As you already know, I find this sort of work fascinating. The hope is
that looking at the data in a different way might result in seeing some
connection that has been missed when we just look at the standard model
and which might in turn inform our understanding of the standard model.
What is intriguing is how little quarks figure in the document, the only
bit being when Phillip looks at the three generations of quarks. The
basis for the three generations of matter is particularly poorly
understood, so if this approach provides an insight then that would be
useful. On an initial skim through I have not spotted any obvious leads
On 05/10/2017 15:37, JonesBeene wrote:
This theory will not appeal to everyone but it has attractive features
which “tend to grow on you”. Thumbs up from me.
The author (like Peter Gluck and Cervantes) is quite fond of, and
skilled at neology – making-up new English words – which some find
The author (like Einstein) finds that the precision and simplicity of
the basic Universal dynamic (massification/demassification) points to
a kind of superior intelligence – which some find annoying
Not me, in fact with a little editing this could be made into grand
literature - of some arcane but enjoyable genre… “beyond hard sci-fi”
or… it could win the Nobel if correct. Take your pick.
Apparently this thinking is not new, and others have already borrowed
heavily from it. It was presented at Sochi recently, mainly for
Russians, but the author’s name was misspelled. Not that anyone noticed…