The theory of everything

• v • t • e A theory of everything ( TOE [1] or TOE/ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, unified field theory or master theory is a hypothetical, singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe. [2] : 6 Finding a theory of everything is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.

[3] String theory and M-theory have been proposed as theories of everything. Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that together, most closely resemble a theory of everything. These two theories upon which all modern the theory of everything rests are general relativity and quantum mechanics.

General relativity is a theoretical framework that only focuses on gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large scale and high mass: planets, stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies etc.

On the other hand, quantum mechanics is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both very small scale and low mass: subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. Quantum mechanics successfully implemented the Standard Model that describes the three non-gravitational forces: strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic force – as well as all observed elementary particles.

[4] : 122 General relativity and quantum mechanics have been repeatedly validated in their separate fields of relevance. Since the usual domains of applicability of general relativity and quantum mechanics are so different, most situations require that only one of the two theories be used. [5] [6] : 842–844 The two theories are considered incompatible in regions of extremely small scale – the Planck scale – such as those that exist within a black hole or during the beginning stages of the universe (i.e., the moment immediately following the Big Bang).

To resolve the incompatibility, a theoretical framework revealing a deeper underlying reality, unifying gravity with the other three interactions, must be discovered to harmoniously integrate the realms of general relativity and quantum mechanics into a seamless whole: the theory of everything is a single theory that, in principle, is capable of describing all physical phenomena in this universe.

In pursuit of this goal, quantum gravity has become one area of active research. One example is string theory, which evolved into a candidate for the theory of the theory of everything, but not without drawbacks (most notably, its apparent lack of currently testable predictions) and controversy. String theory posits that at the beginning of the universe (up to 10 −43 seconds after the Big Bang), the four fundamental forces were once a single fundamental force.

According to string theory, every particle in the universe, at its most ultramicroscopic level ( Planck length), consists of varying combinations of vibrating strings (or strands) with preferred patterns of vibration.

String theory further claims that it is through these specific oscillatory patterns of strings that a particle of unique mass and force charge is created (that is to say, the electron is a type of string that vibrates one way, while the up quark is a type of string vibrating another way, and so forth). String theory/M-theory proposes an additional 6 or 7 dimensions of hyperspace + the 4 common dimensions = 10D or 11D spacetime.

Contents • 1 Name • 2 Historical antecedents • 2.1 Antiquity to 19th century • 2.2 Early 20th century • 2.3 Late 20th century and the nuclear interactions • 3 Modern physics • 3.1 Conventional sequence of theories • 3.2 String theory and M-theory • 3.3 Loop quantum gravity • 3.4 Other attempts • 3.5 Present status • 4 Arguments against • 4.1 Gödel's incompleteness theorem • 4.2 Fundamental limits in accuracy • 4.3 Lack of fundamental laws • 4.4 Impossibility of being "of everything" • 4.5 Infinite number of onion layers • 4.6 Impossibility of calculation • 5 See also • 6 References • 6.1 Bibliography • 7 External links Name [ edit ] Initially, the term theory of everything was used with an ironic reference to various overgeneralized theories.

For example, a grandfather of Ijon Tichy – a character from a cycle of Stanisław Lem's science fiction stories of the 1960s – was known to work on the " General Theory of Everything". Physicist Harald Fritzsch used the term in his 1977 lectures in Varenna. [7] Physicist John Ellis claims [8] to have introduced the acronym "TOE" into the technical literature in an article in Nature in 1986.

[9] Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of theoretical physics research. Historical antecedents [ edit ] Antiquity to 19th century [ edit ] Many ancient cultures such as Babylonian astronomers, Indian astronomy studied the pattern of the Seven Sacred Luminaires/ Classical Planets against the background of stars, with their interest being to relate celestial movement to human events ( astrology), and the goal being to predict events by recording events against a time measure and then look for recurrent patterns.

The debate between the universe having either a beginning or eternal cycles can be traced back to ancient Babylonia. [10] Hindu cosmology posits that time is infinite with a cyclic universe, where the current universe was preceded and will be followed by an infinite number of universes.

[11] [12] Time scales mentioned in Hindu cosmology correspond to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long.

[13] The natural philosophy of atomism appeared in several ancient traditions. In ancient Greek philosophy, the pre-Socratic philosophers speculated that the apparent diversity of observed phenomena was the theory of everything to a single type of interaction, namely the motions and collisions of atoms.

The concept of 'atom' proposed by Democritus was an early philosophical attempt to unify phenomena observed in nature. The concept of 'atom' also appeared in the Nyaya- Vaisheshika school of ancient Indian philosophy. Archimedes was possibly the first philosopher to have described nature with axioms (or principles) and then deduce new results from them.

Any "theory of everything" is similarly expected to be based on axioms and to the theory of everything all observable the theory of everything from them. [14] : 340 Following earlier atomistic thought, the mechanical philosophy of the 17th century posited that all forces could be ultimately reduced to contact forces between the the theory of everything, then imagined as tiny solid particles.

[15] : 184 [16] In the late 17th century, Isaac Newton's description of the long-distance force of gravity implied that not all forces in nature result from things coming into contact. Newton's work in his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy dealt with this in a further example of unification, in this case unifying Galileo's work on terrestrial gravity, Kepler's laws of planetary motion and the phenomenon of tides by explaining these apparent actions at a distance under one single law: the law of universal gravitation.

[17] In 1814, building on these results, Laplace famously suggested that a sufficiently powerful intellect could, if it knew the position and velocity of every particle at a given time, along with the laws of nature, calculate the position of any particle at any other time: [18] : ch 7 An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

— Essai philosophique sur les probabilités, Introduction. 1814 Laplace thus envisaged a combination of gravitation and mechanics as a theory of everything.

Modern quantum mechanics implies that uncertainty is inescapable, and thus that Laplace's vision has to be amended: a theory of everything must include gravitation and quantum mechanics. Even ignoring quantum mechanics, chaos theory is sufficient to guarantee that the future of any sufficiently complex mechanical or astronomical system is unpredictable. In 1820, Hans Christian Ørsted discovered a connection between electricity and magnetism, triggering decades of work that culminated in 1865, in James Clerk Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism.

During the 19th and early 20th centuries, it gradually became apparent that many common examples of forces – contact forces, elasticity, viscosity, friction, and pressure – result from electrical interactions between the smallest particles of matter. In his experiments of 1849–50, Michael Faraday was the first to search for a unification of gravity with electricity and magnetism.

[19] However, he found no connection. In 1900, David Hilbert published a famous list of mathematical problems. In Hilbert's sixth problem, he challenged researchers to find an axiomatic basis to all of physics. In this problem he thus asked for what today would be the theory of everything a theory of everything.

[20] Early 20th century [ edit ] In the late 1920s, the new quantum mechanics showed that the chemical bonds between atoms were examples of (quantum) electrical forces, justifying Dirac's boast that "the underlying physical laws necessary for the mathematical theory of a large part of physics and the whole of chemistry are thus completely known". [21] After 1915, when Albert Einstein published the theory of gravity ( general relativity), the search for a unified field theory combining gravity with electromagnetism began with a renewed interest.

In Einstein's the theory of everything, the strong and the weak forces had not yet been discovered, yet he found the potential existence of two other distinct forces, gravity and electromagnetism, far more alluring. This launched his 40-year voyage in search of the so-called "unified field theory" that he hoped would show that these two forces are really manifestations of one grand, underlying principle. During the last few decades of his life, this ambition alienated Einstein from the rest of mainstream of physics, as the mainstream was instead far more excited about the emerging framework of quantum mechanics.

Einstein wrote to a friend in the early 1940s, "I have become a lonely old chap who is mainly known because he doesn't wear socks and who the theory of everything exhibited as a curiosity on special occasions." Prominent contributors were Gunnar Nordström, Hermann Weyl, Arthur Eddington, David Hilbert, [22] Theodor Kaluza, Oskar Klein (see Kaluza–Klein theory), and most notably, Albert Einstein and his collaborators. Einstein searched in earnest for, but ultimately failed to find, a unifying theory [23] : ch 17 (see Einstein–Maxwell–Dirac equations).

Late 20th century and the nuclear interactions [ edit ] In the 20th century, the search for a unifying theory was interrupted by the discovery of the strong and weak nuclear forces, which differ both from gravity and from electromagnetism. A further hurdle was the acceptance that in a theory of everything, quantum mechanics had to be incorporated from the outset, rather than emerging as a consequence of a deterministic unified theory, as Einstein had hoped. Gravity and electromagnetism are able to coexist as entries in a list of classical forces, but for many years it seemed that gravity could not be incorporated into the quantum framework, let alone unified with the other fundamental forces.

For this reason, work on unification, for much of the 20th century, focused on understanding the three forces described by quantum mechanics: electromagnetism and the weak and strong forces. The first two were combined in 1967–68 by Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg, and Abdus Salam into the electroweak force.

[24] Electroweak unification is a broken symmetry: the electromagnetic and weak forces appear distinct at low energies because the particles carrying the weak force, the W and Z bosons, have non-zero masses ( 80.4 GeV/ c 2 and 91.2 GeV/ c 2, respectively), whereas the photon, which carries the electromagnetic force, is massless. At higher energies W bosons and Z bosons can be created easily and the unified nature of the force becomes apparent.

While the strong and electroweak forces coexist under the Standard Model of particle physics, they remain distinct. Thus, the pursuit of a theory of everything remained unsuccessful: neither a unification of the strong and electroweak forces – which Laplace would have called 'contact forces' – nor a unification of these forces with gravitation had been achieved.

Modern physics [ the theory of everything ] Conventional sequence of theories [ edit ] A theory of everything would unify all the theory of everything fundamental interactions of nature: gravitation, the strong interaction, the weak interaction, and electromagnetism. Because the weak interaction can transform elementary particles from one kind into another, the theory of everything should also predict all the various different kinds of particles possible.

The usual assumed path of theories is given in the following graph, where each unification step leads one level up on the graph. Theory of everything Quantum gravity Space Curvature Electronuclear force ( Grand Unified Theory) Standard model of cosmology Standard model of particle physics Strong interaction SU(3) Electroweak interaction SU(2) x U(1) Y Weak interaction SU(2) Electromagnetism U(1) EM Electricity Magnetism In this graph, electroweak unification occurs at around 100 GeV, grand unification is predicted to occur at 10 16 GeV, and unification of the GUT force with gravity is expected at the Planck energy, roughly 10 19 GeV.

Several Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) have been proposed to unify electromagnetism and the weak and strong forces.

