Talk:Grand Unified Theory

message: I understand quantum mechanics just enough, not to make any great discoveries in the field, but enough to understand the basics.  Special Relativity is the same way.  I found something interesting though, relativity implies both wave-particle duality and supersymmetry!  A wave is a carrier of eneergy from place to place.  A paritcle can be viewed as a carrier of mass from place to place. Relativity says energy is the fourth-dimensional extendsion of momentum (which is mass times velosity). This implies that waves are fourth-dimensional extendsion of particles! This also implies that the carriers of energy (Bosons) are extendsions of the carriers of mass (Fermions)! Wave-particle duality and supersymmetry.  It seems so simple I'm surprized that this was overlooked for so many years.--Surreal Warrior 18:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because it is wrong. Fermions are not the "carriers of mass" any more than massive bosons. I don't understand your implied relationship with waves and particles. Aknochel (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum Physicists are just catching up with Relativity! 

message: When people say GUT, they don't mean a theory which includes the unification of gravity. I think the term "theory of everything" is reserved for that. Phys 14:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: GUTs don't include gravity

message: I completely agree; the article is far too technical, even for this poor physics grad. I may have a shot at revising it. But it's going to be a big job....Robma 16:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have a degree in physics from a good university, but the technicalities of this article are far beyond my training.  We really need an expert in here... - JustinWick 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the matter of re-writing, the statement leading off this page, asking that articles be expanded while keeping the techie stuff, is very laudable, but IMHO (based on many years of science writing) the whole thing needs starting again from scratch. If this were to come the way of editors on, say, New Scientist magazine, they'd pay off the original author with a kill fee, then hire someone else to start over. Some articles are just so bust they're "write-offs" and I think this is one. I'd be happy to have a go at the re-write, but I'm concerned that the result would be a mass troll attack plus endless reversions. Are there any precedents more experienced Wikipedians feel able to cite here, to give some assurances ??! Robma 20:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Create a heading Basic Overview of Grand Unification Theory or History of Grand Unification Theory near the top for starters. This should let you begin to rewrite the article in a way that makes sense, preferably without equations (at least for an overview). List the original forces in layman's terms. Overview the history of achievements in partial unification. If any other section wants to get crazy after that, let them, but keep this section clean and simple. Reference the old Nova episode or a high school physics textbook if you have to. MMetro 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Having a physics degree does not help

message: Is there any need for the insane amount of particle interaction images in the section towards the bottom?  I fail to see what they contribute to the article other than to create a feeling of "GUT is complex and you will never understand it." - JustinWick 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right on several counts: all or almost all of those diagrams should be removed. Its also true that "GUT is complex and you will never understand it." although it may be possible to give the lay reader some inkling, which this article currently fails to do. linas 18:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poisoned by a plethora of  pictures 

message: I've heard from various sources, that GUT could possibly scientificlly disprove any possibility of divine intervention, making it quite contreversial in the science world. I think this shoud be included in the article. Anyone else? (annon poster User:204.38.47.183 on 10 Feb 2006)
:If you've heard it from various sources, list those sources so they can, if noteworthy, be cited, and so the claim's origin and noteworthiness can be assessed. Whether it's included in the article or not, though (which will be based on whether it's a common or noteworthy enough view to bothering mentioning), it's patent nonsense. "Disproving" religion is like disproving spirituality, leprechauns, or Batman; it's absurd and a waste of time. If you mean that it contradicts certain religious hypotheses or doctrines, that may be, although I doubt it does so any more than the field of cosmology and astrophysics in general has; I don't recall the Bible mentioning anything about the electroweak force or quantum physics. -Silence 18:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bullshit. GUT no more disproves divine intervention than does QCD or any other theory of physics. Adding sources that claim that any physical theory disproves divine anything is entirely inappropriate for this article (or any other physics article). If its truly notable, and not some crank web page, then a philosophy article might be merited. But I really doubt a non-crank would ever say such a thing. linas 00:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Clockmaker hypothesis is of interest. linas 00:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GUT and religion? 

message: One place this page could start with is the definition listed in the Wiktionary. I was interested in learning details about GUT and so naturally went to Wikipedia  to get some general information. The first sentence in Wikipedia on GUT completely floored me. I had never heard of  hypercharge and quantum chromodynamics. Sure they sounded vaguely familiar but I had to look them all up to find out that they were not that close to what I was expecting to find out about GUT which is:
"A theory that unifies the weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, electromagnetic force and the gravitational force"
This above is the definition found in Wiktionary. Granted according to the Wikipedia page, this definition is not entirely correct, but it is a good starting point because it uses terms that are more familiar to anyone with a standard college ed. If someone started here, they could connect the dots between these familiar terms and the more advanced ideas such as "gauge theory, quantum chromodynamics, etc."
Sue Lange
:Such a definition would be incorrect, so this change is inadvisable. Perhaps somebody should look at changing the Wiktionary definition? -- Xerxes 17:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "A theory that unifies the weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and electromagnetic force"? -- trlkly 01:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if the definition is incorrect, it is a starting point. Lay people have heard gravity mentioned with the theory before, so it would be important to note that it is not part of the theory. MMetro 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia vs. Wiktionary 

message: Why is there a sidebar on physical cosmology in this article?  It doesn't have anything directly to do with grand unification.  HEL 01:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sidebar on physical cosmology?

