Stubbs has a good paper in Infinite Energy about a year ago that presented high 
energy electron testing in your neck of the woods that was consistent with 
Hatt’s theory, particularly the presence of muons in the structure of protons 
and neutrons.

Hatt’s predictions of the mass and electrical/magnetic properties of muons (all 
three types) are accurate.

Stubbs and Hatt are in contact with each other as far as I know.

The standard theory involving the idea of quarks is merely a good empirical 
correlation that has come out of high energy physics experiments.  The 
fractional spin and charge associated with the “quark zoo” of imaginary 
(virtual) particles IMHO belies the empirical nature of the standard model.

Planck would take issue with the idea that spin quanta can be divvied up in 
fractional quanta less than h/2pie units.

I tend to consider that electrons and positrons are real  primary particles 
which carry a unit quanta of charge and spin, not fractional units of the 
respective charge and angular momentum units.

Bob Cook

From: JonesBeene<>
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 7:13 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Grand theory of Philippe Hatt

>From the strange coincidences department:

I was going to recommend another interesting GUT-type of theory (that of 
William L Stubbs) where simple logic takes the place of complex mathematics… 
and lo and behold, most of the former links have gone cold, but in this one … 
it looks like Hatt beat me to it by a couple of years

Does this mean a lepton basis for mass was once a “hatt topic”?

Between Stubbs and Hatt, there could something being missed by the mainstream - 

It is possibly no accident that CERN has pretty much unknowingly validated 
Stubbs muon cross-identity:

(which is a simulation, giving them plenty of wiggle room)

From: Nigel Dyer<>

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


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 annoying.

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…

Reply via email to