Grand unification would imply the existence of an electronuclear force; it is expected to set in at energies of the order of 10 16 GeV, far greater than could be reached by any currently feasible particle accelerator. Although the simplest grand unified theories have been experimentally ruled out, the idea of a grand unified theory, especially when linked with supersymmetry, remains a favorite candidate in the theoretical physics community.

Supersymmetric grand unified theories seem plausible not only for their theoretical "beauty", but because they naturally produce large quantities the theory of everything dark matter, and because the inflationary force may be related to grand unified theory physics (although it does not seem to form an inevitable part of the theory).

Yet grand unified theories are clearly not the final answer; both the current standard model and all proposed GUTs are quantum field theories which require the problematic technique of renormalization to yield sensible answers.

This is usually regarded as a sign that these are only effective field theories, omitting crucial phenomena relevant only at very high energies. [5] The final step in the graph requires resolving the separation between quantum mechanics and gravitation, often equated with general relativity. Numerous researchers concentrate their efforts on this specific step; nevertheless, no accepted theory of quantum gravity, and thus no accepted theory of everything, has emerged with observational evidence.

It is usually assumed that the theory of everything will also solve the remaining problems of grand unified theories. In addition to explaining the forces listed in the graph, a theory of everything may also explain the status of at least two candidate forces suggested by modern cosmology: an inflationary force and dark energy.

Furthermore, cosmological experiments also suggest the existence of dark matter, supposedly composed of fundamental particles outside the scheme of the standard model. However, the existence of these forces and particles has not been proven.

String theory and M-theory [ edit ] (more unsolved problems in physics) Since the 1990s, some physicists such as Edward Witten believe that 11-dimensional M-theory - 7D hyperspace + common 4D - which is described in some limits by one of the five perturbative superstring theories, and in another by the maximally- supersymmetric 11D supergravity, is the theory of everything.

There is no widespread consensus on this issue. One remarkable property of string/ M-theory is that extra dimensions are required for the theory's consistency. In this regard, string theory can be seen as building on the insights of the Kaluza–Klein theory, in which it was realized that applying general relativity to a 5-dimensional universe (with one of them small and curled up) [ clarification needed] looks from the 4-dimensional perspective like the usual general relativity together with Maxwell's electrodynamics.

This lent credence to the idea of unifying gauge and gravity interactions, and to extra dimensions, but did not address the detailed experimental requirements. Another important property of string theory is its supersymmetry, which together the theory of everything extra dimensions are the two main proposals for resolving the hierarchy problem of the standard model, which is (roughly) the question of why gravity is so much weaker than any other force.

The extra-dimensional solution involves allowing gravity to propagate into the other dimensions while keeping other forces confined to a 4D spacetime, an idea that has been realized with explicit stringy mechanisms. [25] Research into string theory has been encouraged by a variety of theoretical and experimental factors. On the experimental side, the particle content of the standard model supplemented with neutrino masses fits into a spinor representation of SO(10), a subgroup of E8 that routinely emerges in string theory, such as in heterotic string theory [26] or (sometimes equivalently) in F-theory.

[27] [28] String theory has mechanisms that may explain why fermions come in three hierarchical generations, and explain the mixing rates between quark generations. [29] On the theoretical side, it has begun to address some of the key questions in quantum gravity, such as resolving the black hole information paradox, counting the correct entropy of black holes [30] [31] and allowing for topology-changing processes.

[32] [33] [34] It has also led to many insights in pure mathematics and in ordinary, strongly-coupled gauge theory due to the Gauge/String duality. In the late 1990s, it was noted that one major hurdle in this endeavor is that the number of possible 4D universes is incredibly large.

The small, "curled up" extra dimensions can be compactified in an enormous number of different ways (one estimate is 10 500 ) each of which leads to different properties for the low-energy particles and forces. This array of models is known as the string theory landscape. [14] : 347 One proposed solution is that many or all of these possibilities are realized in one or another of a huge number of universes, but that only a small number of them are habitable.

Hence what we normally conceive as the fundamental constants of the universe are ultimately the result of the anthropic principle rather than dictated by theory. This has led to criticism of string theory, [35] arguing that it cannot make useful (i.e., original, falsifiable, and verifiable) predictions and regarding it as a pseudoscience/ philosophy. Others disagree, [36] and string theory remains an active topic of investigation in theoretical physics.

[37] Loop quantum gravity [ edit ] Current research on loop quantum gravity may eventually play a fundamental role in a theory of everything, but that is not its primary aim. [38] Loop quantum gravity also introduces a lower bound on the possible length scales. There have been recent claims that loop quantum gravity may be able to reproduce features resembling the Standard Model.

So far only the first generation of fermions ( leptons and quarks) with correct parity properties have been modelled by Sundance Bilson-Thompson using preons constituted of braids of spacetime as the building blocks. [39] However, there is no derivation of the Lagrangian that would describe the interactions of such particles, nor is it possible to show that such particles are fermions, nor that the gauge groups or interactions of the Standard Model are realised.

Utilization of quantum computing concepts made it possible to demonstrate that the particles are able to survive quantum fluctuations. [40] This model leads to an interpretation of electric and color charge as topological quantities (electric as number and chirality of twists carried on the individual ribbons and colour as variants of such twisting for fixed electric charge).

Bilson-Thompson's original paper suggested that the higher-generation fermions could be represented by more complicated braidings, although explicit constructions of these structures were not given. The electric charge, color, and parity properties of such fermions would arise in the same way as for the first generation.

The model was expressly generalized for an infinite number of generations and for the weak force bosons (but not for photons or gluons) in a 2008 paper by Bilson-Thompson, Hackett, Kauffman and Smolin. [41] The theory of everything attempts [ edit ] Among other attempts to develop a theory of the theory of everything is the theory of causal fermion systems, [42] giving the two current physical theories ( general relativity and quantum field theory) as limiting cases.

Another theory is called Causal Sets. As some of the approaches mentioned above, its direct goal isn't necessarily to achieve a theory of everything but primarily a working theory of quantum gravity, which might eventually include the standard model and become a candidate for a theory of everything. Its founding principle is that spacetime is fundamentally discrete and that the spacetime events are related by a partial order. This partial order has the physical meaning of the causality relations between relative past and future distinguishing spacetime events.

Causal dynamical triangulation does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

Another attempt may be related to ER=EPR, a conjecture in physics stating that entangled particles are connected by a wormhole (or Einstein–Rosen bridge). [43] Present status [ edit ] At present, there is no candidate theory of everything that includes the standard model of particle physics and general relativity and that, at the same time, is able to calculate the fine-structure constant or the mass of the electron.

[3] Most particle physicists expect the theory of everything the outcome of ongoing experiments – the search for new particles at the large particle accelerators and for dark matter – are needed in order to provide further input for a theory of everything.

Arguments against [ edit ] In parallel to the intense search for a theory of everything, various scholars have seriously debated the possibility of its discovery. Gödel's incompleteness theorem [ edit ] A number of scholars claim that Gödel's incompleteness theorem suggests that any attempt to construct a theory of everything is bound to fail.

Gödel's theorem, informally stated, asserts that the theory of everything formal theory sufficient to express elementary arithmetical facts and strong enough for them to be proved is either inconsistent (both a statement and its denial can be derived from its axioms) or incomplete, in the sense that there is a true statement that can't be derived in the formal theory.

Stanley Jaki, in his 1966 book The Relevance of Physics, pointed out that, because any "theory of everything" will certainly be a consistent non-trivial mathematical theory, it must be incomplete. He claims that this dooms searches for a deterministic theory of everything. [44] Freeman Dyson has stated that "Gödel's theorem implies that pure mathematics is inexhaustible. No matter how many problems we solve, there will always be other problems that cannot be solved within the existing rules.

[…] Because of Gödel's theorem, physics is inexhaustible too. The laws of physics are a finite set of rules, and include the rules for doing mathematics, so that Gödel's theorem applies to them." [45] Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything, but after considering Gödel's Theorem, he concluded that one was not the theory of everything.

"Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind." [46] Jürgen Schmidhuber (1997) has argued against this view; he asserts that Gödel's theorems are irrelevant for computable physics.

[47] In 2000, Schmidhuber explicitly constructed limit-computable, deterministic universes whose pseudo-randomness based on undecidable, Gödel-like halting problems is extremely hard to the theory of everything but does not at all prevent formal theorys of everything describable by very few bits of information.

[48] Related critique was offered by Solomon Feferman [49] and others. Douglas S. Robertson offers Conway's game of life as an example: [50] The underlying rules are simple and complete, but there are formally undecidable questions about the game's behaviors. Analogously, it may (or may not) be possible to completely state the underlying rules of physics with a finite number of well-defined laws, but there is little doubt that there are questions about the behavior of physical systems the theory of everything are formally undecidable on the basis of those underlying laws.

Since most physicists would consider the statement of the underlying rules to suffice as the definition of a "theory of everything", most physicists argue that Gödel's Theorem does not mean that a theory of everything cannot exist. [ citation needed] On the other hand, the scholars invoking Gödel's Theorem appear, at least in some cases, to be referring not to the underlying rules, but to the understandability of the behavior of all physical systems, as when Hawking mentions arranging blocks into rectangles, turning the computation of prime numbers into a physical question.

[51] This definitional discrepancy may explain some of the disagreement among researchers. Fundamental limits in accuracy [ edit ] No physical theory to date is believed to be precisely accurate. Instead, physics has proceeded by a series of "successive approximations" allowing more and more accurate predictions over a wider and wider range of phenomena.

Some physicists believe that it is therefore a mistake to confuse theoretical models the theory of everything the true nature of reality, and hold that the series of approximations will never terminate in the "truth". Einstein himself expressed this view on occasions. [52] Following this view, we may reasonably hope for a theory of everything which self-consistently incorporates all currently known forces, but we should not expect it to be the final answer.

On the other hand, it is often claimed that, despite the apparently ever-increasing complexity of the mathematics of each new theory, in a deep sense associated with their underlying gauge symmetry and the number of dimensionless physical constants, the theory of everything theories are becoming simpler.

If this is the case, the process of simplification cannot continue indefinitely. Lack of fundamental laws [ edit ] There is a philosophical debate within the physics community as to whether a theory of everything deserves to be called the fundamental law of the universe. [53] One view is the hard reductionist position that the theory of everything is the fundamental law and that all other theories that apply within the universe are a consequence of the theory of everything.

Another view is that emergent laws, which govern the behavior of complex systems, should be seen as equally fundamental. Examples of emergent laws are the second law of thermodynamics and the theory of natural selection. The advocates of emergence argue that emergent laws, especially those describing complex or living systems are independent of the low-level, microscopic laws.

