Talk:Unified field theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics / Relativity  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Relativity Taskforce.

Introduction section[edit]

I would like to suggest that the introduction section be referenced by a known paper or physics book, as some may catch this in the future, and say it is not referenced, thus inaccurate, even though it is.--Craxd (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


There are many theories out there, all of them with questions left to answer. The Unified Theory (Theory of everything) should not have any unanswered questions left, no exceptions AND explain everything. The only theory that would do that is the theory that can explain and make one understand that 'everything equals nothing'. That theory is there... no wave stuff or formulas, no limited dimensions, none of that 'scientific' mumbo-jumbo AND no phantom allmighty god either, just an explanation of process and description of everything and nothing. It's the OMNI theory and the author is Robert Badoux. It is described in the book: The Face of God, The Unified theory.

Caroline Thompson 10:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC): Hi Robert, I've deleted stuff on TIME, SPACE and tensors and altered the link to my site to a link to a PWA paper. As written, the article seems to imply that what you are describing is the Wave Structure of Matter theory of Milo Wolff. It is in fact your own theory. Can you make this clearer?

[[ Dear Caroline. I am sure that some theories out there resemble mine. I have no idea, I don't read much. But sofar, I haven't received any conclusive proof from anybody telling me that my theory is wrong or incomplete. The Theory of everything can never be proven to be correct because as times goes by, we will witness new phenomena and they all have to fit within the theory and we never know what happens tomorrow. Therefore, my theory will always remain a theory. On the other hand.. no one has come up with something to prove me wrong. In my eyes, validation will never be acchieved, but the theory will become more accepted over time.. the more people try to disprove it and can't, the more it will be validated. I am rewriting the book now.. not altering the theory itself of course, but well...I'd like to spice it up somewhat, being a sarcastic person. (grin)..After it's done, I will put it on the interent for free download..since i can't trust my publisher. They have been screwing me royally on the royalties.]]

I still don't understand why the fact that it explains Mach's principle (a point on which I agree!) means that it has to be a "relative motion" theory. It is surely basically an aether theory?

Caroline Thompson 10:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC): Further thoughts: What you need, I think, is to wait until you've finished the Wave Structure Matter page, preferably in a manner agreed within the WSM group, then use this as your main link.

One thing missing[edit]

I am not a physicist, nor do I play one on TV. In fact, this all very much baffles me, though I find it very interesting. That disclaimer aside, I found this article failed to address quickly and directly the problem, which is the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum mechanics. It is simply not made clear here. Digging into the four forces individually is necessary certainly, but showing the division upfront right in the intro would clarify this a lot to poor confused people like me. Something like the first paragraph here right in the introduction would be very helpful. --Steven Fisher 08:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the fundamental problem is not easily understood in lay terms. I have added a brief explanation with a link to the relevant article to explain the technical term (renormalization). — DAGwyn 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The difference between the two is perfectly easy for anybody to understand. General Relativity treats gravity as a space time curvature, Quantum theories generally treat it as some kind of energy carrying particle rather similar to a photon, the two are almost irretrievably incompatible. I would say that when it comes to problems like this that excessive mathematical introversion creates an intense myopia that tends to make the problem almost impossible to solve using purely mathematical methods. Occam's razor alone should answer the question to anyone of sufficient intelligence. Although Relativity has a lot of flaws its space time is a fundamentally simple concept - and has survived a lot of tests, something that cannot be said of most of the other approaches. (sorry this is an old thread but I felt I needed to reply) Lucien86 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Quantum Gravity.[edit]

Some time ago, I watched a television documentary in which scientists claimed the universe was created at the instant of the big bang, by a collision between two pre-existing universes.

With this idea in mind, I have wondered if the reason why a theory of quantum gravity cannot be found is because our universe is a hybrid universe, represented by two mathematical theories, wholly alien to each other, which can never be unified.

                      This is just a thought from a layman
                                  Derek R Crawford.

Quack Theories[edit]

I changed Quack theories to Amateur theories, just to make the title sound more professional.

why does this page not mention tesla? he was said to have gathered a lot of information on this subject, but he never published it Aptitude 01:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Heim Theory[edit]

very surpising omission. I"ll add it in with usual caveats to mollify the Heim haters. Take Care!--Will314159 12:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Theory of Everything[edit]

Shouldn't this article be merged with Theory of Everything?

