Talk:Grand Unified Theory

GUTs don't include gravity

When people say GUT, they don't mean a theory which includes the unification of gravity. I think the term "theory of everything" is reserved for that. Phys 14:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

PS: I think they are both silly names. Phys 14:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Having a physics degree does not help

I completely agree; the article is far too technical, even for this poor physics grad. I may have a shot at revising it. But it's going to be a big job....Robma 16:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have a degree in physics from a good university, but the technicalities of this article are far beyond my training. We really need an expert in here... - JustinWick 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of re-writing, the statement leading off this page, asking that articles be expanded while keeping the techie stuff, is very laudable, but IMHO (based on many years of science writing) the whole thing needs starting again from scratch. If this were to come the way of editors on, say, New Scientist magazine, they'd pay off the original author with a kill fee, then hire someone else to start over. Some articles are just so bust they're "write-offs" and I think this is one. I'd be happy to have a go at the re-write, but I'm concerned that the result would be a mass troll attack plus endless reversions. Are there any precedents more experienced Wikipedians feel able to cite here, to give some assurances ??! Robma 20:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Create a heading Basic Overview of Grand Unification Theory or History of Grand Unification Theory near the top for starters. This should let you begin to rewrite the article in a way that makes sense, preferably without equations (at least for an overview). List the original forces in layman's terms. Overview the history of achievements in partial unification. If any other section wants to get crazy after that, let them, but keep this section clean and simple. Reference the old Nova episode or a high school physics textbook if you have to. MMetro 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Poisoned by a plethora of pictures

Is there any need for the insane amount of particle interaction images in the section towards the bottom? I fail to see what they contribute to the article other than to create a feeling of "GUT is complex and you will never understand it." - JustinWick 16:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right on several counts: all or almost all of those diagrams should be removed. Its also true that "GUT is complex and you will never understand it." although it may be possible to give the lay reader some inkling, which this article currently fails to do. linas 18:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

GUT and religion?

I've heard from various sources, that GUT could possibly scientificlly disprove any possibility of divine intervention, making it quite contreversial in the science world. I think this shoud be included in the article. Anyone else? (annon poster User:204.38.47.183 on 10 Feb 2006)

If you've heard it from various sources, list those sources so they can, if noteworthy, be cited, and so the claim's origin and noteworthiness can be assessed. Whether it's included in the article or not, though (which will be based on whether it's a common or noteworthy enough view to bothering mentioning), it's patent nonsense. "Disproving" religion is like disproving spirituality, leprechauns, or Batman; it's absurd and a waste of time. If you mean that it contradicts certain religious hypotheses or doctrines, that may be, although I doubt it does so any more than the field of cosmology and astrophysics in general has; I don't recall the Bible mentioning anything about the electroweak force or quantum physics. -Silence 18:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. GUT no more disproves divine intervention than does QCD or any other theory of physics. Adding sources that claim that any physical theory disproves divine anything is entirely inappropriate for this article (or any other physics article). If its truly notable, and not some crank web page, then a philosophy article might be merited. But I really doubt a non-crank would ever say such a thing. linas 00:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Clockmaker hypothesis is of interest. linas 00:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs. Wiktionary

One place this page could start with is the definition listed in the Wiktionary. I was interested in learning details about GUT and so naturally went to Wikipedia to get some general information. The first sentence in Wikipedia on GUT completely floored me. I had never heard of hypercharge and quantum chromodynamics. Sure they sounded vaguely familiar but I had to look them all up to find out that they were not that close to what I was expecting to find out about GUT which is:

"A theory that unifies the weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, electromagnetic force and the gravitational force"

This above is the definition found in Wiktionary. Granted according to the Wikipedia page, this definition is not entirely correct, but it is a good starting point because it uses terms that are more familiar to anyone with a standard college ed. If someone started here, they could connect the dots between these familiar terms and the more advanced ideas such as "gauge theory, quantum chromodynamics, etc."

Sue Lange

Such a definition would be incorrect, so this change is inadvisable. Perhaps somebody should look at changing the Wiktionary definition? -- Xerxes 17:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "A theory that unifies the weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, and electromagnetic force"? -- trlkly 01:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if the definition is incorrect, it is a starting point. Lay people have heard gravity mentioned with the theory before, so it would be important to note that it is not part of the theory. MMetro 00:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sidebar on physical cosmology?

Why is there a sidebar on physical cosmology in this article? It doesn't have anything directly to do with grand unification. HEL 01:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What counts as unification?