In this view, emergent laws are as fundamental as a theory of everything. The debates do not make the point at issue clear. Possibly the only issue at stake is the right to apply the high-status term "fundamental" to the respective subjects of research. A well-known debate over this took place between Steven Weinberg and Philip Anderson. [54] Impossibility of being "of everything" [ edit ] This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources.

Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Theory of everything" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR ( March 2021) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message) Although the name "theory of everything" suggests the determinism of Laplace's quotation, this gives a very misleading impression. Determinism is frustrated by the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical predictions, by the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that leads to mathematical chaos, by the limitations due to event horizons, and by the extreme mathematical difficulty of applying the theory.

Thus, although the current standard model of particle physics "in principle" predicts almost all known non-gravitational phenomena, in practice only a few quantitative results have been derived from the full theory (e.g., the masses of some of the simplest hadrons), and these results (especially the particle masses which are most relevant for low-energy physics) are less accurate than existing experimental measurements. Even in classical mechanics there are still unsolved problems, such as turbulence, although the equations have been known for centuries.

The theory of everything would almost certainly be even harder to apply for the prediction of experimental results, and thus might be of limited use. A motive for seeking a theory of everything, [ citation needed] apart from the pure intellectual satisfaction of completing a centuries-long quest, is that prior examples of unification have predicted new phenomena, some of which (e.g., electrical generators) have proved of great practical importance.

And like in these prior examples of unification, the theory of everything would probably allow us to confidently define the domain of validity and residual error of low-energy approximations to the full theory. The theories generally do not account for the phenomena of consciousness or free will, which are instead often the subject of philosophy and religion.

Infinite number of onion layers [ edit ] Frank Close regularly argues that the layers of nature may be like the layers of an onion, and that the number of layers might be infinite. [55] This would imply an infinite sequence of physical theories. Impossibility of calculation [ edit ] Weinberg [56] points out that calculating the precise motion of an actual projectile in the Earth's atmosphere is impossible.

So how can we know we have an adequate theory for describing the motion of projectiles? Weinberg suggests that we know principles (Newton's laws of motion and gravitation) that work "well enough" for simple examples, like the motion of planets in empty space.

These principles have worked so well on simple examples that we can be reasonably confident they will work for more complex examples. For example, although general relativity includes equations that do not have exact solutions, it is widely accepted as a valid theory because all of its equations with exact solutions have been experimentally verified.

Likewise, a theory of everything must work for a wide range of simple examples in such a way that we can be reasonably confident it will work for every situation in physics.

See also [ edit ] • Absolute (philosophy) • Argument from beauty • Attractor • Beyond black holes • Beyond the standard model • cGh physics • Chronology of the universe • ER=EPR • Holographic principle • Mathematical beauty • Mathematical universe hypothesis • Multiverse • Penrose interpretation • Standard Model (mathematical formulation) • Superfluid vacuum theory (SVT) • The Theory the theory of everything Everything (2014 film) • Timeline of the Big Bang • Zero-energy universe References [ edit ] • ^ Fran De Aquino (1999).

"Theory of Everything". arXiv: gr-qc/9910036. • ^ Steven Weinberg (2011-04-20). Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist's Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-307-78786-6.

• ^ a b Overbye, Dennis (23 November 2020). "Can a Computer Devise a Theory of Everything? - It might be possible, physicists say, but not anytime soon. And there's no guarantee that we humans will understand the result".

The New York Times. Retrieved 23 November 2020. • ^ Stephen W. Hawking (28 February 2006). The Theory of The theory of everything The Origin and Fate of the Universe. Phoenix Books; Special Anniv. ISBN 978-1-59777-508-3. • ^ a b Carlip, Steven (2001). "Quantum Gravity: a Progress Report".

Reports on Progress in Physics. 64 (8): 885–942. arXiv: gr-qc/0108040. Bibcode: 2001RPPh.64.885C. doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/64/8/301. S2CID 118923209. • ^ Susanna Hornig Priest (14 July 2010). Encyclopedia of Science and Technology Communication. SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-1-4522-6578-0. • ^ Fritzsch, Harald (1977). "THE WORLD OF FLAVOUR AND COLOUR". CERN Report. Ref.TH.2359-CERN. (download the theory of everything http://cds.cern.ch/record/875256/files/CM-P00061728.pdf ) • ^ Ellis, John (2002).

"Physics gets physical (correspondence)". Nature. 415 (6875): 957. Bibcode: 2002Natur.415.957E. doi: 10.1038/415957b. PMID 11875539. • ^ Ellis, John (1986).

"The Superstring: Theory of Everything, or of Nothing?". Nature. 323 (6089): 595–598. Bibcode: 1986Natur.323.595E. doi: 10.1038/323595a0. S2CID 4344940. • ^ Hodge, John C. (2012). Theory of Everything: Scalar Potential Model of the Big and the Small. pp. 1–13, 99. ISBN 9781469987361. • ^ Sushil Mittal, Gene Thursby (2012). Hindu World. Routledge. p. 284. ISBN 9781134608751. {{ cite book}}: CS1 maint: uses the theory of everything parameter ( link) • ^ Andrew Zimmerman Jones (2009). String Theory For Dummies.

John Wiley & Sons. p. 262. ISBN 9780470595848. • ^ Sagan, Carl. (2006). Cosmos. {{ cite book}}: CS1 maint: uses authors parameter ( link) • ^ a b Chris Impey (26 March 2012). How It Began: A Time-Traveler's Guide to the Universe. W. W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-08002-5. • ^ William E. Burns (1 January 2001). The Scientific Revolution: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-0-87436-875-8. • ^ Shapin, Steven (1996). The Scientific Revolution. University of Chicago Press.

ISBN 978-0-226-75021-7. • ^ Newton, Sir Isaac (1729). The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Vol. II. p. 255. • ^ Sean Carroll (2010). From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. Penguin Group US. ISBN 978-1-101-15215-7. • ^ Faraday, M. (1850). "Experimental Researches in Electricity. Twenty-Fourth Series. On the Possible Relation of Gravity to Electricity". Abstracts of the Papers Communicated to the Royal Society of London.

5: 994–995. doi: 10.1098/rspl.1843.0267. • ^ Gorban, Alexander N.; Karlin, Ilya (2013). "Hilbert's 6th Problem: Exact and approximate hydrodynamic manifolds for kinetic equations". Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society. 51 (2): 187. arXiv: 1310.0406. Bibcode: 2013arXiv1310.0406G. doi: 10.1090/S0273-0979-2013-01439-3. S2CID 7228220. • ^ Dirac, P.A.M. (1929). "Quantum mechanics of many-electron systems". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A. 123 (792): 714–733.

Bibcode: 1929RSPSA.123.714D. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1929.0094. • ^ Majer, U.; Sauer, T. (2005). Hilbert's "World Equations" and His Vision of a Unified Science. Einstein Studies. Vol. 11. pp. 259–276. arXiv: physics/0405110. Bibcode: 2005ugr.book.259M. doi: 10.1007/0-8176-4454-7_14. ISBN 978-0-8176-4454-3. S2CID 985751. • ^ Abraham Pais (23 September 1982). Subtle is the Lord : The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein: The Science and the Life of The theory of everything Einstein.

Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-152402-8. • ^ Weinberg (1993), Ch. 5 • ^ Holloway, M (2005). "The Beauty of Branes" (PDF). Scientific American. 293 (4): 38–40. Bibcode: 2005SciAm.293d.38H. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1005-38.

PMID 16196251. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 22, 2014. Retrieved August 13, 2012. • ^ Nilles, Hans Peter; Ramos-Sánchez, Saúl; Ratz, Michael; Vaudrevange, Patrick K. S. (2009). "From strings to the MSSM". The European Physical Journal C. 59 (2): 249–267. arXiv: 0806.3905. Bibcode: 2009EPJC.59.249N. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-008-0740-1. S2CID 17452924. • ^ Beasley, Chris; Heckman, Jonathan J; Vafa, Cumrun (2009). "GUTs and exceptional branes in F-theory — I". Journal of High Energy Physics.

2009 (1): 058. arXiv: 0802.3391. Bibcode: 2009JHEP.01.058B. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2009/01/058. S2CID 119309173. • ^ Donagi, Ron; Wijnholt, Martijn (2008). "Model Building with F-Theory". arXiv: 0802.2969v3 [ hep-th]. • ^ Heckman, Jonathan J.; Vafa, Cumrun (2010).

"Flavor Hierarchy from F-theory". Nuclear Physics B. 837 (1): 137–151. arXiv: 0811.2417. Bibcode: 2010NuPhB.837.137H. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.05.009. S2CID 119244083. • ^ Strominger, Andrew; Vafa, Cumrun (1996). "Microscopic origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy". Physics Letters B.

379 (1–4): 99–104. arXiv: hep-th/9601029. Bibcode: 1996PhLB.379.99S. doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(96)00345-0. S2CID 1041890. • ^ Horowitz, Gary. "The Origin of Black Hole Entropy in String Theory". arXiv: gr-qc/9604051.

• ^ Greene, Brian R.; Morrison, David R.; Strominger, Andrew (1995). "Black hole condensation and the unification of string vacua".

Nuclear Physics B. 451 (1–2): 109–120. arXiv: hep-th/9504145. Bibcode: 1995NuPhB.451.109G. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(95)00371-X. S2CID 11145691. • ^ Aspinwall, Paul S.; Greene, Brian R.; Morrison, David R.

(1994). "Calabi-Yau moduli space, mirror manifolds and spacetime topology change in string theory". Nuclear Physics B. 416 (2): 414. arXiv: hep-th/9309097.

Bibcode: 1994NuPhB.416.414A. doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(94)90321-2. S2CID 10927539. • the theory of everything Adams, Allan; Liu, Xiao; McGreevy, John; Saltman, Alex; Silverstein, Eva (2005). "Things fall apart: Topology change from winding tachyons". Journal of High Energy Physics. 2005 (10): 033. arXiv: hep-th/0502021.

Bibcode: 2005JHEP.10.033A. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2005/10/033. S2CID 14320855. • ^ Smolin, Lee (2006). The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the The theory of everything of a Science, and What Comes Next. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 978-0-618-55105-7. • ^ Duff, M. J. (2011). "String and M-Theory: Answering the Critics". Foundations of Physics. 43 (1): 182–200. arXiv: 1112.0788.

Bibcode: 2013FoPh.43.182D. doi: 10.1007/s10701-011-9618-4. S2CID 55066230. • ^ Chui, Glennda (May 1, 2007). "The Great String Debate". Symmetry Magazine. Retrieved 2018-10-17. • ^ Potter, Franklin (15 February 2005). "Leptons And Quarks In A Discrete Spacetime" (PDF). Frank Potter's Science Gems.

