[Joel_Mckay]

The Physics models tend to shake out of some fairly logical math assumptions, and can trivially be shown how they are related.

"How Physicists Approximate (Almost) Anything" (Physics Explained)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGUMC19IISY

If you are citing some crank with another theory of everything, than that dude had better prove it solves the thousands of problems traditional approaches already predict with 5 sigma precision. =3

[kitd]

> The pattern was first discovered in nature in the 1950s in the energy spectrum of the uranium nucleus, a behemoth with hundreds of moving parts that quivers and stretches in infinitely many ways, producing an endless sequence of energy levels. In 1972, the number theorist Hugh Montgomery observed it in the zeros of the Riemann zeta function(opens a new tab), a mathematical object closely related to the distribution of prime numbers. In 2000, Krbálek and Šeba reported it in the Cuernavaca bus system(opens a new tab). And in recent years it has shown up in spectral measurements of composite materials, such as sea ice and human bones, and in signal dynamics of the Erdös–Rényi model(opens a new tab), a simplified version of the Internet named for Paul Erdös and Alfréd Rényi.

Are they also cranks? Seems it at least warrants investigation.

[Joel_Mckay]

>Are they also cranks?

That is a better question. =3

[topaz0]

This isn't crank stuff, and operates on different kinds of problems/scales than "grand unified theory" type cranks. This is about emergent statistical order in complex interacting systems of sufficient size, not about the behaviors of the individual particles or whatever.

[topaz0]

Universality broadly construed is well understood since the 70s. Particular universality classes are newer and will likely continue to be discovered, but they all come to be in a qualitatively similar way.

[topaz0]

If anyone has genuine interest, this review from shortly after the clarifying development of renormalization group theory might be a nice place to start: https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.46....

[seanhunter]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you posted this accidentally on the wrong thread somehow, but this isn't (at all) a theory of everything, nor is it some crank producing anything.

Eg https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.0510

See the authors- in terms of contemporary mathematics they are pretty much as far from a crank as it's possible to be. Universality seems to be some sort of intrinsic characteristic of the distribution of eigenvalues of certain types of random matrices which crop up all over the place. That seems interesting and the work is serious academic work (as you can see from the paper I linked) and absolutely doesn't deserve the sort of shallow dismissal you have applied.

[nkrisc]

What does “5 sigma precision equals 3” mean?

[magicalhippo]

=3 is a cat face[1] smiley, the period preceding it ends the sentence.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_emoticons