while they do the opposite.

Perhaps when all is said and done the two approaches will turn out to be equivalent. Perhaps diffeomorphism invariance is only an approximate symmetry of nature, and LQG is based on a flawed assumption. Or perhaps the string hypothesis does not correspond to physical reality, despite its mathematical beauty. The point is, we don't know whether any of these possibilities are true, not yet. And until we have some sort of experimental data that addresses them, there is no physical reason to prefer one over the other. So different people pursue different possibilities, based on their own hunches or philosophical preferences. That's a very human process, and one that doesn't deserve your harsh words or accusations of academic dishonesty. But all of this is tangential to what should be in this article, so I will not continue to discuss the merits of string theory with you here.

For this article in particular, the point remains that the main thrust of LQG today has nothing to do with being a TOE as the term is generally used. That's supposed to be a benefit of LQG, not something to be downplayed or disguised. And as for quantum mechanics, both string theory and LQG are by construction theories of quantum gravity (together with many other things, in string theory's case). Understanding quantum weirdness is certainly an important goal for physics, but again, it is orthogonal to the goal of constructing a TOE as the term is generally used. So it doesn't belong here, as far as I can see.--Steuard 15:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This comment from Steuard is somewhat more rational than the previous one, so I will go into more specifics.

There will not be a point when it "all is said and done", at least not in anyone's grandchildren's lifetimes. Experimentation is not just the only way to verify a theory but also the only way to motivate meaningful conceptual leaps. Since Planck-scale experiments are all but impossible for the next few centuries, any attempt at TOE is ultimately a waste of time.

Efforts in TOE in general and String in particular started out as legitimate physical questions but have grown into a self-sustained monster of a mathematical pursuit for an utterly useless end. As a string follower, you will do well to understand that your contribution to the rest of mankind amounts to little more than the mathematics developed for String, which is rather worthless in itself. Even if you disagree on this point, I don't think there can be any rational objection to a decency standard of asking self-interested parties to recuse themselves from affecting the postings here. (I know. I know. Even the founder of Wiki himself has embellished the reference to himself, but do we have to join in the race to the bottom?)

No one can write an article without injecting his/her own view. At the end of the day, it boils down to your view against mine, or more precisely, a String follower's view vs that of a third party. I think it should be clear from numerous other examples in REAL life that a plaintiff makes a poor judge. Do you really think that the American Umpire calling the Japanese base runner out is a good thing for baseball? Or, being a patriotic American and a pious String disciple, you think the end justifies the means?

As for quantum weirdness, if it is not resolved at Planck scale, where is it going to be resolved then? There are numerous strong hints that QFT itself is an effective theory. Therefore, it is quite reasonable to consider the possibility that the entire quantum theory is an effective theory as well. My definition of TOE is Planck scale physics. If you disagree, please propose something concrete, but I doubt that anyone can come up with something that allows String but none of the others, which seems to be the only goal of your argument. Anyway, have you not noticed the last section of this article titled "Other Efforts"? If Eino Kaila warrants a mention, it is ridiculous to exclude 't Hooft just because you don't appreciate it.

As for my credential, it is a lot more stellar than yours, but you will have to take my words for it because it is not something I like to brag about and ultimately not really relevant to this discussion. What is relevant here is that this is an article about TOE, not String. An objective discussion on TOE has to be written by someone who is NOT feverishly devoted to just one possible candidate for TOE. You can enjoy the companionship of people sharing the faith in the String Gospel at the String page, but acting as a self-appointed thought police everywhere String is mentioned is both inappropriate and offensive. -- User:Duduong March 14

First, your suggestion that the search for a TOE is pointless without access to Planck-scale experiments is one reasonable point of view (even if folks like me hope that we can do better). It might be worth mentioning in the article. That is of course a concern about the general TOE idea, not about string theory in particular. Given that, every scientist working on issues related to this article is by your definition a "self-interested party"; forbidding them all from contributing here seems tantamount to forbidding any expert from contributing to articles on their area of expertise. That's clearly not in the best interests of Wikipedia.

Second, you say that this boils down to "my view against yours". I'd rather see Wikipedia in less hostile terms: "building a consensus article around all mainstream views". To the best of my knowledge, as far as mainstream, developed science is concerned string theory is the only current effort to construct a TOE (whether that effort is misguided, doomed, or whatever). For that reason, I argue that string theory deserves prominent mention in this article. I don't see that as reflecting my personal point of view, I see it as a statement about the current state of mainstream science. If you disagree, let's discuss that (rather than discussing your beliefs about the merits of string theory).

Third, you say that your definition of TOE is "Planck-scale physics". I don't think that such a definition is very similar to what most people mean by the term. In particular, the article says that

"Current mainstream physics concepts require that a TOE unify the four fundamental interactions of nature: gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force; it should also explain the spectrum of elementary particles."

Your definition does not imply any sort of unification of forces or explanation of the observed particle spectrum. "Planck-scale physics" to me sounds closer to a definition of "quantum gravity" than of TOE. For that matter, "Planck-scale physics" actually implies more than "quantum gravity" does: your phrase assumes a particular scale for quantum gravity, but there are at least a few models out there (often involving "large extra dimensions") in which quantum gravity becomes important at much lower energy scales. I claim that by the definition quoted above, string theory is the only mainstream science effort that qualifies as a TOE, whether one approves of string theory or not. I would also point out that "Planck-scale physics" implies nothing about whether the philosophical issues surrounding quantum mechanics have been resolved.

Fourth, regarding the "Other Efforts" section, you can see earlier on this talk page that I have argued against its inclusion altogether. There are so very many non-mainstream TOE efforts out there that it would be impossible to do them all justice in this article. Any effort to list some of them here will suffer from substantial bias and lead to heated arguments about which ideas merit inclusion. The vast majority of such efforts would also fall afoul of Wikipedia's "no original research" policy. I would prefer for this article to simply mention that many such non-mainstream efforts exist, and then link to an appropriate other article that discusses such things in more depth.

