Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Theory of everything article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics: Relativity High‑importance 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the relativity task force.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

Our content says:

• The Benedictine priest and science writer Stanley Jaki, in his 1966 book The Relevance of Physics, suggested that Gödel's theorem casts doubt on the "theory of everything" will certainly be a consistent non-trivial mathematical theory, it must be incomplete. He claims that this dooms searches for a deterministic theory of everything.

In my opinion this does not accurately summarize the quote on the page for Stanley Jaki, but before fixing it I think the source is not reliable anyway. It is written as philosophy not physics and uncited as far as I can tell. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Name section of the article claims that John Ellis introduced the term "theory of everything" in his work

• Ellis, John. "The superstring: theory of everything, or of nothing?." Nature 323.6089 (1986): 595-598.

which is about theories that "...may unite the four fundamental forces." This is the definition I associate with the title of the article. The Weinberg book, "Dreams of a Final Theory The Scientist's Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature" does not use the phrase "theory of everything" as far as Google Search goes, but his description of a "final theory" on page 18 is exactly the same.

However the opening statement of the article is completely different and frankly ridiculous:

• A theory of everything (TOE), final theory, ultimate theory, unified field theory, or master theory is a hypothetical singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe.

So what is this article about? Johnjbarton (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After looking in to a few sources it is clear that the technical professional physics community largely considers TOE to be a quantum gravity theory consistent with or superceding the Standard Model but that philosophy and popular accounts use the same name for any theory that "explains everything". I have started to adjust the article in that direction. We should be on the lookout for a source that says this explicitly, maybe the Kargh history? Johnjbarton (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes it needed that reworking. Keep it focused on the term of art, not the much more vague popular notion. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]