It's unclear from the article if the SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) symmetry that we're familiar with from the standard model counts as a unification, in the sense that it describes all forces in quantum mechanics at once. This symmetry while successfull, appear somewhat contrived, but that alone wouldn't be enough to motivate all the newer theories listed here.

Wrong title?

AFAIK, "Grand unification theory" is not a term used by physicists. Instead as per the lede, one talks about "Grand Unified Theories" (GUTs), and also the process of developing them, namely "Grand unification". I guess this is a minor point as GUT and Grand Unified Theory redirect here. Does anyone else think it would be worth asking an admin to delete the Grand unified theory redirect and move this article there (this being the only way to retain the history & talk pages, I believe)? PaddyLeahy

Proper intro and understanding

As mentioned elsewhere on this talk page... this article is unreasonably complex and offers very little for almost every reader. I am enrolled in an honours degree in Physics and most of this article is far too intimidating for me to read. It should definitely have a section such as Basic overview of Grand Unification Theory so that someone interested can at least know a little about it without having to read 100 other articles.

Also, the point of the first section (the one before an actual section is defined.. aka the opening) is to give a very simple and direct explanation of the article. Frankly, "Grand Unification, grand unified theory, or GUT is one of several very similar unified field theories or models in physics that unify what are considered three "fundamental" gauge symmetries: hypercharge, the weak force, and quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Grand unification is based on the idea that at extremely high energies, all symmetries have the same gauge coupling strength, which is consistent with the speculation that they are really different manifestations of a single overarching gauge symmetry. More specifically, GUTs predict that at energies above 10^14 GeV, the electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear forces are fused into a single unified field "does not seem like a simple and direct explanation. Lets start by listing some concepts that should not be in the opening: gauge symmetries, hyperchage, chrmodynamics, gauge coupling strength.. etc. Seems to me like only the last sentence is any good, minus the number. I would write something like: "Grand Unification, grand unified theory, or GUT is one of several very similar unfied field theories or models in physics that predicts that at extremely high energies (above 10^14 GeV), the electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear forces are fused into a single unified field"

Unless someone else thinks they can do a much better job, and are willing to invest the time, I will try to rework and reword the opening to be less intimidating and more inviting. Please discuss here and make suggestions or give reasons for why the opening should be so convoluted --DFRussia 09:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track. Clarity should be first and foremost. I trust that if you do make an error, somebody else will have the knowledge to correct you. So let us know on the talk page when you've started, and good luck. MMetro 20:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I started with my first suggestion. Whenever I have more time I will try to make more contributions --DFRussia 03:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Does the above even MEAN anything? As far as I can tell, you wrote a book and started a company to market the book. You say sent some motion to a federal court which was unopposed -- but there's no indication of what is was, whether is was relevant, or whether it was even looked at. Furthermore, even if that was correct, federal district courts aren't arbiters of science. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that DaleRitter removed his comment that I commented on. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's clearly not the case, see [1]. "A proposed 1 ppm standard for workplace benzene exposure set under this interpretation was challenged in court, eventually leading to a 5-4 Supreme Court decision [Industrial Union Department v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980)], commonly known as the "benzene decision," which imposed fundamental changes in the interpretation of the OSHAct mandate. The court ruled that, before issuing a standard, OSHA must first demonstrate that the chemical posed a "significant risk." Unless the risk is significant, the material does not become a "toxic material" or "harmful physical agent" controllable under the act, and its presence cannot be said to meaningfully lead to an unhealthy workplace. A key part of this finding was that the §3(8) definition of a standard as a "reasonably necessary or appropriate" action was taken as grounds that action under §6(b)(5) must be shown to be necessary in some quantitative sense. While stating that "OSHA is not required to support its finding that a significant risk exists with anything approaching scientific certainty," the court ruled that the case for significant risk could in principle be made using quantitative risk analysis. On the question of how large a cancer risk is "significant," Justice Stevens, in his opinion, stated that this was OSHA's responsibility, conceded to be a matter of policy, but that "If, for example, the odds are one in a billion..., the risk clearly could not be considered significant. On the other hand, if the odds are one in a thousand..., a reasonable person might well consider the risk significant and take appropriate steps to decrease or eliminate it."