Retrieved 2009-12-01. • ^ Bilson-Thompson, Sundance O.; Markopoulou, Fotini; Smolin, Lee (2007). "Quantum gravity and the standard model". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 24 (16): 3975–3994. arXiv: hep-th/0603022. Bibcode: 2007CQGra.24.3975B. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/24/16/002. S2CID 37406474. • ^ Castelvecchi, Davide; Valerie Jamieson (August 12, 2006).

"You are made of space-time". New Scientist (2564). • ^ Sundance Bilson-Thompson; Jonathan Hackett; Lou Kauffman; Lee Smolin (2008). "Particle Identifications from Symmetries of Braided Ribbon Network Invariants".

arXiv: 0804.0037 [ hep-th]. • ^ F. Finster; J. Kleiner (2015). "Causal fermion systems as a candidate for a unified physical theory". Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 626 (2015): 012020. arXiv: 1502.03587. Bibcode: 2015JPhCS.626a2020F. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/626/1/012020. S2CID 33471826. • ^ Cowen, Ron (16 November 2015). "The quantum source of space-time". Nature. 527 (7578): 290–293. Bibcode: 2015Natur.527.290C.

doi: 10.1038/527290a. PMID 26581274. S2CID 4447880. • ^ Jaki, S.L. (1966). The Relevance of Physics. Chicago Press. pp. 127–130. • ^ Freeman Dyson, NYRB, May 13, 2004 • ^ Stephen Hawking, Gödel and the end of physics Archived 2020-05-29 at the Wayback Machine, July 20, 2002 • ^ Schmidhuber, Jürgen (1997). A Computer Scientist's View of Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 1337. Springer. pp. 201–208.

CiteSeerX 10.1.1.580.1970. doi: 10.1007/BFb0052071. ISBN 978-3-540-63746-2. S2CID 21317070. • ^ Schmidhuber, Jürgen (2002). "Hierarchies of generalized Kolmogorov complexities and nonenumerable universal measures computable in the limit". International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science.

13 (4): 587–612. arXiv: quant-ph/0011122. Bibcode: 2000quant.ph.11122S. doi: 10.1142/s0129054102001291. • ^ Feferman, Solomon (17 November 2006). "The nature and significance of Gödel's incompleteness theorems" (PDF).

Institute for Advanced Study. Retrieved 2009-01-12. • ^ Robertson, Douglas S. (2007). "Goedel's Theorem, the Theory of Everything, and the Future of Science and Mathematics". Complexity. 5 (5): 22–27. Bibcode: 2000Cmplx.5e.22R. doi: 10.1002/1099-0526(200005/06)5:5<22::AID-CPLX4>3.0.CO;2-0. • ^ Hawking, Stephen (20 July 2002).

"Gödel and the end of physics". Archived from the original on 2011-05-21. Retrieved 2009-12-01. • ^ Einstein, letter to Felix Klein, 1917. (On determinism and approximations.) Quoted in Pais (1982), Ch. 17. • ^ Weinberg (1993), Ch 2. • ^ Superstrings, P-branes and M-theory.

p. 7. • ^ results, search (17 December 2006). The New Cosmic Onion: Quarks and the Nature of the Universe. CRC Press. ISBN 978-1584887980. • ^ Weinberg (1993) p. 5 Bibliography [ edit ] • Pais, Abraham (1982) Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (Oxford University Press, Oxford, the theory of everything.

Ch. 17, ISBN 0-19-853907-X • Weinberg, Steven (1993) Dreams of a Final Theory: The Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature, Hutchinson Radius, London, ISBN 0-09-177395-4 • Corey S. Powell Relativity versus quantum mechanics: the battle for the universe, The Guardian (2015) https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/04/relativity-quantum-mechanics-universe-physicists External links [ edit ] Wikimedia Commons has media related to Theory of everything.

Wikiquote has quotations related to: Theory of everything • The Elegant Universe, Nova episode about the search for the theory of everything and string theory.

• Theory of Everything, freeview video by the Vega Science Trust, BBC and Open The theory of everything. • The Theory of Everything: Are we getting closer, or is a final theory of matter and the universe impossible? Debate between John Ellis (physicist), Frank Close and Nicholas Maxwell.

• Why The World Exists, a discussion between physicist Laura Mersini-Houghton, cosmologist George Francis Rayner Ellis and philosopher David Wallace about dark matter, parallel universes and explaining why these and the present Universe exist. • Theories of Everything, BBC Radio 4 discussion with Brian Greene, John Barrow & Val Gibson ( In Our Time, Mar.

25, 2004) • Einstein–Cartan • Bimetric theories • Gauge theory gravity • Teleparallelism • Composite gravity • f( R) gravity • Infinite derivative gravity • Massive gravity • Modified Newtonian dynamics, MOND • AQUAL • Tensor–vector–scalar • Nonsymmetric gravitation • Scalar–tensor theories • Brans–Dicke • Scalar–tensor–vector • Conformal gravity • Scalar theories • Nordström • Whitehead • Geometrodynamics • Induced gravity • Chameleon • Pressuron • Degenerate Higher-Order Scalar-Tensor theories Quantum-mechanical • Noncommutative the theory of everything • Semiclassical gravity • Superfluid vacuum theory • Logarithmic BEC vacuum • String theory • M-theory • F-theory • Heterotic string theory • Type I string theory • Type 0 string theory • Bosonic string theory • Type II string theory • Little string theory • Twistor theory • Twistor string theory Generalisations / extensions of GR • Academic • Attentional • Attitude polarization • Belief • Cognitive • list • Collective narcissism • Confirmation • Congruence • Cryptomnesia • Cultural • Ethnocentrism • Filter bubble • Homophily • In-group favoritism • Magical thinking • Media • Observational error • Observer-expectancy • Selective exposure • Selective perception • Self-deception • Self-fulfilling prophecy • Clever Hans effect • placebo effect • wishful thinking • Status quo • Stereotyping • ethnic Change and maintenance • Baháʼí • Buddhism • Caodaism • Cheondoism • Chinese folk religion • Christianity • Eastern Orthodox Church • Ethnic religions • Hinduism • Hòa Hảo • Islam • Jainism • Judaism • Korean shamanism • Modern Paganism • Rastafari • Secularity / Irreligion / Agnosticism / Atheism • Shinto • Sikhism • Spiritism • Taoism • Tenrikyo • Traditional African religions • Unitarian Universalism • Zoroastrianism Schools of philosophy Hidden categories: • CS1: long volume value • CS1 maint: uses authors parameter • Webarchive template wayback links • Articles with short description • Short description is different from Wikidata • Wikipedia articles needing clarification from March 2018 • All articles with unsourced statements • Articles with unsourced statements from August 2021 • Articles needing additional references from March 2021 • All articles needing additional references • Articles with unsourced statements from November 2010 • Commons category link from Wikidata • Articles with GND identifiers • Afrikaans • العربية • বাংলা • Беларуская • Беларуская (тарашкевіца) • Català • Чӑвашла • Čeština • Deutsch • Español • Euskara • فارسی • Français • Galego • 한국어 • हिन्दी • Bahasa Indonesia • Italiano • עברית • Magyar • Malti • Bahasa Melayu • Nederlands • 日本語 • Norsk bokmål • Norsk nynorsk • ਪੰਜਾਬੀ • Polski • Português • Română • Русский • Simple English • Slovenčina • Slovenščina • Српски / srpski • Suomi • Svenska • ไทย • Türkçe • Українська • Tiếng Việt • 粵語 • 中文 Edit links • This page was last edited on 18 April 2022, at 18:51 (UTC).

• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 ; additional the theory of everything may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. • Privacy policy • About Wikipedia • Disclaimers • Contact Wikipedia • Mobile view • Developers • Statistics • Cookie statement • • Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland (Republic of) Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden USA • • Order Tracking • My Account • Store Locator • Wishlist • Contact Us By entering your information above, you agree to receive emails about our latest collections exclusive offers, and more.

You can withdraw your consent at any time. Read our Privacy Policy. for more details. Offer Valid in the UK only. Not valid for existing email subscribers. Exclusions apply. Subscribe Promo T&Cs ESSENTIAL DUOS + TRIOS Choose 2 the same womenswear style, 3 of the same menswear style, in any size or colour to receive an additional discount.

Discount will be auto-applied at checkout. Offer valid in Theory retail stores and online at uk.theory.com in the UK only. Offer cannot be combined with any other promotional offer, redeemed for cash, or applied to previous purchases.

Offer terms are subject to change. REFER-A-FRIEND - 20% OFF Offer valid for 31 days from date of issue. Discount will be applied when your unique promotional code is entered at checkout. Offer cannot be combined with other promotional offers. Offer valid online at uk.theory.com in the UK only.

Offer cannot be combined with any other promotional offer, redeemed for cash, or applied to previous purchases. Offer terms are subject to change. EMAIL SIGN-UP - 15% OFF For new subscribers only. Offer valid for 31 days from date of issue. Discount will be applied when your unique promotional code is entered at checkout. Offer valid in Theory retail stores and online at uk.theory.com in the UK only.

Offer cannot be combined with any other promotional offer, redeemed for cash, or applied to previous purchases. Offer terms are subject to change. 1By checking this box, you consent to receive emails about Theory's latest collections, exclusive offers, and special events. You may revoke your consent at any time by clicking unsubscribe at the bottom of any email from us. By choosing 'Apply' below you accept the terms of our Privacy Policy Register
Each of these pillars of modern physics describes its respective area of inquiry — the very smallest and the most massive things in the cosmos — with astounding accuracy, but both quantum mechanics and relativity fail when applied to each other's subject matter.

So far, an overarching theory of everything has eluded scientists, and some believe the ultimate goal is unrealistic. Einstein's valiant effort Einstein began to search for a unifying theory in the 1920s, according to the American Physical Society (APS).

He had never fully accepted the strange paradoxes of quantum mechanics, and he believed that the mathematics describing electromagnetism and gravity, the only two forces known at the time, could be combined into a single framework.

"I want to know how God created this world," Einstein told a young physics student named Esther Salaman in 1925. "I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to the theory of everything His thoughts; the rest are just details." But Einstein's quest proved quixotic during his lifetime.

"Most of my intellectual offspring end up very young in the graveyard of disappointed hopes," he wrote in a letter in 1938. Yet he didn't give up, and while on his deathbed, he asked to have his latest notes on the theory of everything brought to him, according to the APS. Einstein believed that a theory of everything would explain "how God created this world." (Image credit: NASA) Potential candidates During the mid-20th century, physicists developed the Standard Model, which has been called the " theory of almost everything." It describes the interactions of all known the theory of everything particles and three of the four fundamental forces: electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces, but not gravity.

