This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-11-15. The result of the discussion was Snowball Keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Lisi did this, Lisi did that... But who the hell is Lisi? Name? Greets-- 80.187.110.69 ( talk) 12:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
This article is extremely Helpful till High school students. The information given here is very relevant as per college standards also. Bishalbaishya2012 ( talk) 07:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Bishal Baishya User:Bishalbaishya2012
I've attempted to significantly update and improve this article, mostly by elucidating the group theory involved, including making Distler and Garibaldi's objection to an "anti-generation" more mathematically explicit. I've also pulled in some relevant weight diagrams from the Standard Model and GUTs, cleaned up some references, and tried to clean the article up overall. Cheers! Dilaton ( talk) 07:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/garrett-lisi-e8-theory/
The "Wipeout?" Scientific American link doesn't work. This link does. Can someone change it? Thanks!
-- 2601:601:CA80:287D:5C0F:1C78:5784:5CC6 ( talk) 09:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi all, as said perfectly by User:ReyHahn, "I would recommend cropping the section with the details of the model, the model itself is not notable or worthy, only the popularity and backlash". There are no secondary sources providing anything close to reliable coverage of the model itself, therefore, this is an article about the popularity and backlash of the idea, and not the idea itself... Just as an FYI... The Overview section should be deleted in its entirety along with technical details—is all original research. I will post banners asking for it to be fixed. Finally what is the message "The theory received a flurry of media coverage, but also met with widespread skepticism" supposed to convey? It was met with widespread criticism, despite its popular media coverage, which means absolutely nothing for scientific articles. WP:UNDUE. Footlessmouse ( talk) 22:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I honestly don't see what encyclopedic value a photo of Lisi modeling his own T-shirt adds to this article. It seems to be decorative, nothing more. Nor is that kind of decoration a standard practice from anything I've seen. Green–Tao theorem doesn't have pictures of Green or Tao. Category theory doesn't have mugshots of Eilenberg and Mac Lane. Riemann hypothesis has three illustrations of the zeta function but none of Riemann. POVM doesn't have publicity shots of Naimark, Kraus, or Holevo (and unlike "E8 theory", POVMs are an established part of physics). Heck, neither Lie group nor Lie algebra have a picture of Sophus Lie. While some physics and mathematics articles are illustrated by pictures of physicists and mathematicians, it's a safe bet that those topics are noteworthy for reasons beyond publicity campaigns (and publicity campaigns aren't what we are here to propagate). XOR'easter ( talk) 17:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)