message: Nassim Haramein has come up with a Grand Unification Theory using different results from Einstein's field equations.  His argument is that scientists before didn't account for all factors, but his theories work all around.  His work is currently under peer-review.  An external link to his site is on his wiki page. Ace blazer (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That alone doesn't make it mainstream. There are many many more proposed models in the peer reviewed literature than can or should possibly be mentioned in a wikipedia entry.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aknochel (talk • contribs) 09:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Grand Unification Theory 

message: something to add? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, definitely something to add.  Would help a lot.  64.72.43.69 (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

text: You should really split gravity into celestial and terrestrial gravity, since Newton's work unified the concepts.  Perhaps merge color and strong forces?  Also I first tried reading the diagram from L -> R, which momentarily confused me.  Okay, I'm stupid.  But I'm sure some others will as well. --Michael C. Price talk 03:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The diagram should be inverted: the disparate forces and theories involved should be at the top, and unification leads to the Superforce at the bottom, because we are converging towards a final answer, rather than diverging from an original concept. MMetro (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: tree

message: Could anyone watching this page please have a look at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Request for Clarification of 'Grand Unified Theory' Page Content Policy ? It's beyond me, a mere mathematician. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please check WP:Editor assistance/Requests 

message: I think the feynman graphs for proton decay should be put in an appropriate context (section on proton decay) or deleted. The section "ingredients" is partly redundant. Anyone wants to give it a shot?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aknochel (talk • contribs) 12:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bottom half of this article is still a mess 

message: In my opinion, Grand Unified theory should be stated in terms of changes to the Vacuum energy.--e:Y,?:G 22:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What is that supposed to mean? Aknochel (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  grand unified theroy could be stated in terms of vacuum energy 

message: I am disappointed that a requirement for grand unification is the common interpretation of general relativity as being in conflict with quantum mechanics.  In his book "Meaning of Relativity" 5th Edition, Einstein writes, (pg. 165) "One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field.  From the quantum phenomenon it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers."   By setting such a condition the authors have precluded any valid theory.  Further, they disallow any non-mainstream theories being listed, and this closes off access to any that may actually be correct, and blocks research into alternate models. T Byron G (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinterpreting Einstein 

message: I think that any serious TOE should start with squaring the circle, so I propose a new section that deals with it. 4.242.236.220 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squaring the Circle 

message: This is a new take that I haven't previously seen. It's the same thing developed by Carl Sagan. How can we include a citation to Sagan's work while this idea is considered?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1klrDdOGsNghFnRjYvud73MZjK55J7mI9HDRgE7e4jfY/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TajhLogosWhin (talk • contribs) 03:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  An unverified claim 

message: A space ship is going in a revolution around the Earth two light years away going at a speed so fast that it revolves around the Earth directly over you constantly. 
You look up at it and it appears as a fixed point in the sky directly over you constantly as it speeds through space directly over you as the world spins.
Then it decides to go straight thus the distance shooting off of the revolving circle becomes elongated and the light year distance between you too becomes stretched.
Thus the light year distance, the broadcast image of the space ship is stretched and time appears to slow down. 
Thus time doesn't actually slow down. The broadcast image does. The people in the spaceship would appear to slow down and so would you. That is only appearance though. Time is not actually slowing down for either of you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.114.150 (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unification theory relativity and light years 

message: The physics at the temperature of the GUT symmetry breaking is unclear about whether mass existed at that time.  Therefore "masses" is misleading and likely confusing to a non-expert reader.  Another acceptable alternative would be "mass-energy". BuzzBloom (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As you have been told (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-can-a-particle-be-a-combination-of-other-particles.834311/page-2#post-5277517), your understanding of this subject is incorrect. The original text was correct and I have reverted this change. Blennow (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed "masses" to "energies" 1st sentence 4th paragraph 

message: The section seems to be a summary of a single published paper. At a quick glance, it's not highly cited. I also saw there is no Template:Notability_section, the page says notability only applies to articles. How do I request an expert to review notability of the section? Anyone can propose a theory that goes beyond GUT, but does that merit inclusion of its summary into a subsection? ACaseOfWednesdays (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of "Ultra Unification"  subsection?