Finally, I'm really not interested in anyone's credentials; I don't think I've raised my own in this discussion at all. I commented on your self-description as someone outside of the string and LQG communities only because it seemed at odds with the certainty with which you seemed to claim to understand what "String people honestly believe". Your summary of what we believe sounded much more like the rough summaries of string theory that I have seen in discussions of LQG in the popular press than like what I have heard practicing string theorists actually say (or what I believe myself).--Steuard 20:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that we are finally talking about real issues. Many of the views you mentioned are not objectively wrong, just not proven (or provable). I certainly think that stating categorically that String is the ONLY mainstream TOE candidate is something ONLY String followers do, and hence not suitable for inclusion in an article here.

We are in agreement that credentials and background of posters are irrelevant to the debate here. I had to mention that I am no practitioner of either String or LQG to imply my outsider status. It is not germane to use it in your previous argument.

String has developed into a thriving community with many smart people dedicating their lives to it. My point about it not being proper physics is not meant as an insult to their intelligence. Quite the contrary, my issue is that so much good talents should not be wasted on something built on a false or unprovable premise.

Of course, being worked on everyday by so many creative people, String is morphing continuously and adopting new ideas all the time. The fundamental problem is not that String will have difficulties adjusting to new trends or new results (e.g. LHC) but exactly that it is TOO adaptable. Without direct experimental checks, String's adaptability is limited only by human imagination, which makes great arts but not physics.

As for LQG's shortcomings, particular its inability to say anything about the other forces yet, I think everyone can agree that, given its relative immaturity and the difficulty of its math, they are to be expected. Yet, no one can deny that quantum gravity is the hard part for a TOE. Incorporating the standard model is trivial by comparison. String people like to mock LQG's lack of concrete mathematics, but they should be reminded that mathematics is not physics. Having indifinitely many universes should have sounded alarm bells all over. The fact it has not yet can only be attributed to the lack of better things to do for theorists in the past 37 years, but this will change in 2007. In a few decades, some smart young PhD may look back and write a paper on the social underpinning of the String phenomenon, and we will all be wondering how a crazy idea could have wasted the energy of the most talented physicists for over two generations.

I guess my question to you is whether you can point to any statements by leading LQG researchers indicating that they believe that current work on LQG is aimed at developing a TOE? (Not just that they believe that LQG may someday be a part of a TOE: that's very different.) As I said before, most of the discussions of LQG that I remember have said almost the opposite: that one major advantage of LQG is that it should be able to quantize gravity only, without incorporating all of the other forces and the observed particle spectrum. Your claim that LQG is a TOE candidate would seem to undercut what was supposed to be a selling point of the theory. I don't think this is an "inability to say anything about the other forces 'yet'" [emphasis added], and I don't think that many (if any) LQG researchers view these as "shortcomings". If I've fundamentally misunderstood the goal of that field, please do point me in the direction of experts saying so! But otherwise, I really do think that string theory is the only mainstream TOE candidate.--Steuard 15:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What LQG people are advertising is irrelevant, since they cannot possibly know what the elephant looks like when they are just touching the tail. Let me remind you that a run-down of what String people have advertised over the decades would make Jon Stuart's show look boring in comparison. You are obviously too young to remember how many times String changed its big-picture stories.

As for TOE, defining it as the grand unified theory for the four forces manifests either arrogance or naivity. We do NOT know that there are no other forces. We do NOT know how far up the energy scale QFT can hold. TOE is theory of EVREYTHING, so it should not stop until the Planck scale, thus it should be a synonym of Planck Scale physics.

The quantum weirdness is not a philosophical question. Quantum Mechanics is itself incomplete without a clear understanding of what constitutes reality. The issue has been put off not because it is irrelevant but because it is so old and the solution is so far. Yet, since there is a good chance that the solution resides at Planck Scale, of course the TOE should address it.

Tell me if I have understood you properly: your primary claim appears to be that the usual meaning of "Theory of Everything" (namely, a theory that at a minimum unifies the four known forces and explains the known particle spectrum) is not the best definition for the term. You further seem to assert that although experts in LQG do not believe that it describes anything beyond gravity, they are likely wrong.

If that is accurate, then I would counter that this article is intended to address the usual concept called "TOE", whether that term perfectly describes the concept or not. I would also suggest that Wikipedia defer to the LQG experts' opinion of what their theory describes, unless the number of non-experts who dissent from that opinion becomes notable in its own right.

As for quantum weirdness being a philosophical question, I still claim that it is. "What constitutes reality?" is not a scientific question. A scientific question is "What will be the outcome of a given experiment?" Quantum mechanics, no matter what its interpretation in terms of "reality", gives unambiguous answers to such scientific questions (its answers are probabilistic, but that's not a problem). Because the theory already answers any scientific question we can formulate in its language, the questions about the nature of reality that remain must relate entirely to our interpretation of the theory, not to the science of the theory. And to my mind, that makes them matters of philosophy.--Steuard 00:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that QM is not self-consistent. I said that it was incomplete. Whether or not there are many parallel universes branching off at every Planck time interval, each being as REAL as any other, is of course a physics question. It only seems philosophical becaues we cannot do Planck scale experiments yet. If this is philosophy, String will automatically be a philosophical pursuit as well, but I would rather think of String as a mathematical plaything that has the potential of being relevant to physics in the very long run. -- Duduong 14:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You need to obtain consensus from the other editors before placing your opinions into the article. Wikipedia is edited by a community, it is not a free-for-all. If you persist in these actions, you risk sanctions from the community, upto and including being blocked from editing. Please read Neutral Point of View, What Wikipedia is not, and Etiquette. If you can convince the others to accept your changes, well and good. Or if you wish to make non-controversial edits, they are welcome as well. But revert wars will not be tolerated. --Blainster 19:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The key difference in opinions here is that the String people think that String is the ONLY "mainstream" candidate for TOE, while I, as a representative of non-String physicists, disagree. Exactly what do you mean by "community"? String people are a highly-motivated minority that is on a PR campaign to silence all critics in order to save their livelihood. They would appear to be the voice of the "community" to casual observers, but are you argueing that since the original author of this article is a String guy and several other String people continuously police these postings, the majority in science should not bother to make dissenting voice heard?