By the way, here's the docket for the court at that time [2] which just says "CERTIFICATE of service by pltf of initial disclosures to

counsel on 2/28/01". I think the bit about a court ruling is just gibberish spammed (impressively) to make it look scientific. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

tree

Superforce

Gravity

Electronuclear force

Color force

Electroweak force

Strong force

Weak force

Electromagnetism

Electric force

Magnetic force

something to add? 76.66.198.171 (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely something to add. Would help a lot. 64.72.43.69 (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You should really split gravity into celestial and terrestrial gravity, since Newton's work unified the concepts. Perhaps merge color and strong forces? Also I first tried reading the diagram from L -> R, which momentarily confused me. Okay, I'm stupid. But I'm sure some others will as well. --Michael C. Price ^talk 03:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The diagram should be inverted: the disparate forces and theories involved should be at the top, and unification leads to the Superforce at the bottom, because we are converging towards a final answer, rather than diverging from an original concept. MMetro (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MMetro, and to remove possible confusion of the sort mentioned by MCP, can we add arrows? --DFRussia (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Although i think the graphic is nice and one should implement something like it, I always have a problem with the way it is displayed - What does it exactly mean if two lines meet? The electromagnetic and weak forces are not really unified in the "electroweak force", which consists of two separate ones, Hypercharge and weak isospin. Maybe one should somehow indicate this composite nature of the weak interactions. Anyone has an idea? Aknochel (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please check WP:Editor assistance/Requests

Could anyone watching this page please have a look at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Request for Clarification of 'Grand Unified Theory' Page Content Policy ? It's beyond me, a mere mathematician. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The bottom half of this article is still a mess

I think the feynman graphs for proton decay should be put in an appropriate context (section on proton decay) or deleted. The section "ingredients" is partly redundant. Anyone wants to give it a shot? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aknochel (talk • contribs) 12:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

WTF

What is this article supposed to be about? Is this some kind of an in joke or what? Where some parts of this article are somewhat intelligible, the following paragraphe just does not make any sense to me what so ever. What are $\mathbf {5}$ and $\mathbf {10}$?!? (What about a definition of the terms that are being introduced?)

"The two smallest irreducible representations of $SU(5)$ are $\mathbf {5}$ and $\mathbf {10}$. In the standard assignment, the $\mathbf {5}$ contains the charge conjugates of the right-handed down-type quark color triplet and a left-handed lepton isospin doublet, while the $\mathbf {10}$ contains the six up-type quark components, the left-handed down-type quark color triplet, and the right-handed electron."

And do you realy mean "isospin" rather than "weak isospin"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.197.147 (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It is conventional to refer to a group's representation by the dimension of that representation. Words like singlet, doublet, triplet, etc may be more familiar to you. It also common among Particle physicist to refer to the weak isospin simply as isospin, and to refer to the more traditional isospin as flavor isospin. That makes sense since the former is more important than the later. Dauto (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a link to the appropriate wikipedia article on representations of lie algebras right in front of it. That part of the article is not really intended for "general audience" I suppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.206.34.177 (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, seems reasonable. And if I'm writing an article about a rare disese, I'll just include a link to a related diagnotic test, before launching into medical jargon; I'll then shrug and say "What, aren't doctors the only ones reading Wikipedia?"

Misinterpreting Einstein

I am disappointed that a requirement for grand unification is the common interpretation of general relativity as being in conflict with quantum mechanics. In his book "Meaning of Relativity" 5th Edition, Einstein writes, (pg. 165) "One can give good reasons why reality cannot at all be represented by a continuous field. From the quantum phenomenon it appears to follow with certainty that a finite system of finite energy can be completely described by a finite set of numbers." By setting such a condition the authors have precluded any valid theory. Further, they disallow any non-mainstream theories being listed, and this closes off access to any that may actually be correct, and blocks research into alternate models. T Byron G (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed "masses" to "energies" 1st sentence 4th paragraph

The physics at the temperature of the GUT symmetry breaking is unclear about whether mass existed at that time. Therefore "masses" is misleading and likely confusing to a non-expert reader. Another acceptable alternative would be "mass-energy". BuzzBloom (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

As you have been told (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-can-a-particle-be-a-combination-of-other-particles.834311/page-2#post-5277517), your understanding of this subject is incorrect. The original text was correct and I have reverted this change. Blennow (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Notability of "Ultra Unification" subsection?

The section seems to be a summary of a single published paper. At a quick glance, it's not highly cited. I also saw there is no Template:Notability_section, the page says notability only applies to articles. How do I request an expert to review notability of the section? Anyone can propose a theory that goes beyond GUT, but does that merit inclusion of its summary into a subsection? ACaseOfWednesdays (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The section appears to have been written by the author of the original paper, as a way to publicize his own work. The theory is rather vague and does not make concrete measurable predictions. As such, it has not been accepted as something useful or even meaningful by the physics community, and it definitely does not deserve a section on Wikipedia. 147.96.60.49 (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)