No. A theory that unifies the electroweak interaction with QCD is certainly not a theory of everything. It's not a theory of gravity, for example. -- Xerxes 18:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. Yet according to the introduction of this article, the subject is: attempt to unify all the fundamental forces and the interactions between elementary particles into a single theoretical framework. The term was coined by Einstein who attempted to reconcile the general theory of relativity with electromagnetism in a single field theory. His quest proved elusive and a unified field theory, sometimes grandiosely referred to as the Theory of Everything (TOE, for short), has remained the holy grail for physicists, the long-sought theory which would explain the nature and behavior of all matter.
In physics, the forces between objects can be described as mediated by fields. Current theory says that at subatomic distances, these fields are replaced by quantum fields interacting according to the laws of quantum mechanics..... The essential belief of a unified field theory is that the four fundamental forces well as all matter are simply different manifestations of a single fundamental field. A unified field theory aims to reconcile the four fundamental forces (or fields) of nature (from strongest to weakest)...
That is what bothers me. The article seems to be about the same topic as discussed in the Theory of everything article. We could (A) rewrite the intro to this article, to make it clear how this article should be distinguished in intent and content from ToE. Perhaps some paragraphs from this article could be moved to ToE, or vice-versa. (B) It may be better to merge the two articles, and have links to other articles on specific unification schemes that are not proposed as "ToE"s. (I have no preference at the moment.) Your thoughts? RK 19:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Reposted from RK's talk page:
I suggest resolving this issue by turning unified field theory into unification (physics) and extending it to talk about other unifications. Otherwise, theory of everything article should cover the remaining material. Either way, neither should be merged with GUT. -- Xerxes 14:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually Einstein used the term "Theory of Everything" to discribe this theory according to Brian Greene H0riz0n

plzecontact to — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Needs cleanup and fact-checking[edit]

For example, M-theory is not primarily due to Michio Kaku and Briane Greene. Most people would mention at least the name of Edward Witten! There are many other concerns about organization, coverage, emphasis. ---CH 10:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Grand unification theory[edit]

That appears to be about the same thing, only seemingly written for someone with a master's in physics (who presumably knows what a unified field theory is) rather than the typical Wikipedia reader. If I'm wrong, please say so. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

GUT is a step along the way to a Unified field theory - it does not attempt to bring gravity into the theory. The two should remain separate. --Exodio 03:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay: I'm not a physicist. But then should this be merged with Theory of everything? See #Theory of Everything above for someone who disagrees with you about what the term means. It should certainly be merged with one or the other, it sounds like, no? Either that, or it should be renamed to "Unified field theories" and someone should add references to both of those articles. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you. It sounds like the two articles should be merged. But there seems to be subtle differences between the two - I am going to research a little more into both articles and see if I can figure out how they are different and how they are the same. It seems like quantum theory in general is slightly disorganized and repetitive though. --Exodio 04:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, GUTS, unified field theory and TOE's are three different things in physics. Perhaps the aricles are lacking in clarity and description as to why they differ; the answer, however, is not to merge them. Guys, if you don't know the subject matter, you should not be making these kinds of suggestions to begin with. Please don't be so bold. linas 23:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

UFT and TOE are entirely seperate concepts[edit]

UFT is an attempt to unify the four fundamental forces. TOE, however, as its name suggests, is an attempt explain all known physical phenomena under one theory. The article erroneously implies that the two are similar if not the same thing.

Bottom line: TOE encompasses everything UFT does (and more), but not vise versa. 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)StE

Not really. "Theory of Everything" in modern usage of the term is supposed to refer to a specific kind of field theory, one where specifying boundary conditions determines uniquely all physical behavior within. However, in the popular press the term "ToE" is used with less specificity. Fundamental theories don't have to be field theories, although most modern ones are. The essence of UFT is that two or more of the "fundamental forces" must arise in a natural way from a single field object. Thus, a variational principle applied to a Lagrangian that is the simple sum of two terms involving different field objects would not qualify as "unified" even though it results in interactions between the fields. — DAGwyn (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammar error[edit]

There is no a priori reason why there must exist a unified field theory —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Two identical systems on different scales follow the same rules, UFT just better explains the rules we all play by. That's what we do, defining our universe through rules, testing the rules, breaking them when they are not actually rules and then redefining them. Nicholascobalt (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

First unification[edit]

I qualified the claim that Maxwell's theory was the first unification in physics. After all, Newton unified celestial mechanics with terrestrial gravity. Arguably, any significant advance in science is a unification of sorts, and there were plenty of others between Newton's time and Maxwell's (and also before Newton's time). Not to diminish the importance of Maxwell's theory as a model for later attempts at unified field theories! NB Faraday did experiments in 1849-50 looking for gravito-electric and gravito-mechanical effects... PaddyLeahy 20:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC) ==The connection between The unified field theory and the ancient vedic texts as outlined by Dr. John Hagelin can't be denyed. Is everything connected to a unifying principle or seperate and unrelated. This specifically defeats the Big Bang Theory of a single origin of everything. The vedic texts of India are some of the oldest scientific books on Earth and have since been proven as universal laws beyond natural laws i.e. gravity by countless Yogis and other saints. Jesus did walk on water because the physical density of his body was beyond the reach of gravity. Just as there are countless reports of levitation by all peoples, even Chris Angel! The observer effects the outcome of an experiment. If that observer believes it is not possible that is what he/she will witness.