Related: Strange Quarks and Muons, Oh My! Nature's Tiniest Particles Dissected (Infographic) A model that also included gravity would be known as a quantum gravity theory. Some researchers believe that string theory is such a framework and fits the bill for a theory of everything. String theory posits that particles are actually one-dimensional, string-like entities vibrating in an 11-dimensional reality.

The vibrations determine the different particles' properties, such as their mass and charge. Or, maybe it doesn't exist But other scientists consider the idea of string theory an intellectual dead end. Peter Woit, a theoretical physicist at Columbia University, has repeatedly scolded his colleagues for chasing what he considers an imaginary dream.

"The basic problem with string theory unification research is not that progress has been slow over the past 30 years," Woit wrote on his blog, "but that it has been negative, with everything learned showing more clearly why the idea doesn't work." In his bestselling book "A Brief History of Time" (Bantam Books, 1988), physicist Stephen Hawking discussed his desire to help create a theory of everything (which was also the title of his 2014 biopic).

But the famous scholar changed his mind later in life; he thought such a theory would be out of reach forever because human descriptions of reality are always incomplete, according to a 2002 lecture available on a website dedicated to the late physicist. This fact did not sadden him but rather gave him hope.

"I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery," Hawking said. "Without it, we would stagnate." Additional resources: • Watch this explanation of GUTs and TOEs (grand unified theory and theory of everything), from Fermilab.

• Here's how theoretical physicist Michio Kaku explains the theory of everything for Big Think. • Watch " Why String Theory is Wrong," from PBS Space Time. Adam Mann • • Space.com Contributor Adam Mann is a journalist specializing in astronomy and physics stories.

His work has appeared in the New York Times, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal, Wired, Nature, Science, and many other places. He lives in Oakland, California, where he enjoys riding his bike.

Follow him on Twitter @adamspacemann or visit his website at https://www.adamspacemann.com/. Space is part of Future US Inc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site. • About Us • Terms and conditions • Privacy policy • Cookies policy • Accessibility Statement • Topics • Advertise with us • Web notifications • Careers © Future US, Inc.

Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036. none
The original " Hamlet" is a Shakespearean the theory of everything about the young eponymous prince of Denmark who goes through serious emotional turmoil after his father dies under mysterious circumstances.

Even worse, after the king's death, Hamlet finds himself haunted by his father from beyond the grave. Hamlet's father insists that the boy's uncle, the theory of everything now sits on the throne, is the murderer — and that it is up to Hamlet to make things right by avenging him. The play is so compelling that even to this day, popular art and entertainment culture is still recycling that same storyline in movies like " The Lion King" and popular TV shows like " Sons of Anarchy." In the latter television series, John "JT" Teller is the departed leader of the SAMCRO motor club, a motorcycle gang whose activities put them on the wrong side of the law more often than not.

Despite his deaths years earlier, JT speaks to his son, Jax (Charlie Hunnam), from the dead in the form of letters and a manifesto he leaves behind.

Over the course of the series, Jax slowly figures out how his uncle and mother are both actually responsible for his father's untimely demise. Sadly, he also slowly begins to realize how trying to be a good husband and father to his children isn't possible given his deep and intractable connection to numerous illegal activities. When Jax frees himself by riding his bike head-first into an oncoming semi in the series, it may feel like a bit of a cop-out — but if one particular fan theory is true, Jax's end actually makes a lot the theory of everything sense than most may realize.

According to "Sons of Anarchy" canon, JT's biker brother, Clay Morrow (Ron Perlman), sabotaged his motorcycle so that he could take over as leader of the MC and marry JT's widow, Jemma (Katey Sagal).

But there are many hints in the show — in the form of JT's the theory of everything and strange statements from Jax — which strongly hint that JT might have actually been aware of his impending doom. Of course, the implication of this shocking suggestion is that JT actually willingly allowed his own fatal accident to occur.

As this theory goes, JT was disillusioned with the direction the motor club and knew that even if he followed the rules and tried to leave in the most peaceful way possible, he likely wouldn't be able to do so and live. So he took the only way out that was available to him. One particular Reddit thread discusses that theory in depth.

In it, the original poster asks fellow Redditors whether they think JT's death was a homicide, a suicide, or some unique combination of the two. Many commenters, including the OP, seemed to favor the third option. During the discussion, u/Schree421 pointed out that when "Sons of Anarchy" creator Kurt Stutter was asked that same question, he answered quite cryptically. "You're not supposed to figure it out," Sutter said (via Yahoo!

News). "That was the existential drift that haunted Jax. And now you." In continuing the discussion, u/Sskoog said, "I think the technical term is 'premeditated murder, and the victim went along with it.'" Of course, if this theory is true, then JT's son dying in a similar manner really brings the whole story full circle.
• United Kingdom [5] • Japan [5] • United States [5] Language English Budget $15 million [3] Box office $123.7 million [3] The Theory of Everything is a 2014 biographical romantic drama film [6] directed by James Marsh.

Set at the University of Cambridge, it details the life of the theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. It was adapted by Anthony McCarten from the 2007 memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen by Jane Hawking, which deals with her relationship with her ex-husband Stephen Hawking, his diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and his success in the field of physics.

[7] The film stars Eddie Redmayne [1] [2] and Felicity Jones, [1] [2] with Charlie Cox, Emily Watson, Simon McBurney, Christian McKay, Harry Lloyd, and David Thewlis featured in supporting roles. [1] The film had its world premiere at the 2014 Toronto International Film Festival [2] on 7 November 2014. It had its UK premiere on 1 January 2015. [1] The film received positive reviews, with praise for the musical score, cinematography, and the performances of Jones and especially Redmayne.

The film garnered numerous accolades, including five Academy Award nominations: Best Picture, Best Actress (Jones), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score (Jóhannsson) and won Best Actor for Redmayne. The film received ten British Academy Film Awards (BAFTA) nominations, and won Outstanding British Film, Best Leading Actor for Redmayne, and Best Adapted Screenplay for McCarten. It received four Golden Globe Award nominations, winning the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama for Redmayne, and Best Original Score for Jóhannsson.

It also received three Screen Actors Guild Awards nominations, and won the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role for Redmayne. Contents • 1 Plot • 2 Cast • 3 Production • 3.1 Development • 3.2 Filming • 3.3 Music • 3.4 Post-production • 4 Historical accuracy • 5 Release • 6 Reception • 6.1 Box office • 6.2 Critical response • 6.3 Accolades • 7 References • 8 External links Plot [ edit ] University of Cambridge astrophysics student Stephen Hawking begins a relationship with literature student Jane Wilde.

Although Stephen is intelligent, his friends and professors are concerned about his lack of a thesis topic. After he and his professor Dennis Sciama attend a lecture on black holes, Stephen speculates that black holes may have been part of the creation of the universe, and decides to write his thesis on them. However, Stephen's muscles begin to fail, giving him decreasing coordination with his body. He learns he has motor neuron disease, which will eventually leave him unable to move, swallow, and even breathe.

The theory of everything are no treatments, and he has approximately two years to live. The doctor assures Stephen that his brain will not be affected, so his thoughts and intelligence will remain intact, but eventually, he will be unable to communicate them. As Stephen becomes reclusive, focusing on his work, Jane confesses she loves him. She tells his father she intends to stay with Stephen even as his condition worsens. They marry and have their first son, Robert.

Stephen presents his thesis to the examination board, arguing that a black hole created the universe in a Big Bang, that it will emit heat, and end in a Big Crunch. He begins using a wheelchair after his walking ability deteriorates. After the Hawkings have their daughter Lucy, Stephen develops a theory about the visibility of black holes and becomes a world-renowned physicist.

Jane, focusing on the children as well as Stephen's health the theory of everything increasing fame, is unable to work on her own thesis and becomes frustrated. Stephen tells her he will understand if she needs help. She joins a church choir, where she meets widower Jonathan and they become close friends. She employs him as a piano teacher for Robert, and Jonathan befriends the entire family, helping Stephen with his illness, supporting Jane, and playing with the children. When Jane gives birth to another son, Timothy, Stephen's mother asks Jane if the baby is Jonathan's, which she denies.

Jonathan is appalled, but when he and Jane are alone, they admit their feelings for one another. He distances himself from the family, but Stephen tells him Jane needs him. While attending an opera performance in Bordeaux, Stephen is taken ill and rushed to a hospital. The doctor informs Jane that he has pneumonia, and that he needs a tracheotomy to survive, but it will leave him mute.

She agrees to the surgery. Stephen learns to use a spelling board, and uses it to communicate with Elaine, his new nurse. He receives a computer with a built-in voice synthesizer, and uses it to write a book, A Brief History of Time (1988), which becomes an international best-seller. Stephen tells Jane he has been invited to the United States to accept an award and will be taking Elaine with him. Jane faces the realization that the marriage has not been working, telling him she "did her best", and they agree to divorce.

Stephen goes to the lecture with Elaine, the two have fallen in love, and Jane and Jonathan reunite. At the lecture, Stephen sees a student drop a pen; he imagines getting up to return it, almost crying at the reminder of how his disease has affected him.

He goes on to give a speech telling audiences to pursue their ambitions despite the harsh reality of life: "While there's life, there is hope". Stephen invites Jane to meet Queen Elizabeth II with him when being made a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour; they share a happy day together with their grandchildren. An extended closing series comprises select moments from the film; shown in reverse, back to the moment Stephen first saw Jane; the reversal is reminiscent of Stephen's research methodology of reversing time to understand the beginning of the universe.

Later, Jane and Jonathan marry, and she completes her Doctor of Philosophy. She and Stephen remain close friends. Stephen declines a knighthood from the Queen and continues his research, with no plans to retire in the near future. Cast [ edit ] • Eddie Redmayne [1] [2] as Stephen Hawking [8] • Felicity Jones [2] as Jane Hawking [8] • Charlie Cox as Jonathan Jones [8] • David Thewlis as Dennis Sciama [8] • Simon McBurney as Frank Hawking, Stephen's father [8] • Emily Watson as Beryl Wilde, Jane's mother [8] • Maxine Peake as Elaine Mason, Stephen's second wife [8] • Harry Lloyd as Brian, Hawking’s room-mate [9] • Guy Oliver-Watts as George Wilde, Jane's father • Abigail Cruttenden as Isobel Hawking, Stephen's mother • Charlotte Hope as Phillipa Hawking, Stephen's sister [8] • Lucy Chappell as Mary Hawking, Stephen's sister • Christian McKay as Roger Penrose [8] • Enzo Cilenti as Kip Thorne [8] • Georg Nikoloff as Isaak Khalatnikov • Alice Orr-Ewing as Diana King, sister of Basil King, Stephen's friend • Stephen Hawking provides his own, Equaliser-computerised voice • Frank Leboeuf as Swiss doctor [8] • Michael Marcus as Ellis, Hawking's friend • Adam Godley as Cambridge doctor Production [ edit ] Development [ edit ] "That's really the essence of the theory of everything story, it's a very unusual love story in a very strange environment, a very strange sort of landscape, and that is I think the abiding theme of the film.