Actually acording to Brian Greene 9 in 10 physicists are going into QM in particular String Theory. It's becoming pretty mainstream. Einstein spent most of his life searching for the Theory of Everything I think this article should respect that H0riz0n

I am perfectly happy to hear the opinions from the non-String physics community. As for String practitioners, the self-interest is plainly too strong to justify the statement of String being the ONLY mainstream candidate for TOE.

If anyone has real arguments against mentioning 't Hooft's work here, please feel free to post as well. It is certainly more relevant and more valid than at least 80% of the stuff mentioned already in the article.

TINC. siafu 16:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you believe that there is another mainstream TOE candidate, please do mention it here. Thus far, LQG has been suggested, but everything I know about that project indicates that it is only intended as a quantum theory of gravity, not as a TOE as defined in the article or as popularly understood. (Please provide expert quotes if you believe I'm wrong on this.) Some recent work by 't Hooft has also been mentioned; I am not familiar with it, but the description here gave me the impression that its goal is to overcome philosophical difficulties with quantum mechanics, not to provide a unified description of the forces and particle spectrum. Thus, it would also not seem to qualify as a TOE as the term is generally used (or as explained in the article). Again, if I have misunderstood the topic of this work, please do clarify it for me! Otherwise, I'm still in the position of seeing string theory as the only mainstream TOE effort, whether one thinks it is a great idea or that it is fundamentally misguided. Are you suggesting that the majority of scientists think that there are other mainstream TOE candidates, or just that the majority of scientists think that string theory isn't worth the fuss?

Oh, and for the record, I rather resent your assertions that I (and others) are on some sort of censorship campaign, or that we're motivated by personal greed that is trumping our scientific integrity. Every string theorist that I've seen talk about these things is genuinely excited about the field and the subject. If we didn't think it was scientifically worth studying, we'd do something else!--Steuard 15:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I have taken no position on which opinions are more acceptable. It is the constant reversions that must cease, because they do nothing to improve the article. The community is the editors who work to build the encyclopedia, which is fundamentally a collaborative effort. The Wikipedia principle of Assume good faith is important to remember as you work together. There is a dispute resolution process available if you continue to be unable to resolve your differences. Good luck in finding an acceptable way forward. --Blainster 21:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am ready to concede anyway. When the fox failed to catch the rabbit, he consoles himself by pointing out that the rabbit was running for its life while he was just running for his lunch. Well, I am just running on a whim here, so those whose livelihood depends on it can definitely have the last words.

It seems fairly obvious when reading the paragraph on the Heim Theory that the writer had an unabashed bias towards it. It insinuates that the only reason string theory is so popular is that it has garnered so much media attention, and that the Heim theory is actually better. This clearly violates NPOV.

I've just cut the Heim theory bit out of the "mainstream physics" section. Even if Heim were somehow right (I'm pretty convinced that he's not), there is no sense in which Heim theory counts as "mainstream physics" today. I don't see that removing this material from the "mainstream" section could possibly be considered POV: heck, the Heim theory section under "Other efforts" still began with a statement that his ideas were not accepted in the mainstream. (Speaking of which, I've also tried to introduce some neutrality into the discussion of Heim theory in that section. It was altogether too glowing as it stood. I still feel that no specific "Other efforts" should be mentioned here at all, as doing so opens the door to every crackpot under the sun. I'd rather link to such things in a separate article.)--Steuard 20:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Some aspects of User:Slicky's recent rewrite of the TOE article are quite reasonable. In particular, I like the rearrangement of the introductory material and the addition of an early section discussing the various philosophies behind the search for a TOE (or whether such a thing is even possible).

However, the treatment of individual theories here as the article currently stands is entirely unreasonable. Yes, Wikipedia strives for NPOV, but unfortunately that goal is considerably more subtle than "give every viewpoint equal time and prominence." Articles on the planet Earth do not need to give equal weight to the beliefs of the handful of remaining "flat earth" believers. Articles on the Holocaust do not need to give equal weight to those who deny that it happened (though they may be sufficiently notable as a cultural phenomenon to be mentioned briefly).

The same must hold for Wikipedia's treatment of science. In this article in particular, the topic is a discussion of scientific efforts toward a "theory of everything" (the article now gives a good idea of what that would mean right from the start). As far as mainstream science is concerned, the only major effort in this direction today is string theory/M-theory (whether that effort is considered misguided or not). So what about the other theories currently mentioned in the article?

I personally am not familiar with current work on "Einstein Unified Field Theories", but it is my impression that even if they are part of mainstream physics they are probably not yet sufficiently notable to be mentioned in Wikipedia. I'm happy to be corrected if I've just been unaware of a major effort in that direction, but I have not heard them mentioned by either particle physicists or relativists here at the University of Chicago (mentioned at all, whether positively or negatively). How many people are currently working on these theories? How many of the top 50 physics departments have a group working on the subject?

But when it comes to the theories of Burkhard Heim and his followers, it is completely unreasonable to include those ideas here as anything resembling mainstream physics. Even setting aside the purported validity of Heim's work (I've written at great length here and on various Heim talk pages about that), this theory is absolutely not recognized as legitimate by the mainstream physics community (no matter what a bunch of aerospace engineers have to say about it). If you think that's unfair, I invite anyone at all to find any recognized list of the "top 20 physics departments" and ask the chair of each one whether Heim Theory is considered a valid approach to a TOE within mainstream physics. I guarantee you that the answers will be variations between "No!" and "Who?" (whether those professors are fans or detractors of string theory or any other area of research). It is not much more reasonable to include Heim Theory on a level with String Theory here than it would be to include the Flat Earth idea on a level with the globe.

I have in fact seen only one comment on Heim Theory by a professor in a related field. Sean Carroll of the University of Chicago wrote the following about the Heim Theory paper that won the engineering prize:

"Just so nobody gets too excited — this paper is complete nonsense, not worth spending a minute’s time on. If I find the energy I might post on it, but this is no better than the other hundred crackpot preprints I get in the mail every year."

I would say that the same should apply to Wikipedia. Heim's work is not mainstream physics, and it should not be presented as more notable or promising than it actually is. NPOV is a really, really, hard goal to achieve, especially when proponents of fringe ideas make a push for their inclusion. It's easy to make mistakes. But editing Wikipedia has to involve making choices about what is truly notable and what is truly neutral. The article's current presentation of Heim Theory is neither.

