<i>Of course, no theory is worth more than bag of beans unless it makes testable predictions about the universe.<p>Wen says that his theory has significant implications for the states of matter that existed soon after the Big Bang but doesn't develop the idea into specific predictions.</i><p>It's always so disappointing to look for the rubber-meeting-the-road part of a theory and see that the tires are still spinning a few feet above the ground.
I am usually very weary of this kind of "science for the general public" articles. We all know how the "computer science for the general public" articles sound like – I usually doubt whether I would get an accurate picture after reading them, if I didn't have a technical background in CS.
Since I don't know anything about advanced physics myself, I will not indulge in any "ah, I see" kind of reaction after reading this article.<p>E.g.: I have no idea how accurate my interpretation of the phrase "quantum ether" is; it's like an empty container, and as a non-specialist I could put lots of non-sense in it.
<i>In the past, topology was little more than an amusing diversion for mathematicians doodling about the difference between donuts and dumplings.</i><p>...what?
I hear another very interesting application of topology was in human psychology, by the famous Kurt Lewin. He wrote a book, "Principles of Topological Psychology"; I haven't read it yet, but it sounds very interesting.
Wait, the "latest" theory of everything? Topology's been in use in String Theory since, well, since it was developed, along with M-Theory, et al. Not to mention some parts of the standard model, but it's all by no means a new or "recent" discovery.