Census Request[edit]

We need to discuss whether or not the only other name that the unified field theory goes by is theory of everything. Let us talk about removing all links from the see also list that do not refer specifically to the unified field theory or the theory of everything. Let us discuss merging this article with the theory of everything article and having just one article and no see also list. Afterall I say, if it's the theory of EVERYTHING, what else is there to see also????? So let's discuss it.

Allrighty then, offer for good discussion going once, going twice...

Well, I must say I am thoroughly unimpressed with yall's ability to discuss the theory of everything which you are designed to be able to understand as human beings. Pity, for I had a dream once that it would be easy for those with apt minds to understand the unoriginal research done by all human kind, which says, as a simple matter of english, that in order for a field to be unified in the pure sense of the term it must therefore be divided by no thing. Once we all finally and of course arrive at the advent of realization, that the unified field and all those who inhabit it are united, for light and all that forms the unified field seperates not in theory, then we will be able to discuss that which has been set before us since time immemorial to understand.
Particularly is my heart dissappointed by Silly Rabbit, who so excellently made the suggestion that we hold a discussion on this page, but who, when I extended the issue, so un-excellently seemed to dissappear into thin air. It is clear to see that nobody is willing to put forth the effort to make this a better article - either that or none of ya'll are organized enough to make any kind of agreement. Well, your expert call has been answered. Now have you been silenced?
Oh well, it is all just a good. Someone must now carry on in the name of justice. Until somebody finally starts talking, contest links will be removed every day from now untill eternity. If you wish to block all the ip adresses here at Tech and deprive everyone the right to participate in wikipedia as you have so tried to deprive me, then there is nothing to stop you. You have free will as granted to you by the TOE. However, know that everything will stop at nothing, and as I am part of everything just as you are I will use whatever ip address there is on the planet earth to carry on the cause of justice. So, it seems you have met your expert foe. Perhaps, if you change your mind and decide to open it up to discussion, we will act in cohesion instead of trying to fight eachother with revert wars.
WIshing for the best, Archetype
Dear Archetype/Carbogen: I know Tech, and therefore find it hard to assume that you are ignorant enough to be making these edits in good faith. If you are, then give respect to whoever is paying for your fees, by allowing your professors to educate you (so: talk with them about your ideas). In any case you ought to understand that "see also" in an encyclopedia does not introduce a list of synonyms. You have already been blocked multiple times for disruptive edits like these. and if your actions do incur a range block on Tech addresses I doubt that you will be very popular there. PaddyLeahy 18:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. To the contrary, I am well respected in my community. Those things that are taught in the text books and known about at large are predominantly wrong and antiquated ideas. Once the number 1/0 is actually defined (it takes courage I know) it demonstrates quite clearly and without a shadow of a doubt that the laws of thermodynamics are reversible and quite specifically that the arrow of time will reverse completely whenever the expansion of our universe has been carried to such an extent that two points in space seperated by one planck distance finally begin expanding away from eachother at greater than the speed of light. For this prediction, or realization as I call it, I am highly honored by my physics professors and encouraged to continue with my research. All academicians and students here at Tech endorse the Antigravity Research club which I incepted to study inventions that have been horribly neglected, and also to develop technology, the design of which has been awarded to me as a result of my insight into the definition of the absolute greatest value, the value of the energy of the source of all motion, 1/0. 1/0, or that which is divided by no other thing, is the amount of all energy and therefore the actual and exact definition of the so-called "unified field."
It seems you are losing ground dear friend, but you would do well to embrace the new realizations soon to be shaking the world of physics. These realizations will give us abilities to unite mankind, convert to fuel-less energy means, and travel the stars and learn our true place in the universe. These realizations will allow you to see that the world is one of abundance once you know the secret of how the universe sustains and "creates" and "destroys" energy. Fear not my friend, for your time to understand well is close at hand, and near on the future horizon. Thank you again for your honest reply, and prepare for the changes that this unified field theory will truely bring in the twinkling of an eye, at a time that approaches inexorably and will soon be upon us all!!

sincerely, Archetype

Concerning the recent "protection"[edit]

Hah ha ha ha, whoever protected this article I want you to know that's exactly what I wanted! For you to have it your way! Now this article will remain indefinitely stuck in the dark ages. Ha ha ha, it's so funny; now the entire spirit of the wikipedia has been undermined. And isn't it ironic. DOn't you think?