I want to emphasize that although I am a string theorist, my comments here are honestly not some attempt to shoot down potential rivals of string theory. I am a scientist, and for me it is beyond question that string theory like any other scientific theory must succeed or fail on its own merits: PR isn't science. If nothing else, I hope it is clear that I do not consider Heim Theory to be a "threat" to string theory: it's not, not in any sense of the term (not even to the extent that creationism is a "threat" to evolution). And if string theory were "threatened" by some other well-motivated theory, I'd be glad to see it and probably very interested in both efforts.

Finally, why include a "philosophical theories" section here? The article nicely explains from the start that it is discussing the common popular use of the term "theory of everything": a complete unification of the forces and particles in physics. Perhaps a separate article is needed to cover theories from this rather different perspective; they certainly don't sound like the sorts of things that most would identify as science.--Steuard 03:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well stuard then as a scientist you should now that science is an abstraction and a "all but nothing" viewpoint is nothing but mere extremesism that certainly isn`t fruitful considering that science has emerged to it`s current state by revising models/methods, putting others on the backburner ("dumping them"), catching them up for something else where applicable, and making sure the populace gets informed about the scientific methods/works and to make absolutly sure that pseud scientific attempts get treated as such. Sadly this holds so very true for string theory as well, in it`s current form. In the field of maths or theoretical physics it is fine with me and even laudable, but it gets hailed and propagated like it is the second coming of physics and guess what considering fuss and fundings it raises it truly seems to me it is. Sadly reason that the experiment comes first seemed to be diminishing (and be it even just as much as photon-induced conformational changes of retinol = openeing your own eyes). You cannot deny that if the LHC team would be comprised of string theorists alone the would find their answer in the data within weeks, and it sure would be within a month a uniform answer, and so universal that physics would not be needed any more at all.Slicky 05:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Should there be more discussion in the Theory of Everything article on what are the key underlying insights needed to construct a theory of everything?

I personally believe the structure of physical space holds the key to developing a theory of everything. This is based on the premise that matter, energy, and physical forces themselves are manifestations of spacetime structure. This idea is also present in some, but not all candidates for a theory of everything. So maybe the article could mention that "Many people believe that discovering the underlying structure of physical space (i.e. spacetime) is the key to developing a successful theory of everything."

Maybe a little more focus on spacetime structure and its central role in how candidates for a theory of everything are developed would be interesting. By the way, I particularly like the chart which compares features of string theory, LQG, and Heim theory. It seems to be informative.

Also, would it be useful to point out in the article that so far there is no correlation between the popularity of a candidate for a theory of everything and its ability to make accurate experimental predictions? I think it is widely and incorrectly assumed that if a candidate theory is popular or if it is accepted by part of the mainstream community that somehow the theory is better than other theories. Interestingly, this does not confer any scientific accuracy to the candidate theory. Perhaps the following text could be added: "It is widely believed that professional physicists are the most qualified to develop a theory of everything. While this could be true, one could also argue that a scientist, mathematician, or other person outside of the physics community would be in a good position to develop a theory of everything because they would bring new perspectives to problems physicists have not been able to solve yet."

"There are many interesting unanswered questions about the theory of everything. If a successful theory of everything is developed, will it take years to be accepted? Will the successful theory be immediately heralded in newspapers around the world or will it languish in obscurity because it is too difficult for almost everyone to comprehend? Will the successful theory of everything emerge from the genius work of one person or will it emerge from a large community of researchers? Will development of the theory require a new branch of mathematics, science, or both? Will a theory of everything lead to revolutionary new technologies that impact everyday life or will it have only theoretical applications?"

--Would appreciate feedback on some of these proposed modifications.

One difficulty with including a list of necessary insights is that nobody knows what insights are necessary. We could present various peoples' guesses, but that could easily devolve into violations of NPOV or of the "no original research" policy. Still, a section along those lines could be interesting if done carefully.

As for the chart recently included here, it is entirely out of place. As I've said repeatedly, LQG is not a candidate theory of everything and those actively researching it see that as a virtue. (I've confirmed that impression with a friend of mine whose work is close to that area.) LQG absolutely should not be presented as a TOE here (or included in charts comparing TOEs). And I think I've made my position on Heim Theory quite clear: it's not good physics, and should not be presented as comparable to any mainstream theory.

Finally, I find it astonishing how many people seem to believe that those who have dedicated their lives and careers to studying a subject are somehow not at least likely to be the best qualified people to judge work on that subject. Would you want to live in a skyscraper designed by a dentist who had read up on civil engineering as a hobby? (Particularly if that dentist's notions of engineering principles were completely at odds with what essentially all professional engineers believe?) It's not that the professional engineers have a monopoly on insight and knowledge in their field! But they have learned both from classes and from real-life experience about the many subtleties in their field, and it would be tremendously difficult for someone without that background to equal their expertise. Why wouldn't the same principle hold for physics?--Steuard 13:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps in order to make the article more neutral, one could create a new Wikipedia article called "Nonmainstream attempts to form a Theory of Everything". The main "Theory of Everything" article could then hyperlink to this article explaining/listing some of the less established TOE ideas like expansion theory, the time cube idea, space mixing theory, process physics, etc.

