# These terms are so foreign to me that they feel like unnecessary jargon; what do these terms mean, and are they relatively common?

No pun intended in the title. ;)

I am having trouble understanding this sentence on Wikipedia's page for Unified Field Theory:

Governed by a global event $$\lambda$$ under the universal topology, an operational environment is initiated by the scalar fields $$\phi(\lambda) \in \{\phi ^+(\hat{x}, \lambda), \phi ^-(\hat{x}, \lambda)\}$$ of a rank-$$0$$ tensor, a differentiable function of a complex variable in its domain at its zero derivative, where a scalar function $$\phi ^+(\hat{x}, \lambda) \subset Y^+$$ or $$\phi ^-(\hat{x}, \lambda) \subset Y^-$$ is characterized as a single magnitude with variable components of the respective coordinate sets $$\hat{x}\{x^0, x^1, ...\}$$ or $$\hat{x}\{x_1, x_2, x_3\}$$

I've taken a graduate level GR class, so there are certain mathematical terms that I understand—but a few other terms seem absent from the internet outside of this article. From what I've found, the definition of terms often-used in a particular field (independent of how esoteric they may be) are available on the internet somewhere.

The terms I'm having trouble defining are:

1. global event (I know what an event is, but what is a global event?)
2. the universal topology
3. operational environment

I know that this is mathematics/physics above me, but the difficulty I'm having finding these terms is surprising. What is their definition and are they commonly used terms?

(I also posted this on the Mathematics Stack Exchange, but thought, depending on what these terms mean, it might be more appropriate for the Physics one.)

• That section of the wikipedia article looks like a joke to me. – anonymous Jan 17 '19 at 1:34
• I'm not saying that it's wrong, as I also don't understand many of those terms, but it looks out of place for an introduction. Also, there seems to be a lot of back an forth in the edit history of that article, and people adding descriptions that seem pretty weird. – anonymous Jan 17 '19 at 1:45
• I see that someone has already inquired today about this section on the article's talk page. FWIW, it's always a good idea to check the edit history and talk page of any Wikipedia article to get some idea if there is some questionable editing going on. Articles that have few if any active editors watching can sometimes have nonsense posted for quite some time before being reverted. – Alfred Centauri Jan 17 '19 at 1:52
• To expand a bit, the contributions to the article done by the user 74.113.204.1, which constitute several parts of the article, seem to contain a lot of gibberish. For example, in the first paragraph of the article, that user added the sentences (in a March 28th, 2018 edit):According to the modern discoveries in physics, forces are not transmitted directly between interacting objects, but instead are described and interrupted by intermediary entities called fields... – anonymous Jan 17 '19 at 1:52
• ...More precisely, each object possesses a pair of the natural or dark fields, which requires or results in the dual manifolds of Spacetime topology. Therefore, an interruption between two objects involves two pairs of the fields, which constitute the oneness real life steaming and are cross-entangling simultaneously and reciprocally. – anonymous Jan 17 '19 at 1:52

## 2 Answers

That section of the wikipedia page first appeared in a 2017 paper from vixra. It's the jargon of one person's private theory of everything, and not something you would see in a textbook.

• I've added a {{Disputed-section}} tag for that section and referenced this answer. We'll see what, if anything, happens there. – Alfred Centauri Jan 17 '19 at 3:38

global and local are terms that used within mathematical discourse with an expected sense that comes with practical usage of these terms; but in the example you're pointing out here, there seems to be no sense to the use of global event and nor have I come across this term before.

There are only two universal topologies, the discrete and indiscrete topologies; they are theoretically useful, but not at all practical, and I do not think that this is what is being indicated here.

As with any unrefereed article, one takes ones chances; and even more so when one is an amateur, as then you don't have the mathematical or physical maturity to distinguish between jargon laden dross and proper scientific prose; and then proper scientific prose which is carefully saying nothing new, and that which is carefully saying something new; you might be better advised to look within one of the standard GR texts; for example, those by Wald, Wheeler and others.