It is how these two characters, these two real people transcend all the complications and curveballs that life throws at them." — James Marsh, speaking of the film's nature [10] Screenwriter Anthony McCarten had been interested in Hawking since reading his seminal book A Brief History of Time in 1988.

In 2004, McCarten read Jane Hawking's memoir Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen, and subsequently began writing a screenplay adaptation of the book, with no guarantees in place. He met numerous times with Jane at her home to discuss the project. After multiple drafts, he was introduced in 2009 to producer Lisa Bruce via their mutual ICM agent, Craig Bernstein.

[11] Bruce spent three years with McCarten, further convincing Jane Hawking to agree to a film adaptation of her book, with Bruce stating, "It was a lot of conversation, many glasses of sherry, and many pots of tea". [12] On 18 April 2013, James Marsh was confirmed to direct the film, with the shooting being based in Cambridge, and at other locations in the United Kingdom, [ citation needed] with Eddie Redmayne courted to fill the male lead of the piece.

[13] On 23 June 2013, it was revealed that Felicity Jones was confirmed to play the film's female lead role opposite Redmayne. [14] [15] On 8 October 2013, it was confirmed that Emily Watson and David Thewlis had joined the cast [16] and that Working Title's Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Lisa Bruce, and Anthony McCarten would be producing the piece. [17] Marsh had studied archival images to give the film its authenticity, stating, "When we had photographs and documentary footage of Stephen that related to our story, we tried to reproduce them as best we could".

[18] Redmayne met with Hawking himself, commenting, "Even now, when he's unable to move, you can still see such effervescence in his eyes".

And described portraying Hawking on-screen as the theory of everything "hefty" challenge, adding that, "The real problem with making a film is of course you don't shoot chronologically.

So it was about having to really try and chart his physical deterioration [so] you can jump into it day-to-day, whilst at the same time keeping this spark and wit and humour that he has".

[18] Redmayne spent six months researching Hawking's life, watching every piece of interview footage he could find of him.

[19] He studied Hawking's accent and speech patterns under dialect coach Julia Wilson-Dickson to prepare for the role. [20] Marsh stated that what Redmayne had to do was not easy. "He had to take on enormous amounts of difficult preparation, as well as embracing the difficult physicality of the role. It's not just doing a disability. It's actually charting the course of an illness that erodes the body, and the mind has to project out from that erosion", he said.

He added that Hawking gave him his blessing, and also revealed that, "[Hawking's] response was very positive, so much so that he offered to lend his voice, the real voice that he uses. The voice you hear in the latter part of the story is in fact Stephen's actual electronic voice as he uses it", he said. [10] It was revealed to the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) audience that as the lights came up at a recent screening, a nurse had wiped a tear from Hawking's cheek.

[19] Jane Hawking, speaking on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour, talked of meeting Jones several times while the latter prepared for the role. [21] When Hawking saw the finished film, she was amazed to see that Jones had incorporated her mannerisms and speech patterns into her performance.

[21] Filming [ edit ] Part of the filming in Cambridge took place at St John's College By 8 October 2013, principal photography had begun, with the shooting being done at Cambridge University, and at other locations in Cambridgeshire and across the United Kingdom. [22] Prior to the start of principal photography, Working Title had begun shooting on the lawn in front of the New Court building from 23 September 2013 to 27 September 2013; they filmed the Cambridge May Ball scene, set in 1963.

[23] On 24 September 2013, scenes were filmed at St John's College, The Backs in Queen's Road, and Queen's Green. [24] The New Court lawn and Kitchen Bridge were included features in the filming location of the piece.

The May Ball scene was the last of the outside shoots, with filming in a lecture theatre the following day, and the remaining filming completed in the studio over the final five weeks of production. [25] The pyrotechnic specialists Titanium Fireworks, who developed the displays for the London 2012 Olympic Games, provided three identical firework displays for the Trinity College, Cambridge May Ball scene. [25] [26] Music [ edit ] Composer Jóhann Jóhannsson scored The Theory of Everything.

His score in the film has been described as including "[Jóhannsson's] signature blend of acoustic instruments and electronics". Jóhannsson commented that "it always involves the layers of live recordings, whether it's orchestra or a band or solo instrument, with electronics and more 'soundscapey' elements which can come from various sources". [27] Jóhannsson's score was highly praised, being nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Score, a BAFTA Award for Best Film Music, a Critics' Choice Movie Award for Best Score and a Grammy Award for Best Score Soundtrack for Visual Media, winning the Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score.

The soundtrack was recorded at Abbey Road Studios. [28] The music that plays over the final scene of Hawking and his family in the garden and the reverse-flashback is "The Arrival of the Birds", composed and played by The Cinematic Orchestra, originally from the soundtrack to the 2008 nature documentary The Crimson Wing: Mystery of the Flamingos.

No. Title Length 1. "Cambridge, 1963" 1:41 2. "Rowing" 1:42 3. "Domestic Pressures" 2:37 4. "Chalkboard" 1:05 5. "Cavendish Lab" 2:31 6. "Collapsing Inwards" 2:17 7. "A Game of Croquet" 2:45 8. "The Origins of Time" 2:21 9. "Viva Voce" 1:36 10.

"The Wedding" 1:42 11. "The Dreams that Stuff is Made of" 1:51 12. "A Spacetime Singularity" 2:16 13. "The Stairs" 1:07 14. "A Normal Family" 1:41 15. "Forces of Attraction" 2:03 16. "Rowing (Alternative Version)" 0:37 17. "Camping" 1:18 18. "Coma" 1:03 19. "The Spelling Board" 0:59 20. "The Voice Box" 0:51 21. "A Brief History of Time" 2:02 22. "Daisy, Daisy" 2:21 23. "A Model of the Universe" 2:52 24. "The Theory of Everything" 1:08 25. "London, 1988" 2:52 26.

"Epilogue" 1:48 27. "The Whirling Ways of Stars that Pass" 1:52 Total length: 48:58 Post-production [ edit ] During editing, filmmakers tried to remake Hawking's synthesised voice, but it did not turn out as they wanted. Hawking enjoyed the film enough that he granted them permission to use his own synthesised voice, which is heard in the final film. [29] Historical accuracy [ edit ] The film takes various dramatic liberties with the history it portrays.

Writing for the film blog of UK daily newspaper The Guardian, Michelle Dean the theory of everything The Theory of Everything 's marketing materials will tell you it is based on Jane Hawking's memoir of her marriage, a book published in the UK as Music to Move the Stars, and then re-issued as Travelling to Infinity. But the screenwriters rearranged the facts to suit certain dramatic conventions. And while that always happens in these based-on-a-true-story films, the scale of the departure in The Theory of Everything is unusually wide.

The film becomes almost dishonest–in a way that feels unfair to both parties, and oddly, particularly Jane Hawking herself. [30] In Slate, L.V. Anderson wrote that "the Stephen played by Eddie Redmayne is far gentler and more sensitive" than suggested in Travelling to Infinity. [31] The Slate article further noted that the character Brian, Hawking's closest friend at Cambridge in the film, is not based on a real individual, but rather a composite of several of his real-life friends.

[31] The film alters some of the details the theory of everything the beginning of Stephen and Jane's relationship, including how they met, as well as the fact that Jane knew about Stephen's disease before they started dating. [30] Slate also comments that the film underplays Hawking's stubbornness and refusal to accept outside assistance for his disorder.

[31] For The Guardian, Dean concluded by saying: The movie presents the demise of their relationship as a beautiful, tear-soaked, mutually respectful conversation. Of course that didn't actually happen either. Jane's book describes a protracted breakup that comes to a head in a screaming fight on vacation. She also described devastation when Hawking announced by letter he was leaving her for his second wife, Elaine Mason. He ended up married to Mason for 10 years before that fell apart, and then he and Jane mended fences.

Which, as it happens, the movie fudges too. It tries to present the rapprochement as coming when Hawking was made a Companion of Honour in 1989, but that actually happened before the couple separated. [30] Physicist The theory of everything Melott, a former student of Dennis Sciama, Hawking's doctoral supervisor portrayed in the film, strongly criticised the portrayal of Sciama in the film.

[32] In the film, when Stephen attends the opera in Bordeaux, his companion was actually Raymond LaFlamme, his PhD student. In the film, it is explained that Stephen's voice is taken from an answering machine.

It is actually the voice of Dr. Dennis H. Klatt. Release [ edit ] On 8 October 2013, Universal Pictures International had acquired the rights to distribute the film internationally. [17] On 10 April 2014, Focus Features acquired the distribution rights to The Theory of Everything in the United States, with the plan of a 2014 limited theatrical release. [33] publisher after, Entertainment One Films picked up the Canadian distribution rights.

[34] The first trailer of the film was released on 7 August 2014. [35] [36] The Theory of Everything premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) [2] on 7 September 2014, [37] where it opened in the official sidebar section, Special Presentations. [38] [39] The film had a limited release in the United States on 7 November 2014, [40] expanded in successive weeks to Taiwan, Austria, and Germany, [41] ahead of a United Kingdom release on 1 January 2015, before being released throughout Europe.

[42] Reception [ edit ] Box office [ edit ] The Theory of Everything earned $122,873,310 worldwide, with its biggest markets coming from North America ($35.9 million), and the United Kingdom ($31.9 million). [3] The film had a North American limited release on 7 November 2014; it was released in five theatres, and earned $207,000 on the theory of everything opening weekend, for an average of $41,400 per theatre.

The film was then widely released on 26 November across 802 theatres, earning US$5 million, and debuting at No. 7 at the box office. During its five-day Thanksgiving week, the film earned $6.4 million. [43] Critical the theory of everything [ edit ] Film review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports an approval rating of 80% based on 271 reviews, with an average rating of 7.3/10.

The site's critical consensus reads, "Part biopic, part love story, The Theory of Everything rises on James Marsh's polished direction and the strength of the theory of everything two leads." [44] Metacritic assigned the film a weighted average score of 72 out of 100, based on 47 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews". [45] Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones' performances garnered critical acclaim and earned them Academy Award nominations for Best Actor and Best Actress, with Redmayne winning.