This would clear up some space in the main article for concentrating on more mainstream ideas while at the same time not eliminating a link to those less-known ideas which many people would find interesting. The idea being that mentioning the less-established ideas is still important for an encyclopedia article in order to inform people of the various ideas that are out there while at the same time not taking up space in the main article discussing these fringe efforts. Those interested could go directly to a separate article which contains information about those theories. TManz

I suggested something similar up in the "Amateur Efforts" section (back when that was the name of the non-mainstream part of the article) and elsewhere on this page. This seems like the best approach to me.--Steuard 20:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought this topic was what Greene and other physicists described as the ultimate goal of unifying all forces unter one equation... Its what he used in his books... however there is also a unified field theory which is also the concept... I am confused and thus apparently this article is also confused... Sorry for the edits... On retrospect, I think this article should be merged with unified field theory... they are one and the same H0riz0n 05:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC) image

Interesting: I wasn't at all aware of the unified field theory article. (I wonder which term is more popular.) In any case, yes, I agree that the topics of the two articles seem to be the same. Personally, I prefer the term "theory of everything" because "unified field theory" implies that the "ultimate" theory must be a field theory (whether a quantum field theory, a string field theory, or whatever). Given that we don't have a final theory in hand, it seems a bit premature to decide what form it will take. (On the other hand, I do like the history of gradual unifications in physics in the other article; that would be nice to include in whatever we end up with.)--Steuard 20:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that "unified field theory" refers to one specific type of approach to constructing a "theory of everything", while the term "theory of everything" refers to a description of the universe that consistently describes all four fundamental forces (as opposed to a "grand unified theory", which describes everything except gravity). Ask nicely at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, and you might find someone willing to clean up the relevant articles if this is ambiguous in them. --Christopher Thomas 06:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly as Chris. put it. Although as i suggested in the beginning TOE should be converted to TEO (physics), because in theory, religion is it`s own TOE, it explains everything so successfully apparently that there are billions of people who rather give away most of their brain to god.

It could also be argued rationally whether a TOE is possible at all, or just a unified theory, and if so in the end it is all the same. In fact prolly the only Theory of everything there is, is religion and blind believe. In other words the current state of physics gets unified in a theory whereas a theory of everything can logically not exceed the current state of physics and would rather fall into metascience. However that is only because the term is somewhat a misnomer, it doesn`t really attempt to explain everything and rewrite science but rather to lay out a wider framework than a unified theory does.Slicky 05:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the other efforts should be removed and put into differn't(maybe new) article. I think this article should more about mainstream physics.--Scott3 23:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The main reason that Reciprocity must be a candidate is that, it achieves every predictions that it makes from just "silly" and simple assumptions, and which seem so fundamental and the deepest foundation and starting point that we might get in physics. You must realize that Reciprocity gives you only assumptions and not the whole theory describing the whole universe, i.e. it will be up to you to manipulate those assumptions in whatever ways possible to arrive at a theory describing a particular phenomena in the physical universe, just as Larson did for many of his descriptions of natural phenomena. Thus, in this respect, someone will be required to work out descriptions of the strong and weak forces of nature. Has anyone tried? If not that is why Reciprocity "doesn't" describe these forces. But it has those lovely assumptions that serve you as a vehicle to drive and discover descriptions of the Universe in the world of physics. Recall that Einstein derived length and time contractions or E=mc2 from mere assumptions. If Einstein didn't work out E=mc2, would you say Special Relativity is not complete? Larson published his work near 1959 or so and he might not have been aware of these forces for that matter. I suppose the idea of these forces might not have been so popular or even known by that time to be readily available for everyone to ponder about.

Yirdaw (May 19, 2006).

What is "reciprocity"? Is this the name of a real theory in physics? What peer reviewed physics journals have articles on this subject? Or is this just an amateur's pet project? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.109.156.34 (talk • contribs) on 03:05, 21 May 2006.

I hoped to hear the comment of the author of the TOE page on why he removed Larson’s Reciprocity. It also doesn’t hurt to introduce strangers to this Theory. All I can tell you is that The Reciprocal System of Theory or Reciprocity for short was advanced by Dewey B. Larson and you can check www.rsystem.org for extensive details. Since the maintainer of the page is The International Society of Unified Science, it can give you some confidence to take it seriously. I don’t know if you can find books published by Larson on Reciprocity, the list of which you can find from the website above. You can also note from this site that one student did his PHD in Physics in Reciprocity. Why we should be fond of it is that Reciprocity achieves so many descriptions of, among other things, astronomical phenomena in quite elegant and simple manner and has other excellent features that really deserve attention. Just to stun you with some, it starts out with overwhelmingly simple postulates or the simplest of postulates that you can ever imagine and arrives at the Constancy of the Speed of Light independent of observers, which, of course is the postulate of Special Relativity (oops, we derived Relativity). To add another, one of the other things it attracts me is that (although I couldn’t find it clearly stated in Larson’s work, the best reference I could get is “space and time exist in discreet units”, at least for now) space and time are discrete, which is quite sensible to me (and I hope to some others) after I came up with this idea “myself” but later found that this concept is as old as 1930 or so (check www.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~motl/Gibbs/discrete.htm). Reciprocity, as done by Larson, I feel, is a great start towards a TOE.

Yirdaw (May 23, 2006) .

First, we're all the "authors" of the TOE page: anyone can edit any article here. As for "Reciprocity", I know nothing about this theory beyond what you've said here. That means it's pretty likely that this theory falls under Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. If it turns out to eventually become accepted in the scientific community, great. But until it becomes "notable" in the field, it's best left to scientific discussions and publications rather than a general encyclopedia. (And speaking of scientific publications, I've never heard of "The International Society of Unified Science", but even the name sounds rather questionable to me.)--Steuard 13:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Compare Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reciprocal System of Theory. --Pjacobi 11:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; I have read your comments. I am not saying accept the whole theory as it stands and drop String theory, GR(General Relativity) and so on. What I am saying is we might take some ideas from Reciprocity and perhaps use them in String Theory and vice-versa. With this point in mind, I think any Physicist, if he chooses so, would like to read about it. Since the sole purpose of Wiki is to present free information that is useful to the public, the above point could be a useful aspect of the theory that it may deserve a place in Wiki.

Let me list some aspects of Reciprocity that I think somehow agree with String theory and GR:

1. Energy is one dimensional in nature in Reciprocity and strings in String theory are one-dimensional vibrating energy.
2. Photon is a vibration in Reciprocity and of course in String theory. And forces like electricity arise, in Reciprocity, through some vibration patterns. In String theory, particles like, the photon and electron arise through vibration modes (patterns).
3. Reciprocity asserts space and time exist in discrete units, i.e. space and time are discrete and not continuous. String theory and GR tend to imply space and time are discrete at the Planck scales.
4. Reciprocity asserts the sole constituent of the Universe is motion, i.e. space and time only. I have read in a Relativity book talking of GR implying space, time, matter and energy are inseparable, i.e. space and time are equal to matter (mass) and energy.

