Talk:Theory of everything/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Paragraph (wrongly?) deleted a year ago 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent POV edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Expert review templete added 

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposal to merge article with Unified Field Theory

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Artist's impression 

message: 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)
replies: text: And even sometimes when it's not. siafu 02:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Remove time cube? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Interesting

message: 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)
thread_title:  Limitations of TOE? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Amateur Efforts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Heim Theory Bias 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent major reorganization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  what is the basis for a theory of everything and its implications? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nonmainstream attempts to form a Theory of Everything 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Im confused 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Remove the other efforts 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Compare Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Reciprocal System of Theory. --Pjacobi 11:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larson's Reciprocity must be added as a super candidate for TOE

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Effectively done. --Pjacobi 22:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: 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)
thread_title:  Subject: Classification of Theories of Everything 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I have completely redone the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: another expert is needed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The following defense was '''deleted''' by mikka on december 29th 

message: Substituted at 20:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment