|
|
|
|
|
|
by wrycoder
2322 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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"?