Some ingredients I think Reciprocity lacks and need to include are:

1. Space is only three dimensional, where in String theory it’s more than that. But Larson chose to work in 3D because he simply couldn’t imagine the existence of extra dimensions.
2. I feel Reciprocity is flooded with logical reasoning (but can we say the “logical” reasoning is part of thought experiments which Larson must use to work with his theory?) and that it somehow needs to go fully mathematical.
3. The discrete units of space and time in Reciprocity do not correspond to the Planck scales and are much larger. I think it would be better to work out with this problem if we expect a successful Reciprocity.

Finally, here is a short list (perhaps incomplete) of ideas form Reciprocity that might be incorporated in String theory, which might save years of research before eventually String theory itself imply them:

1. That space and time are discrete (explained above).
2. That time is like space in that it is also three dimensional. According to Larson, we perceive time as one dimensional because we are living in a gravitationally bound region and that’s why time seems one dimensional and as we move away from this region time appears 3D. But then, if we accept the idea of String theory as space being multidimensional, say 11 dimensional according to M-Theory, and incorporate this extra dimensionality in Reciprocity, we see that time is of 11 dimensions like that of space.

--Edyirdaw 12:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC), formerly identified myself as "Yirdaw" but now I've become a user.

There was a contradiction in the paragraph on "Other Theories". The setup stated: This section includes published and tested scientific theories with quantifiable and/or falsifiable predictions. Throughout time philosophers, scientists, artists, and many others have offered conjecture, untested ideas, relating to the origins and inner workings of the universe and will not be found here.

Yet, the list begins with Time Cube .... either this setup para needs modification or TC needs to be removed. DrL 16:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the same inconsistency myself a day or two ago. My personal preference remains to move all non-mainstream theories to a separate page discussing such ideas specifically (with a link to that article from this one), but I'm not sure how popular that notion is. As it stands, the list also includes things like Heim theory whose predictions aren't just falsifiable but falsified, so I find it very unsatisfying. If the consensus does turn out to be to keep a full "Other Theories" section here, I really don't have much preference as to what sort of list it should be (except that I hope they find a way to keep it from growing to be the bulk of the article).--Steuard 18:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the whole section should be removed. The most relevant examples can be included in the article. Having a section like this may be an invitation to spam the article. DrL 19:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Effectively done. --Pjacobi 22:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In any information processing system an essential component is referencing to what is already known, and this is the basic function of an encyclopedia. [When I was a kid my folks bought one from a traveling salesman for far too much money, but it was crucial to my education.] The one we are now using here is awesome with information available from everyone, but the effectiveness of an encyclopedia depends partly on accurate classification of information denoted by specific terms. Those terms are the routing element. Anyone clicking on the the words they type in hopes to find a summary of available information on their specific question including references for more details.

Specialized terms present a problem for Wikipedia, because most readers are unfamiliar with the specialized definition, tend to generalize these terms or take them literally. Those editing articles go through intense debate about the content but present good information that fits their specialized definition of the terms denoting the topic, but readers may have questions far beyond the specialized discussion. They are left with no words to type in for further exploration beyond the available information.

The term "Theory of Everything" began among physicists to denote attempts to find a clear and clean mathematical model of the interrelatedness of the very small and the very large consistent with all hard data. This is now most of the information presented in the Wikipedia classification, "Theory of Everything". However, to many readers this term means literally theory of everything, and wonder about the interrelatedness of many other things such as the theory of biological evolution, documented everywhere by zillions of details, and how this may fit with current physicists' theories of everything.

Should the classification of theories of everything also include theories of the interrelatedness of mental process with everything else? Religious ideas (often narrowly defined) are usually excluded as untestable, yet all ideas from the obviously goofy to the most effective are a function of the neurochemical process of a biological brain. Is this not also an integral component of the reality of everything we seek to understand?

A comprehensive classification of theories of everything may include categories that are now relatively empty. Should these also be included in this Wikipedia reference document for anyone seeking everything currently known for purposes of further exploration?

A "true" theory of everything must account for every detail of everything and can be falsified by identifying any entity or process that does not fit. The efficiency of the search for this is contingent on optimum exchange of information. The information denoted by the term "theory of everything" is much broader than physics, and the classification should be revised to include all significant categories of relevant information on the subject. There is much work to be done. Sporacle 00:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hi and welcome to Wikipedia :) There is an article, Theory of everything (philosophy), that may be more in line with what you are talking about. Theory of Everything in physics is more specialized (at least the way the topic is being divided up here on Wikipedia). There was a great article on Christopher Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, which speaks directly to the interrelatedness of mental process with everything else (so glad to see your awareness of the importance of that fundamental concept). It was deleted in spite of its obvious notability because of the potential for theological implications (it was a teleological model). So much for NPOV. You are absolutely correct that a TOE, by definition, should encompass everything. I really enjoyed your observation that a proper TOE is easily falsified by identifying any entity or process that does not fit. If nothing else, you've made my day :) DrL 04:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please leave it out. It is nothing more than a joke. I'm not sure about the other efforts in that section. Citations would help for the others. DrL 12:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not a joke, and is very much worthy of inclusion. Not only the Academic mainstream qualifies for mention in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.186.1.199 (talk • contribs) .

If we are going to include other efforts, then a representative list should be compiled. Until then, it's best to leave out individual entries. Please sign your posts. --DrL 18:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes the posts need to be unsigned. We have already a representative list: namely, Time Cube, Burkhard Heim and quantised general relativity, Eino Kaila, Expansion Theory, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. These items have been re-included in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.76.188 (talk • contribs) .