Well, I'm glad you can finally have it your way. Don't ever change or you might be inclined to let the truth come into season.


New developments[edit]

Physicists Nassim Haramein and E. A. Rauscher's are showing some promising work towards establishing a Unified Field Theory. The foundation of their theory uses angular momentum/spin at both the macro and micro scale to unify gravity with the other forces of nature. These physicist are respected members of the physics community and they are currently publishing their peer-reviewed papers for further reference. Their findings are relatively new and definitely worth researching further. A note of their findings should be mentioned for all those interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

== Buckminster Fuller's Model of the Unified Field

Dare to be naive.

From Synergetics:

There is realized herewith a succession of concentric, 12-around-one, closest-packed spheres, each of at tetravolume of five; i.e., of 120 A and B Quanta Modules omniembracing our hierarchy of nuclear event patternings. This is the synergetics isometric view of the isotropic matrix and its omnirational, low-order whole number, equilibrous state of the micro-macro cosmic limits of the nuclearly unique, symmetrical morphological relativity and its interquantative, intertransformative, intertransactive, expansive-contractive, axially rotative, operational field. This may come to be identified as the unified field. which, as an operationally transformable complex, is conceptualizable only in its equilibrous state. Image/Text

Vector Equilibrium

Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything[edit]

Shouldn't [| Anthony Garrett Lisi's] [| Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything] be mentioned here??

the unified field and stephen w. hawking[edit]

Stephen W. Hawking and I found that the unified field is gravity^3. It can be found at I can be e-mailed at —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical equations[edit]

Where are the mathematical equations of this theory? It must be here. I heard that Einstein put mathematical equations about it.Scientist Of The Worlds (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about a single particular theory; rather, it's about a category of theories based on similar notions but with differing mathematical expressions. To even explain the notation used in even one specific theory's formulation would make the article much longer and would most likely confuse many more people. — DAGwyn (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to Move the "Non-mainstream theories" Section to Its Own Page[edit]

The subject says it all. First, that section is rather long and mentions several theories, and some have suggested adding more theories. Given the length, it is better suited to have its own page and for this section to only be one or two concise sentences long with a link to that page. Second, Wikipedia is under enough fire already having a reputation of being unreliable for the validity of its information. I'm not denying the validity of the information of these "non-peer reviewed" and/or non-standard theories. However, they are what they are, and this article is about a standard, accepted scientific concept that is peer-reviewed. Hence, they belong on their own page, perhaps entitled something like "Non-mainstream unified field theories." On that page the theories could be discussed in more depth in a more appropriate place. Third and finally, for the average Wikipedia user looking for layperson information and understanding on the subject of Unified Field Theory, that section and its information likely can confuse, mislead, and overall misinform the user on the article's subject. And what would be the point of an article that ultimately misinforms Wikipedia's users even if it unintentional? Simply moving that information to its own page with a short one to two sentence summary of it in this article is a happy solution in that those theories can be expanded upon and this article will be cleaned up in a manner so that it sticks solely to reliable, peer-reviewed sources and information so that Wikipedia users are best informed on the subject of the article.-- (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The section appears to have been changed a bit, but not necessarily for the better. The last sentence of this section doesn't even end with any punctuation such as a period. It is also inscrutable to those who do not know what "Lorentz violations" and "Fermi Glast detection of Gamma rays" are or might be. If those terms are going to be used, they need to be linked to pages that define them. These issues just further the argument that this section be moved to its own page and the information removed from this page.-- (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


Its like everybody is trying to take the lies from the previous jack asses trying to grope for grant money by contriving bull ____ heaped so high the guy with the money thought it had to be true (and the money had to go somewhere anyway) and stack it a little higher, if there is a creative brain cell between the lot of you it ran and hid somewhere. -- (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Unified Field Theory versus Quantum Field Theory[edit]

In the literature, "Unified Field Theory" refers to what Wikipedia lists as Classical unified field theories. However, Wikipedia's article on Unified Field Theory focuses on Quantum Field Theory and, consequently, should be merged into it. SJRubenstein (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 20:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. We had a course called "unified field theory" (SU(5) etc) which was in the context of QFT. Thing is the QFT is pretty irrelevant to the unification aspect. So definitely no merger, IMO. --Michael C. Price talk 21:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of this is that quantum field theory incorporates material points as separate from the field, whereas the field as envisioned by Einstein includes those points as only limiting cases of the field ("No material source terms are taken into account," Introduction, On the History of Unified Field Theories, H.F.M. Goenner ( After that, I don't care.SJRubenstein (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

UFT is not defined by Einstein's conception. --Michael C. Price talk 06:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Whatever you do, please don't merge the quantum stuff into the article on Classical unified field theories, which is a nice closed set.

