[gus_massa]

They model the proton as three neutrinos rotating around a positron. These are spin 1/2, particles, so the composite particle that includes all of them must have a spin that is an integer number: 0, 1 or 2 in this case. But the proton is a 1/2 spin particle. This is a huge red flag.

For comparison, in the Standard Model, the proton is made of two up quarks an one down quark [1]. Each of the has spin 1/2, and the composite particle must have a non integer spin: 1/2 or 3/2 in this case. The proton is the one with spin 1/2. The version with spin 3/2 is the Delta+ particle, that is a 30% "heavier".

[There are other technical details, like if the three rotating neutrinos break the Pauli exclusion principle for neutrinos. I suspect that this is a problem, but I'm not sure. The inclusion of the Higgs boson is very strange. Anyway, the total spin is the easier to explain and check.]

[1] And a bunch of gluons of spin 0 and virtual particles that get compensated and don't affect the total spin. Let's use the naïve version with only three quarks.

[AnimalMuppet]

Given that there are three flavors[1] of neutrinos, I don't think they would break Pauli exclusion.

[1] "Flavors" may not be the right word. I don't remember what the right one is at the moment.

[svd4anything]

Couldn’t this just mean spin is more complicated? Are there other obvious issues like this that the small group of proponents are also ignoring?

[gus_massa]

[Standard disclaimer that Physic is an experimental science and everything can change in the future.]

Spin is more complicated! That the reason that force the sum of the four 1/2 spin particles to have spin 0, 1 or 2. It has a nice mathematical reason that is the SU(2) group representations.

All the experiments so far agree with this rules. The rule for four 1/2 particles can be tested with electron in small molecules or light atoms. The extension to other amount of electron and particles with spin 1/2 have also been tested. (The technical name is "fermions", IIRC this includes also particles with spin 3/2.)

The theory includes also rules for particles with spin 1 (like the photon), and the extended rules also agree with the experiments. I'd be more surprised that the rules for spin have to be changed than the other claims in this paper (that are also quite surprising).

[franki13]

From this link https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/978-1-4614-3936-3

Neutrinos are fermions with spin 1/2 [10] and thus one may anticipate spin of 1/2 or 3/2 for composite states formed by three neutrinos. Indeed most baryons have spin 1/2 and some, as shown in Table 4.4, have spin 3/2 [10]. Several baryons are charged, e.g. the proton or the Ξ+. The differences in mass, m, from their neutral brethren (i.e. the n or the Ξo) is small and of the order of αm, where α(= e2/εch¯ = 1/137.0359) is the fine structure constant. Thus the rotating neutrino model discussed here can describe with reasonable accuracy (e.g. Fig. 4.8 and Table 6.2) the masses of both neutral and charged baryons. However, since neutrinos are electrically neutral, the question arises about how charged baryons can be formed within the rotating neutrino model. One possibility is that in the distant past charged neutrinos existed. Their stronger interaction among themselves and with other particles led to their extinction via formation of hadrons, mesons, and neutral neutrinos. A more likely explanation is that neutral hadrons were first formed (e.g. neutrons) and then protons and electrons were formed via the β-decay [10], i.e. n → p+ + e− + ν¯e, which has a half-life of 885.7 s.

I guess he assumes here that with three neutrinos you can have the right spin and make neutrons, but for the charge aspect, in order to keep the half integer spin, you either need charged neutrinos or charged particles from neutron decay.. while tossing all strong and weak force away... if that's possible !! I believe the real problem with this theory is the relativistic newton gravitation law which he derived with handwaving arguments, while all the theorists have expressed explicitly that these two cannot be combined..he tossed the gamma factors in there, picked the neutrino mass of his choise and everything coincided with some accuracy, which isnt even helpful or hints at anything if it doesnt predict anything falsifiable, or better accuracy than the current model

[gus_massa]

The part about the charged neutrinos is weird but not imposible (can we call it electron?). The part about the beta decay only make sense if they provide a good model for the internal structure of the proton.

I think it's an old theory from the same people, where they used three neutrinos instead of four. The old version does not break the spin rules. It's even more weird that now they added a fourth particle.

The combination of the Newtonian Gravity, with special and general relativity is weird. Those gammas are in the wrong places. I'm 99% sure it is wrong, but I should read the details carefully.

I think there is a problem with the uncertain principle because the neutrinos must be too close, and other with the Pauli exclusion principle (perhaps they solve it with the "resonance"). I'm 99% sure it is wrong, but I should read the details carefully.

There are more problems with exchange symmetry, and partiles that these theory predict nut don't appear experimentally.

The way they break the rules of spin is straightforward. As I said in a comment in other thread, it's almost ass bad as if they break the charge conservation rules. (Almost, because breaking the charge conservation rules is even worst.)

[franki13]

I guess he needs a particle with the charge of the electron and the mass of the neutrino (which he chose one out of many to get his results) and other neutrinos without charge and the same mass with the previous particle. It doesn't make any real sense on scrutiny apart from some coincidences.

The rule of spin is broken with the four particles, so that model is garbage from the start.

In another paper, to justify the relativistic newtonian formula they used an analogy with general relativity, using a schwartchild effective potential with static masses (low velocities). But in general relativity you get different contributions in the stress energy tensor from relativistic particles, than static with the same enhanced relativistic mass. It's all so wrong... They don't even try to solve the problem of gravitational attrachion of particles with general relativity, i guess it's too difficult and in such scales maybe requires quantum gravity? (i don't know if i'm correct on this one)