>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
http://vixra.org/abs/1511.0191 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 - simplicity. It is possibly no accident that CERN has pretty much unknowingly validated Stubbs muon cross-identity: http://home.cern/images/2014/01/higgs-boson-decay-four-muons (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 Nigel JonesBeene wrote: This theory will not appeal to everyone but it has attractive features which “tend to grow on you”. Thumbs up from me. http://philippehatt.com/ http://philippehatt.com/document1.pdf 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…
