[wbhart]

How common is it for a physics theory to be able to compute so many quantities without fudge factors to make it all work out? I'm not a physicist, so I'm currently imagining this could be quite significant. Is that how physicists are reading it? Also, can any physicists comment on whether this is a top journal.

[gus_massa]

They have the mass of the neutrinos as a fudge factors. (I think they are using only 2 of them, but they list a third number ...) (And perhaps the mass of the electron.)

The table 1 they have a lot of baryons, each of them has two numbers nB and lB. These are small numbers like 1, 2 , 3 so they are not very fudgable. The problem is that the numbers are somewhat arbitrary. For example it's not clear how these numbers are related to the spin of the particle. Also it's not clear how they are related to the "strangeness". Both are clear an easy to measure properties. It looks like they calculate the mass for possible particles with small nB and lB and then they cherrypicked the real one with the closest mass. (There is a missing particle with nB=2 and lB=1. Why?)

[AnimalMuppet]

How common? I don't know. But it could work something like this:

All standard particles are composed of AnimAlMuppet's Magic Particles (AMMPs). AMMPs each have 1 eV of mass. An electron, for example, is made up of 511,000 AMMPs. We calculate a mass of 511 keV, in good agreement with experiment.

Note well: I have no idea if these people are doing something like that. All I've seen is the abstract.