Talk:An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything - Wikipedia (original) (raw)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
| 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)[reply]
Second sentence in the lead: "The paper was posted to the physics arXiv by Antony Garrett Lisi on November 6, 2007" - he's the guy who wrote the paper.--User:Salix alba (talk): 13:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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[reply]
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 (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No Change The link you provided is a re-posting of the original article, and the original article link on the page worked for me. No change made. J Mark Morris (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Any proposal to reduce the bloated dross of this article is welcome. The article could be stubbified along the lines of Heim theory. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Seeing as how no one is trying to defend the article, it would be prudent to start carefully going through and gutting original research, synthesis, and statements based entirely on primary sources. What remains, however large, will be better and more informative about the notable aspects of the topic without drowning in highly unnecessary details. Footlessmouse (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Footlessmouse and Xxanthippe: My sentiments generally align with your comments here. I disagree with this revert, which restored material dependent upon non-peer-reviewed preprints. XOR'easter (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks XOR'easter, I do agree we should begin clearing this up. Other than the one user that unilaterally reverted the edits rather than discussing, no one has objected. If no one else does so first, I will try to spend some time working on it in the next few days. Footlessmouse (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Footlessmouse, still have an interest in pruning this page? If not, I can try to make the time for an attempt. XOR'easter (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter: I am interested in seeing it pruned, please go ahead, I will help out where I can. Thanks! Footlessmouse (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Footlessmouse: I might start by reverting to this version, which I think was an improvement, but the "Technical overview" section is based entirely on statements by Lisi himself, which violates WP:PROMO/WP:RS/WP:PRIMARY/WP:SPS/etc. XOR'easter (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've made my first attempt at a cleanup. It's a confusing topic, because "E8 Theory" is a moving target. I think residues of claims made at different times all tried to coexist in the article. There's still a contradiction between the number of predicted X bosons: is it 18 or 30? Either the prediction changed, or the text here was written too confusingly to tell what the prediction was. XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The theory is a failure. It does not need to be discussed at all except to say that it is a failure. The only issue of interest is the promotional activities that have kept the matter in the public eye. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree with the above comment. I think it advances the case for deletion of this now obsolete article. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I have reverted another edit by the 3RR edit warrior. He complains about being "ganged up on"; but "ganging up" is how Wikipedia works. Its more usual name is consensus. Those who edit against consensus may find their editing privileges restricted. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
The user is blocked to let the atmosphere cool down a bit. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 11:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]