This article about a scientific theory is demeaned by including information about illogical, fanciful notions such as the Time Cube. Time Cube is even acknowledged as "pseudoscience" within this article. User 136.186.1.199 who has insisted that it be included has made several nonsensical edits to the Time Cube article which shows that he is biased and should not be taken seriously.--141.214.17.5 00:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning the existence of amateur speculations does not demean serious theories. It is helpful to emphasize the difference. The acknowledgement of the pseudoscientific theory here is exactly what is needed. How else do you think people will find out which is true? Censorship does not further the cause. --Blainster 22:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not censorship. There are a lot of alternative and crank TOEs. This is not a list of them, although you might consider starting a page about them if you wish. Consensus for removal can be found throughout this page. --DrL 18:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy wisely has a clause about "undue weight". In this case, precisely one person on this Earth believes in the Time Cube. In order for it to be appropriate for inclusion, this article would have to be long and deep enough to encompass all other ToE's of equal prominence; i.e., everybody's crackpot view. It's not, and it's a practical impossiblity for it ever to be so. siafu 18:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to ask for a third opinion on the inclusion of Time Cube. --DrL 16:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I only noticed this discussion now. I removed Time Cube a short time ago. It's not even a theory. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me elaborate. Firstly, Time Cube is, as far as I can see, only a loose collection of statements. It's not a single, interconnected explanation of reality, so it is not a theory. Secondly, it does not make predictions and it is not discussed in scientific journals, so it's not science, and definitely not a physical theory. Thirdly, it's a viewpoint held only by one guy. Any of these reasons would be sufficient not to mention it in the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 07:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Jitse Niesen, I shall refute your points. Time Cube is very coherent: and if reading the high-level discourse on the Time Cube dot com website was too arduous a task for you, then the CubicAO site should provide an easier explanation of the strong, flawless links that exist between all aspects of the Time Cube principle.

Secondly, yes, it makes the prediction that everything will behave by Cubic principles—as it already does. It makes the prediction that Time will always be Cubic, not linear. It predicts the fact that life on Earth is demonstrably Cubic. I feel that the Time Cube website explains many of these predictions in sufficient depth.

Finally, for example of persons other than Gene Ray who adhere to Time Cube, see again the Cubic Awareness Online website, a site independent of Gene Ray, containing text articles, videos and forum activity for which numerous Time Cube adherents are collectively responsible.

Indeed, Time Cube merits mention in this Theory-of-Everything article—for as a final statement, I will observe that Time Cube has received such great quantities of publicity as to render it highly notable, and worthy of inclusion in this T-O-E article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Time Cube Guy (talk • contribs)

Ad 1) You think it's coherent, I think it's not. I guess we have to disagree here.

Ad 2) I don't see any falsifiable predictions, nor are there reliable sources evaluating Time Cube as a scientific theory.

Ad 3) Compare the notability of Time Cube (three talks, for student societies, one publication in a humanities journal) with the notability of string theory (more than fifty talks in one conference alone, eighty papers in a single journal issue). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I find that Time Cube makes very clear claims. For instance, that Time is Cubic. If that hypothetically happens to be false (which it's not, it's true) then all you have to do is observe or prove that Time is something other than Cubic, and it is falsified. Also, if Earth and all other planets/stars/galaxies didn't have a full 360 degrees, but rather, 90 degrees only, with the remaining 270 degrees being an illusory hologram created by Allah (clearly a false fictitious proposition), then that would falsify Time Cube. Yes, these may be obvious predictions that Time Cube makes, but then again Time Cube is the theory of everything and it is the basis for all the empirical phenomena that we take for granted. Falsifiability is present.

Research groups should research Time Cube. As it is, we only need reliable sources for the statements about Time Cube that are made in the article. We do have reliable sources for those clear, undeniable, simple explanations of the nature of Time Cube and the publicity it's received.

Time Cube has also been covered on numerous radio interviews, on the Internet and on the analogue airwaves, and furthermore it has received television coverage on TechTV and been discussed extensively on probably hundreds of thousands of websites. No it wasn't just "student societies", rather it was attendance of several hundred students from university-wide at both Gene's MIT lecture and Georgia Tech lecture. In short, gargantuan quantities of publicity have been devoted to the theory.

I think the idea of the "other efforts" section is to include theories that aren't quite as centred in the mainstream as the "string theory" you cite. Thus, Time Cube certainly merits inclusion.

The fact that it's "notable" means that it deserves its own article, which it has, not that it deserves to be placed among other actual scientific theories. siafu 15:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I differ; as an actual scientific theory, and a notable one at that, Time Cube definitely deserves to be explained and mentioned within this Theory of Everything article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.25.141 (talk • contribs) .

Following below the spiritual information, possibility swiftly finds out most important answers to help people find a place and their role of the Universe:

Everything of the world of matter including the present visible unit is the result of evolution. According to this theory; there was a past of the world of matter. Without the imagination power, there is no way to find out the first or last situation of the universe that means in naked eyes through telescope is the evolution of our angle of vision, the material picture of the present time shall not be detected. The only element and eligible of applying imagination power is inside our brain and without the presence of single dimension at the first and last situation of which there remains no balance. At this events or moment, our home planet is our time and out of the home planet there is no value i.e. we are looking everything has creation in the Universe. Again, the same event or very moment, borders on the spiritual there is no event space-time and physics i.e. nothing creation in the universe and this realism is the nothing everything at all. Again, the result of evolution and motion of the spread energetic is the visible scenery of the present Universe. The past of all thing of the cosmic world of the universe is high power and everything of the present world is the result of rolling and moving of the single dimension of the past. Hence, in the universe there shall be no incidence of reality of the creation world of anything at all. That means at this event whatever shall be received through imagination for any borders on the spiritual of the universe shall be vanished at this very moment in reality viz. the realism is that everything is the reflection of imagination. Therefore, we can decision "In everything of the nature's plan is the imagination" for which the reality shall not be sought. (Right: Writer) Shahidur Rahman Sikder

Argh! The above is somewhat clumsy use of English. It kept introducing unsubstantiated new concepts: e.g. it claimed that "at the first and last situation of which there remains no balance", which could be a reference to the omnipresence of low-level underlying chaos "eligible of applying imagination power is inside our brain", which was rather confusing. It claimed "The past of all thing of the cosmic world of the universe is high power", but is it claiming that the past is higher power than the present and future, or is it not commenting on the comparison of power existing in the past, present and future? The law of conservation of energy would dictate that there is always a roughly equal amount of power being exerted. The above piece of writing is all rather unclear, to me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.25.141 (talk • contribs) .

wikipedia asked for an expert so I came to help y'all out. I know the theory of everything because I've discovered the definition of 1/0. Kudos —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.20.125 (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Someone please undo whatever other damage this poor guy might of done elsewhere. (QUINTIX 03:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC))

I returned the page to its previous form... Poor guy...

