| Hi, I am the author of ANS and of these diagrams you don't like - made more than a decade ago. Sure, animations are nicer, but you cannot put them into articles ... and indeed somebody else could make them through this decade. Regarding the Standard Model, its development is mostly new experimental surprises and fitting new corrections to the Lagrangian - currently more than a hundred. It would be great to see them as kind of Taylor expansion of some simpler more fundamental model, not guessing but deriving new terms. Where to search for such more fundamental model? Maybe in topological defects like recently growing in popularity skyrmion models. For charge quantization: by interpreting curvature of some deeper field as EM field, Gauss law counts topological charge - which has to be quantized. I am developing this kind of approach since 2009, and seems quite promising, e.g. naturally unifying EM+QM+GEM gravity vacuum dynamics, has 3 leptons, baryons e.g. with proton lighter than neutron ... Slides with links: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9dl2g9lypzqu5hp/liquid%20crystal%2... Invited Wolfram introductory article "Framework for Liquid Crystal Based Particle Models": https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2856493 |
(And I think companies like Apple owe you a lot more than just a beer.)
My point is just that people learn in different ways, and often many different approaches need to be available so to that everyone can have that ah-ha moment. The diagram in your paper didn't work for me, and it was just frustrating that everyone else who did understand the algorithm just copy-pasted the diagram instead of re-framing the concept with new terminology or a different diagram.
Speaking of physics and the difficulty of understanding other physicists, I think the PDF you linked to is perfectly illustrative of the style of diagramming that doesn't "work for me". Too busy, many colours without apparent meaning, packing too much into one sheet, etc...
FYI, one of the smartest people I've ever met had the same style. I don't want to call it a mental illness, because it's more a "style of genius", but it's interesting that it's definitely a "recognisable trait" that some people have or don't have, like blue or brown eyes.
PS: I've been poking away at a TOE myself for over a decade, and my approach has been curiously similar to yours, also based on a "particles are topological quantities" concept.