#### Schmelzer

**Valued Senior Member**

As far as it says so, it is nonsense.Seems not very correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything . This wiki article essentially says that Quantum Gravity(QG) is TOE.

It is not even a theory. No definition of the objects of the theory, no equations of motion for these objects, nothing.Why? Why you think so?

It limits the accuracy of the predictions of QT. Which is what matters. I do not plan to play endless word games.That's not an accuracy, that's the Heisenberg uncertainty.

Learn to read.You say "no", but then go on to prove my point?

So what? Classical theory says there is, and gives exact equations, which allow exact predictions given exact initial values. That in a particular interpretation of a particular theory (QT) trajectories do not exist does not make them non-existent. In realistic interpretations of QT they exist.Except that apparently you don't understand what the Heisenberg uncertainty is. There is no "exact knowledge of the position and the momentum".

There are no missing things in classical theory, the things are the same (configurations). In this sense, your "aspects" was more accurate, it made at least clear that you are talking about something diffuse, and undefined.How can a theory that is missing things have more information?

No. In the limit, the inaccuracy of quantum theory is simply small enough to be ignored.Better yet: in the classical limit, quantum theories will reduce to the classical theories. So, quantum theories must at least contain as much information as classical theories.

We are not talking mathematics here. Please stop generalizing specific mathematical terminology to general scientific terminology.

The language of physics is essentially mathematics. The principle I have explained you is nothing specific, but a very general strategy - no exceptions for the trivial cases - which every rational physicist uses too.

Not ok, learn to read.So you admit that your statements were baseless assertions with no evidence to back them up? OK.

What oops? Nobody has claimed here that the classical SM has anything to do with observable reality.Turns out that's kinda not how things work: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/67937 "..., so the classical theory of muons is a theory with no muons in it." Oops?

Wrong. There will be a myon field, with field equations, and solutions of them. Of course, the energy levels are not discrete, so you have no "particles" in classical field theory. But classical EM theory also does not go away because you have no photons in it.Except you've removed everything to do with muons.

Learn what a strawman is. This is certainly not a strawman because there is not even an intention to present this as if this would be really your point of view. It is simply an intentional exaggeration into the absurd of the weak points of what you do, namely to use vaguely defined notions like "aspects" or "quantum effects" without specifying them.Why do you keep bringing those up? I am not talking about these; stop building straw-men.

Fine, so you have no longer written this, and can forget about it:Why are you talking about "aspects of QFT"? I am not talking about that.

Show me (or link me to) any classical field theory that explains at least all aspects of the Standard Model of particle physics that QFT does.

So a TOE is not a TOE if it is false. This would be the consequence of this. And this would be nonsensical. With Newtonian gravity no longer being a theory of gravity (given that it is false in the relativistic domain).But green gremlins (quantum effects) do exist, so they do need to be encompassed. That's been my entire point all this time. A theory is not a TOE if it does not encompass quantum effects.