Excuse me, but this is not constructive talk. Please do not refer to me as poor guy. I have never done so to you. I understand that wikipedians should be dilligent but not rude. respectfully, Archetype

ps. if you would like to discuss the reciprocal of 0 or if you have any questions about it, please, by all means

I would like to be a good Wikipedian and assume good faith, but you're making things difficult by continually inserting the same text over and over despite the objections of other editors, and switching computers to evade blocking. The fact that the computers you are using is located at New Mexico Tech makes it even more difficult for me to believe these edits are being made in good faith. Tubezone 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I need someone who is as smart as me to come in and verify these three most fundamental definitions

• 0/1=nothing (same as 0/2, 0/3, etc.)
• 0/0=anything
• 1/0=everything (same as 2/0,3/0, etc.)

furthermore, these properties must be confirmed

• 0/1 is neither positive nor negative
• 1/0 is both positive and negative (simultaneously)

once someone of mark and intelligence can boldy step forward and confirm these truths then we can move forward with this article and mankind can rise above this petty squabbling and embrace the reality of absolute truth and limitless power for the betterment of all

sincerley, Archetype —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.2.105 (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Go take a math class. 0/x = 0 for every x. x/0 is undefined for every x. 0 is neither positive or negative, and 1/0 is undefined so it doesn't make any sense to talk about wheter or not it's positive or negative. Now stop implying you're some kind of genius in maths because you don't know even know the most basic things about sets or fields. Headbomb 16:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

<<<Personal theory by user:72.16.111.54‎ signed as "sincerely, Archetype" deleted `'mikka 19:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)>>>

Don't feed trolls. Wikipedia is not place for personal theories. Please don't engage in discussions here. There are plenty of other places on 'net to chat. This talk page is for discussing encyclopedic content of the current article. `'mikka 19:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Reposted by Archetype on January 03. Thank you kindly for your reply dear Headbomb, for it is much better to have an argument than to have people blindly ignoring. Let me inform you that I have taken a math class, or two. I have taken up to calculus 3 and I scored in the top %99 percent for math on my ACT. May I ask you what math you've taken?

I am actually very well versed in mathematics and I am currently majoring in Physics and Environmental Engineering at New Mexico Tech. So no, I am not an idiot. I started off with Environmental Engineering and then decided to add Physics after I discovered the definition, and thus the theory of, everything.

So just listen to me for a second and don't be so pessimistic. 1/0 is the amount of energy that makes up all of existence. This amount is so great, it is literally the greatest amount possible. 1/0 is such a great number in fact, that it is absolutely both positive and negative. By this I mean that 1/0 is simultaneously less than negative infinity and greater than positive infinity!!! Pretty amazing huh?

Just to give you a brief synopsis, allow me to comment on your argument. You say 0/x=0 for every X. That is totally true... except of course in the case when x=0. You should know this if you know your math. When x=0, 0/X can equal any number, not just zero. So in other words, zero divided by any number except zero equals zero, whilst zero divided by zero equals any number (in math they call it indeterminate, but I'm putting it in lamens terms).

So let's review real quick. Zero divided by zero equals anything, and zero divided by any other number besides zero equals nothing. Now listen up because here comes the part that nobody has told you about: If zero divided by any other number is nothing then any other number divided by zero equals (drum roll please)... everything.

Right? Right!

Think about it and realize; it's complex, yet so simple. Nothing=0/1=0/2=0/3 etc. etc. etc. Conversely, Everything=1/0=2/0=3/0 etc. etc. etc.

Now then, the only reason why they said 1/0 was undefined, instead of just going ahead and defining it (i.e. as the amount of energy in all of existence), is because they couldn't get their heads around the fact that negative infinity and positive infinity come together at a point without cancelling. They never understood or could see "through the looking glass," that the number line is really a number circle. It was illogical to them to thing of things in this complete way. But all of us can understand it I think. It's totally amazing and it really makes you think about everything in a whole new light (no pun intended). Anyway, hopefully I've been able to show you that there are some things that you never knew. It's just a simple balance of yin and yang: positive and negative infinity, fused together at a point opposite from 0 on the number circle. It's so simple, yet so incredibly beautifully complex in the same right. It's just like what Godel had predicted only you've got to see it for what it is, and that is the irony of truth, that everything is both positive AND negative when you consider everything!!!! There is a negative aspect of time that we don't comprehend, a reverse universe so to speak. You see, there's a lot of stuff. But first you've got to accept the fact that what I'm telling you is honest and that this isn't some sort of sham or silly nonsense.. sincerely, Archetype —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.16.111.54 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

You can argue tooth and nails about this if you want, division by zero is, and will remain, undefined because dividing anything by 0 has no meaning. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero and get educated. If that still doesn't convince you, walk in the math department and ask about why division by zero is an undefined operation. Headbomb 21:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. I am very well educated so don't take me the wrong way. 1/0 is undefind because it can be shown by limits to approach both positive AND negative infinity, and this is a contradiction to most mathematicians. What they have failed to do, however, is take it at face value. Now I ask you, what is the problem with taking something at face value? If you take everything at face value, then nothing is undefined. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.114.185.27 (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Theory of everything/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

  Initially our Universe was filled up by such a medium henceforth named "SWADHA". The medium Swadha was distributed homogeneously through out the universe having properties as under.
  It was made up of very tiny particle several thousand time smaller then electron, these momentum carrying particles were moving randomly in all possible directions with tremendous speed (of the order light travels in space). Here and after called Momentisons. These particles ordinarily exhibit all such properties as considered in kinetic theory.
  These particles agglomerate in special circumstances to make bigger and bigger particles such as nucleons and other particles. Agglomerated big particles when come closer changes the local distribution of the medium Swadha, hence creating different fields popularly known as Gravitational, Electrostatic, Weak and nuclear depending on the relative size and distance of two or more particles.........

Last edited at 01:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)