Catherine Shoard of The Guardian wrote, "Redmayne towers: this is an astonishing, genuinely visceral performance which bears comparison with Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot". [46] Lou Lumenick, in his review for The New York Post, called the film "tremendously moving and inspirational". [47] Justin Chang of Variety remarked, "A stirring and bittersweet love story, inflected with tasteful good humor." He continued by praising the "superb performances" from Redmayne and Jones, as well commenting very positively about Jóhannsson's score, "whose arpeggio-like repetitions and progressions at times evoke the compositions of Philip Glass", whilst praising John Paul Kelly's production design, and Steven Noble's costumes.

[48] Leslie Felperin of The Hollywood Reporter remarked, "A solid, duly moving account of their complicated relationship, spanning roughly 25 years, and made with impeccable professional polish", praising Delhomme's cinematography as having "lush, intricately lit compositions", and adding "a splendor that keeps the film consistently watchable", and Jóhannsson's score as "dainty precision with a ineffable scientific quality about it". [49] The Daily Telegraph 's Tim Robey granted the film a positive review, stating that, "In its potted appraisal of Hawking's cosmology, The Theory of Everything bends over backwards to speak to the layman, and relies on plenty of second-hand inspiration.

But it borrows from the right sources, this theory. And that's something", while praising Redmayne's performance, McCarten's script, and Delhomme's cinematography. [50] Deadline Hollywood 's Pete Hammond marked McCarten's script and Marsh's direction for praise, and of the film's Toronto reception, wrote: "To say the response here was rapturous would not be understating the enthusiasm I heard — not just from pundits, but also Academy voters with whom I spoke.

One told me he came in with high expectations for a quality movie, and this one exceeded them". [51] The film was not without its detractors. Some criticised Marsh's focus on Hawking's romantic life over his scientific achievements. Alonso Duralde of The Wrap stated that "Hawking's innovations and refusal to subscribe to outdated modes of thinking merely underscore the utter conventionality of his film biography".

[52] Eric Kohn of Indiewire added that "James Marsh's biopic salutes the famous physicist's commitment, but falls short of exploring his brilliant ideas". [53] Dennis Overbye of the New York Times noted: The movie doesn't deserve any prizes for its drive-by muddling of Dr.

Hawking's scientific work, leaving viewers in the dark about exactly why he is so famous. Instead of showing how he undermined traditional notions of space and time, it panders to religious sensibilities about what his work the theory of everything or does not say about the existence of God, which in fact is very little.

[54] Writing for The Guardian 's film blog, Michelle Dean argues that the film does a disservice to Jane Wilde Hawking, by "rearrang[ing] the facts to suit certain dramatic conventions.

The Theory of The theory of everything is hell-bent on preserving the cliche". [55] The film's producers, writer, director Marsh, and actors Redmayne and Jones were widely favoured for award season success. [38] [51] [56] [57] Accolades [ edit ] Main article: List of accolades received by The Theory of Everything The Theory of Everything received several awards and nominations following its release.

At the 87th Academy Awards, it was nominated in the categories of Best Picture, Best Actor for Eddie Redmayne, Best Actress for Jones, Best Adapted Screenplay for McCarten, and Best Original Score for Jóhann Jóhannsson; with Eddie Redmayne winning the film's sole Academy Award for his performance.

The film was nominated for ten British Academy Film Awards, [58] (winning for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best British Film, and Best Actor), five Critics' Choice Movie Awards, [59] and three Screen Actors Guild Awards. [60] At the 72nd Golden Globe Awards, Redmayne won Best Actor – Motion Picture Drama, and Jóhannsson won Best Original Score.

The film, and Jones were also nominated. Production designer John Paul Kelly earned a nomination for Excellence in Production Design for a Period Film from the Art Directors Guild, [61] while the producers were nominated the theory of everything Best Theatrical Motion Picture by the Producers Guild of America. [62] References the theory of everything edit ] • ^ a b c d e f g " The Theory of Everything (12A)".

BBFC.co.uk. British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). 22 December 2014. Retrieved 6 October 2017. • ^ a b c d e f g "The Theory of Everything". WorkingTitleFilms.com. Working Title Films. Retrieved 6 October 2017. • ^ a b c d "The Theory of Everything (2014)".

Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 12 March 2016. • ^ "The Theory of Everything". TIFF.net. Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). 6 August 2014. Archived from the original on 12 August 2014. Retrieved 6 August 2014. • ^ a b c "The Theory of Everything (2015)". British Film Institute. Retrieved 17 July 2018. • ^ Bullock, Dan (10 April 2014). "Stephen Hawking biopic 'Theory of Everything' set for Nov.

7 launch". Variety. Retrieved 10 April 2014. • ^ " 'The Theory of Everything' trailer is a heartbreaking inspiration". HuffPost. 6 August 2014. Retrieved 6 August 2014. • ^ a b c d e f g h i j k "The Theory of Everything begins principal photography". Working Title Films. 8 October 2013. Archived from the original on 6 September 2014. Retrieved 8 October 2013. • ^ Anderson, L.V. (7 November 2014).

"How accurate is The Theory of Everything?". Slate.com. Slate Magazine. Retrieved 3 January 2015. • ^ a b "First look at Oscar contender 'The Theory of Everything' — an unexpected love story about Stephen Hawking". Deadline Hollywood. 6 August 2014. Retrieved 6 August 2014. • ^ Levy, Emmanuel (5 September 2014). "Theory of Everything: making movie about Stephen Hawkings". EmanuelLevy.com.

Emmanuel Levy. Retrieved 16 September 2014. • ^ "Toronto: THR Honors 'Theory of Everything' stars and director with breakthrough in film awards". The Hollywood Reporter.

7 September 2014. Retrieved 7 September 2014. • ^ Child, Ben (18 April 2013). "Eddie Redmayne set to play Stephen Hawking in biopic". The Guardian. Retrieved 11 April 2014. • ^ White, James (23 June 2013). "Felicity Jones joins Theory of Everything". EmpireOnline.com. Empire Magazine. Retrieved 23 June 2013. • ^ Armitage, Hugh (24 June 2013). "Felicity Jones cast in Stephen Hawking biopic 'Theory of Everything' ".

DigitalSpy.co.uk. Digital Spy. Retrieved 24 June 2013. • ^ Bullock, Dan (8 October 2013). "Emily Watson joins Working Title's 'Theory of Everything' ". Variety. Variety. Retrieved 8 October 2013. • ^ the theory of everything b Child, Ben (8 October 2013). "Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones line up for James Marsh's 'The Theory of Everything' ". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 8 October 2013. • ^ a b Collis, Clark (18 August 2014). " 'The Theory of Everything': Eddie Redmayne on playing Stephen Hawking".

Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 26 October 2019. • ^ a b "Toronto: 'The The theory of everything of Everything' made Stephen Hawking cry". Variety. Variety. 7 September 2014. Retrieved 7 September 2014. • ^ Wilson-Dickson, Andrew (18 October 2015). "Julia Wilson-Dickson obituary". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 November 2015. • ^ a b Presenter: Sheila McClennon; Producer: Susannah Tresilian; Interviewed Guest: Jane Hawking (2 January 2015).

"Jane Hawking; Surrogacy; Same Clothes Every Day; Safe Houses for Over-45s". Woman's Hour. 03:30 minutes in. BBC. BBC Radio 4. Retrieved 7 October 2017. • ^ Bullock, Dan (9 October 2013). "Hawking biopic 'The Theory of Everything' starring Eddie Redmayne begins filming". TheHollywoodNews.com. The Hollywood News. Retrieved 9 October 2013. • ^ "Felicity about Theory of Everything – shooting of the May Ball & Boat Club scenes".

AddictedToEddie.blogspot.co.uk. Addicted to Eddie's blog. 26 March 2014. Retrieved 26 March 2014. • ^ Armitage, Hugh (24 September 2013). "Exclusive: first pictures of Eddie Redmayne playing Stephen Hawking on film shoot in Cambridge for The Theory the theory of everything Everything".

Cambridge-News.co.uk. Cambridge News. Archived from the original on 9 October 2013. Retrieved 24 September 2013. • ^ a b "Cambridge Theory of Everything". Scudamores.com. Scudamores. 1 October 2013. Retrieved 1 October 2013. • ^ "Trinity College Cambridge May Ball fireworks 2014". TitaniumFireworks.com. Titanium Fireworks. 20 June 2014. Retrieved 20 June 2014. • ^ "General news scores soundtrack: Jóhann Jóhannsson provides the beautiful score for Focus Features' The Theory of Everything".

WeAreMovieGeeks.com. We Are Movie Geeks. 26 August 2014. Retrieved 26 August 2014. • ^ "Recording at Abbey Road for Jóhann Jóhannsson 'Theory of Everything' feature film music". Bakermoon.com. Bakermoon. 21 August 2014. Archived from the original on 6 September 2014.

Retrieved 21 August 2014. • ^ Setoodeh, Ramin (28 October 2014). "How Eddie Redmayne became Stephen Hawking in 'The Theory of Everything' ".

Variety. Variety. Retrieved 24 February 2015. • ^ a b c Dean, Michelle (14 November 2014). "The Theory of Everything does Jane Hawking a disservice".

The Guardian. Retrieved 19 November 2016. • ^ a b c Anderson, L.V. (7 November 2014). "How accurate is The Theory of Everything?". Slate.com. Slate. Retrieved 19 November 2016. • ^ Melott, Adrian L. (2015). "Views: The Theory of Everything is missing something: letter from Adrian L Melott". AstroGeo.OxfordJournals.org. Astronomy & Geophysics. 56 (2): 2.9. doi: 10.1093/astrogeo/atv057. Retrieved 19 November 2016. • ^ "The Theory of Everything". TIFF.net.

Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). 9 October 2013. Archived from the original on 26 July 2014. Retrieved 9 October 2013. • ^ "The Theory of Everything – 2015 film". EFilmsWorld.com. EFilmsWorld. 9 October 2013. Archived from the original on 26 August 2014. Retrieved 9 October 2013. • ^ Child, Ben (7 August 2014). "First trailer revealed for Stephen Hawking biopic The Theory of Everything".

The Guardian. Retrieved 7 August the theory of everything. • ^ Child, Ben (6 August 2014). "FTIFF: Eddie Redmayne is Stephen Hawking in trailer for 'The Theory of Everything' ".

