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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does “5 sigma precision equals 3” mean?