Unified Field Theory[edit]

I can't explain scientifically how the universe works, because science hasn't be able to demonstrate how it works, the way I have come to understand and unify field theory is this.

E = mc², is misunderstood that as somethings Energy increases (for example increased velocity, as something approaches the speed of light) the variable is mass and not the speed, yes the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant but until the mass reaches that speed we aren't dealing with constant speed. Something doesn't become more massive as it's speed increases it becomes more photonic, light is the maximum speed attainable because upon reaching this speed the properties of mass no longer apply the properties of photons do, atomic structure instead becomes energy, wavelength, frequency. Which is actually just the way we interpret it at that speed, in fact all mass at rest has frequency and wavelength, Planck constant applies to energy in all forms.

Something could also become photonic by adding energy in other ways, but the smoothest transition with the least loss of energy and least structural distortion would be to increase velocity (the same idea in place on a highway, two things moving in the same direction at the same speed will never collide)

Light isn't the exception to the rule, something is a particle or something is a wave, it is the rule, anything accelerated to this speed would act in the same way. Being unable to react chemically or mechanically with other photonic masses would lead to the inability to engineer an engine capable of increasing speed once this change took place, also consciousness would be impossible without chemical interactions so the experience to someone traveling in a faster than light vessel that was somehow slowed and reformed into the massive vehicle and passenger would seem instantaneous, which is no more time travel than slowing the atomic movement of an individual with a cooling agent, then defrosting the individual at a later date and treating the symptoms of cell damage and hypothermia.

There is no difference between a graviton and a gluon, we can take a look at a singularity, and see two separate things worth noting, in a formed singularity we see gravitational forces causing an event horizon, but the repulsing forces between electrons of any two particular atoms, even negative ions, is dwarfed by the gravitational forces in a singularity, so every singularity is actually a super massive naturally occurring and technically stable element, with an atomic mass of X where X is unique to each singularity, rather than a mass comprised of many separate atoms. As any atom it has atomic structure, electrons are outside of the event horizon (proof included in next paragraph) but due to the size most singularities have they would be spread out, the same percentage of the atom would be nothing as any common atom would be, though the shell configuration 2 6 10 14 18 18 etc wouldn't apply due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and it is likely being in a random satellite to a singularity but outside the event horizon that many if not all electrons would be lost entirely.

Now that it is easily seen that a fusion reaction takes place within a singularity when any atom enters, and we know that when a singularity forms the most common place is in a star where fusion reactions take place constantly. If you take this singularity and trace it backwards as it was created over time the event horizon always existed, at a certain point the event horizon would be only just beyond the surface of the very large atom that is the singularity, and before that it was at the surface of the atom, and just before then it was just inside the electron shell of the atom. (which causes the fast moving electrons to satellite the nucleus, Occam's Razor would say this isn't magnetic as proven gravitational forces can explain it without the need for an additional force, "magnetic" forces would be better described as gravitonic forces) Most atoms are at this stage, or fusion reactions wouldn't be possible, since it is known that atoms with atomic mass of one are capable of fusion.

Creating a smaller singularity artificially would lead to a singularity with the total gravitational field of the atoms it is comprised of.

Nicholas R. Iverson ( Nicholascobalt (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Readers theories[edit]

The removal of that section looks like establishment control and censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orphadeus (talkcontribs) 15:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Consequence of the Unification of spacetime?[edit]

Did I miss something reading that paper? It was really the other way around. Since the relative velocities of the charge and the magnetic field resulted in a wave equation that did not have a reference to a static reference frame C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Weak interaction as repulsive[edit]

"Weak interaction: a repulsive short-range interaction..."

is there a reference for that 'repulsive'? As far as I know it makes absolutely no sense. This is both true of the low-energy weak interaction and the electroweak gauge theory after unification.

-- (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Unified field theory/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.

needs references and probably more sections or better presentation of the text Snailwalker

Last edited at 00:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 09:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Mendel Sachs[edit]

Should Mendel Sachs' work on refining Eintein's unified field theory be mentioned here? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

Somebody should clean up the last few paragraphs under "Current Status". There's nonsense there about prayers and pyramids being built overnight... and of course absolutely no references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Done. --mfb (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Unified field theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)