SoundOnSight.org. Sound On Sight. Retrieved 6 August 2014. • ^ "Toronto film festival 2014: full lineup". The Guardian. 29 July 2014. Retrieved 29 July 2014. • ^ a b "Toronto: 'Theory of Everything' has the right formula for Oscars". Variety. Variety. 7 September 2014. Retrieved 7 September 2014. • ^ Child, Ben (22 July 2014).

"Toronto Film Festival lineup includes Denzel Washington's 'Equalizer,' Kate Winslet's 'A Little Chaos' ". Variety. Variety. Retrieved 22 July 2014. • ^ McNary, Dave (10 April 2014). "Stephen Hawking biopic 'Theory of Everything' set for Nov.

7 launch". Variety. Retrieved 11 April 2014. • ^ "Focus' 'Theory of Everything' set for November; relativity dates 'November Man' for August; Disneynature's 'Monkey Kingdom' due in 2015". Deadline Hollywood. 10 April 2014. Retrieved 10 April 2014. • ^ Child, Ben (6 August 2014). "Stephen Hawking biopic The Theory of Everything trailer released, movie stars Eddie Redmayne".

E! Online. Retrieved 6 January 2022. • ^ Brian Brooks (30 November 2014). " 'Theory of Everything' expands with gusto amid huge 'imitation game' opening". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved 1 December 2014. • ^ "The Theory of Everything (2014)". Rotten Tomatoes. Fandango Media. Retrieved 1 July 2021. • ^ "The Theory of Everything (2014)".

Metacritic. CBS Interactive. 14 November 2014. Retrieved 30 December 2014. • ^ "The Theory of Everything review: Hawking's story packs powerful punch". The The theory of everything. 7 September 2014. Retrieved 7 September 2014. • ^ "This Stephen Hawking biopic is a good bet for Oscar nods". New York Post. The New York Post. 8 September 2014.

Retrieved 8 September 2014. • ^ "Toronto film review: 'The Theory of Everything' ".

Variety. 7 September 2014. Retrieved 7 September 2014. • ^ " 'The Theory of Everything': Toronto review". The Hollywood Reporter. 7 September 2014. Retrieved 7 September 2014.

• ^ "The Theory of Everything, review: 'tasteful and affecting': Toronto review". Telegraph.co.uk. The Daily Telegraph. 8 September 2014. Retrieved 8 September 2014. • ^ a b "Toronto: 'Theory of Everything' sends Oscar race into early overdrive as TIFF world premieres keep on coming".

Deadline Hollywood. 8 September 2014. Retrieved 8 September 2014. • ^ Duralde, Alonso (8 September 2014). " 'The Theory of Everything' review: Eddie Redmayne gives body and soul to a by-the-numbers biopic". TheWrap.com. The Wrap. Retrieved 11 November 2014.

• ^ Kohn, Eric (8 September 2014). "Toronto review: Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones salvage Stephen Hawking biopic 'The The theory of everything of Everything' ". IndieWire. Indiewire. Retrieved 11 November 2014. • ^ Overbye, Dennis (28 October 2014).

"The leaky science of Hollywood – Stephen Hawking's movie life story is not very scientific". The New York Times. Retrieved 28 October 2014. • ^ Dean, Michelle (14 November 2014). "The Theory of Everything does Jane Hawking a disservice". The Guardian. Retrieved 14 November 2014. • ^ Sperling, Nicole (7 September 2014). "Stephen Hawking story 'The Theory of Everything' spurs Oscar talk". Entertainment Weekly.

Retrieved 26 October 2019.

• ^ "Toronto: Eddie Redmayne leaps to head of Oscar pack for 'Theory of Everything' ". The Hollywood Reporter. 7 September 2014.

Retrieved 7 September 2014. • ^ "BAFTA nominations: 'Grand Budapest Hotel' leads with 11 – full list". Deadline Hollywood. 8 January 2015. Retrieved 9 January 2015. • ^ The theory of everything, Tim (15 December 2014). " 'Birdman', 'Grand Budapest' top Critics Choice awards nominations". Variety. Retrieved 15 December 2014. • ^ "Nominees nnnounced for the 21st Annual Screen Actors Guild Awards". SAGawards.org. SAG-AFTRA. 10 December 2014. Retrieved 10 December 2014.

• ^ " 'Birdman', 'Foxcatcher' among Art Directors Guild nominees". Deadline Hollywood. 5 January 2015. Retrieved 5 January 2015. • ^ " 'American Sniper,' 'Birdman' & 'Boyhood' among PGA awards nominees". Deadline Hollywood. 5 January 2015. Retrieved 5 January 2015. External links [ edit ] Wikiquote has quotations related to: The Theory of Everything (2014 film) • The Theory of Everything — official website at FocusFeatures.com • The Theory of Everything at the British Board of Film Classification • The Theory of Everything at the British Film Institute • The Theory of Everything at IMDb • The Theory of Everything at Rotten Tomatoes • The Theory of Everything at Box Office Mojo • The Large Scale Structure of Space–Time (1973) • A Brief History of Time (1988) • Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays (1993) • The Nature of Space and Time (1996) • The Universe in a Nutshell (2001) • On the Shoulders of Giants (2002) • A Briefer History of Time (2005) • God Created the Integers (2005) • The Grand The theory of everything (2010) • The Dreams That Stuff Is Made Of (2011) • Brief Answers to the Big Questions (2018) Fiction • God, the Universe and Everything Else (1988) • Stephen Hawking's Universe (1997 documentary) • Stephen Hawking: Master of the Universe (2008 documentary) • Genius of Britain the theory of everything series) • Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking (2010 series) • Brave New World with Stephen Hawking (2011 series) • Genius by Stephen Hawking (2016 series) Family • Odd Man Out (1947) • The Fallen Idol (1948) • The Third Man (1949) • The Blue Lamp (1950) • The Lavender Hill Mob (1951) • The Sound Barrier (1952) • Genevieve (1953) • Hobson's Choice (1954) • Richard III (1955) • Reach for the Sky (1956) • The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) • Room at the Top (1958) • Sapphire (1959) • Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (1960) • A Taste of Honey (1961) • Lawrence of Arabia (1962) • Tom Jones (1963) • Dr.

Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) • The Ipcress File (1965) • The Spy Who Came In from the Cold (1966) • A Man for All Seasons (1967) 1992–present • The Alamo – Dimitri Tiomkin (1960) • The Guns of Navarone – Dimitri Tiomkin (1961) • To Kill a Mockingbird – Elmer Bernstein (1962) • (1963) • The Fall of the Roman Empire – Dimitri Tiomkin (1964) • Doctor Zhivago – Maurice Jarre (1965) • Hawaii – Elmer Bernstein (1966) • Camelot – Frederick Loewe (1967) • The Shoes of the Fisherman – Alex North (1968) • Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid – Burt Bacharach (1969) 1970s • Love Story – Francis Lai (1970) • Shaft – Isaac Hayes (1971) • The Godfather – Nino Rota (1972) • Jonathan Livingston Seagull – Neil Diamond (1973) • The Little Prince – Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe (1974) • Jaws – John Williams (1975) • A Star is Born – Kenneth Ascher and Paul Williams (1976) • Star Wars – John Williams (1977) • Midnight Express – Giorgio Moroder (1978) • Apocalypse Now – Carmine Coppola and Francis Ford Coppola (1979) 1980s • The Stunt Man – Dominic Frontiere (1980) • No The theory of everything (1981) • E.T.

the Extra-Terrestrial – John Williams (1982) • Flashdance – The theory of everything Moroder (1983) • A Passage to India – Maurice Jarre (1984) • Out of Africa – John Barry (1985) • The Mission – Ennio Morricone (1986) • The Last Emperor – David Byrne, Ryuichi Sakamoto and Cong Su (1987) • Gorillas in the Mist – Maurice Jarre (1988) • The Little Mermaid – Alan Menken (1989) 1990s • The Sheltering Sky – Richard Horowitz and Ryuichi Sakamoto (1990) • Beauty and the Beast – Alan Menken (1991) • Aladdin – Alan Menken (1992) • Heaven & Earth – Kitarō (1993) • The Lion King – Hans Zimmer (1994) • A Walk in the Clouds – Maurice Jarre (1995) • The English Patient – Gabriel Yared (1996) • Titanic – James Horner (1997) • The Truman Show – Burkhard Dallwitz and Philip Glass (1998) • The Legend of 1900 – Ennio Morricone (1999) 2000s • Gladiator – Lisa Gerrard, Hans Zimmer (2000) • Moulin Rouge!

– Craig Armstrong (2001) • Frida – Elliot Goldenthal (2002) • The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King – Howard Shore (2003) • The Aviator – Howard Shore (2004) • Memoirs of a Geisha – John Williams (2005) • The Painted Veil – Alexandre Desplat (2006) • Atonement – Dario Marianelli (2007) • Slumdog Millionaire – A.

R. Rahman (2008) • Up – Michael Giacchino (2009) 2010s • The Social Network – Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (2010) • The Artist – Ludovic Bource (2011) • Life of Pi – Mychael Danna (2012) • All Is Lost – Alex Ebert (2013) • The Theory of Everything – Jóhann Jóhannsson (2014) • The Hateful Eight – Ennio Morricone (2015) • La La Land – Justin Hurwitz (2016) • The Shape of Water – Alexandre Desplat (2017) • First Man – Justin Hurwitz (2018) • Joker – Hildur Guðnadóttir (2019) 2020s Hidden categories: • Articles with short description • Short description is different from Wikidata • Use British English from September 2016 • Use dmy dates from September 2016 • Template film date with 3 release dates • All articles with unsourced statements • Articles with unsourced statements from May 2015 • Pages using multiple image with manual scaled images • العربية • Արեւմտահայերէն • Asturianu • تۆرکجه • বাংলা • Български • Català • Čeština • Cymraeg • Dansk • Deutsch • Eesti • Ελληνικά • Español • Euskara • فارسی • Français • Galego • 한국어 • Հայերեն • हिन्दी • Bahasa Indonesia • Italiano • עברית • Jawa • ქართული • Кыргызча • Latviešu • Lëtzebuergesch • Magyar • മലയാളം • მარგალური • مصرى • Bahasa Melayu • Nederlands • 日本語 • Norsk bokmål • Polski • Português • Română • Русский • Simple English • Slovenščina • کوردی • Српски / srpski • Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски • Sunda • Suomi • Svenska • Tagalog • ไทย • Türkçe • Українська • Tiếng Việt • 粵語 • 中文 Edit links • This page was last edited on 21 April 2022, at 23:45 (UTC).

• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

• Privacy policy • About Wikipedia • Disclaimers • Contact Wikipedia • Mobile view • Developers • Statistics • Cookie statement • •