[WikiEN-l] It's not a good Unified Field Theory unless...

[K P]

On 6/30/07, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene at vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
> K P schreef:
> > On 6/30/07, Earle Martin <wikipedia at downlode.org> wrote:
> > > ...it cites us as explanatory references:
> > >
> > > http://www.nmtuft.com/
> > >
> > > Our physics articles are obviously of citable quality now.
> > >
> > Wow, that's a new high for Wikipedia, sorta, and a new low for
> > particle physics, my apologies to all particle physicists on list for
> > not alluding to infinite boundaries and all the rest.
>
> 1) That is not particle physics. It is theoretical quantum field theory.
> Completely different subject, and hard to see why you would confuse
> those two.
>
>
> On behalf of all particle physicists on the list,
> Eugene
>
It may be hard to see how I would, but the article on "Unified Field
Theories" does, and it's hard to read any further once they do.  And
how could I resist lobbing such a pretty one to any particle
physicists out there?

Wikipedia covers theoretical physics fairly well, and applications of
particle physics, too.  But falls down on a lot of the related math,
not being able to explain the math, simply showing the math, and on
technological applications of physics in areas outside of particle
physics.

On behalf of those who wouldn't know a Unified Field Theory if one
fell out of an apple tree onto their head,

KP