[wrycoder]

Heh. No, I was referring to the content. However, Vayenas has been publishing on this since at least 2008. This paper is the latest refinement of the theory. I haven't found any response to his work from the physics community - I would think that if it was easily refutable, that would have happened by now. But virtually all the citations appear to come from the small group of people working with Vayenas.

Professor Vayenas is a distinguished chemist, and his work looks rather like a blend of Old Quantum Theory and particle physics, so I suppose it's an uphill fight for him. However, Bohr did get a lot, e.g. the hydrogen spectrum, from a simple assumption, and Vayenas is trying to follow the same path.

The papers he's published are relatively accessible and full of startling calculations that result in close agreement with experimental results. They make interesting reading, and I haven't found anything so far that would cause me to reject them out of hand.

From the conclusion of the current paper: "Another emerging conclusion is that neutrinos, electrons, positrons and photons are present in all composite particles and are apparently the only undividable [sic] elementary particles."

https://cheme.stanford.edu/events/colloquium-constantinos-g-...

[gus_massa]

They are using 4 particles with spin 1/2 to model a particle with spin 1/2. That is impossible. More details in my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22223610

[wrycoder]

That’s an excellent objection. And yet, Vayenas is well aware of it and lists it as one of the requirements of a successful RLM.

Another question is how a neutrino triplet could condense in the first place, given the extreme velocities involved. But there was a lot of energy and density during the Big Bang.

Nonetheless, it’s interesting to see a different approach to combine gravity with particle physics, so I wish him luck. I’m going to read some more.

[gus_massa]

I can't find it in the paper. In which page it is?

This is a huge. Spin rules have a very strong experimental and theoretical support. In this case they should write that in at the top of the article with all-caps, red color and blink.

It is almost as big as breaking the conservation of charge. (Almost.)

---

The condensation at the big bang makes no sense, because the particles are created and destroyed constantly. But this requires some handwaving and estimations.

The use of gravity here is very dubious, but this requires some handwaving and estimations. Try to read more about the "standard model" and about this, and compare the results. A good question is why there are two missing particles in the figure "B.1"?