So, this has yet to be peer reviewed, and I am far from a theoretical physicist ... I certainly can't say its correct or incorrect.
It does seem ... too convenient. As in, how could it possibly have taken so many physicists so long to not just try this decades ago?
Basically, they throw the Planck Length and Planck energy (from Quantum Physics) into the Einstein Field Equation (from General Relativity) ...
... and are then able to mathematically derive basically the rest of the laws of physics, which seem to be quite close to or totally in line with the Standard Model (of Quantum Physics).
Unfortunately I do not see any direct comparisons if their predicted values for MeV's of fundamental particles with experimental data...
Anyway, the paper notes 2 interesting, direct implications:
Dark Matter is not real, there's no need for it in this model. Galaxy rotation speeds work out to what we see without need for additional, unseen, mass.
Either A, our universe is mirrored by and entangled with an antiuniverse of antiparticles which all travel backward through time (antitime?), or B, our universe is part of an evolution of ... prior(?) universe(s?) which generate black holes, which do not form singularities but instead create entangled white holes as other universes, expanding spacetimes.
Bonus conclusion:
The Fine Structure Constant may not actually be constant.
I'm not a physicist either, but I'm close enough to tell you that this:
We further modeled the universe using the equation with Einstein's lambda formalism and found that the universe dynamics could be considered as harmonic oscillators entangled with lambda curvature. This equation can be used to describe the energy transfer between two entangled spacetimes between the same universe and between any two universes (ER=EPR).
Sounds like gibberish. At the very least, these are all things they personally developed/made up. I'd read past the abstract, but it won't load for me. Has it already been removed?
The fact that the authors are from the most misconduct-y region of the academic world and are engineers also doesn't inspire confidence.
I'll remain sceptic on the claim until the paper is peer reviewed by people who actually know the stuff in it, unlike me.
I looked a little more closely at the paper and I'm no theoretical physicist but some of this looks pretty dubious on the surface. I don't know but it might just be nonsense.
For example:
The masses of electrons, muons, and tau can be explained by the different curvatures of universe, galaxy, and solar system, respectively.
Also, a search for some of the authors reveals that they publish on what seems like an odd range of topics, from materials science, through medicine and machine learning, to theoretical physics:
So, this has yet to be peer reviewed, and I am far from a theoretical physicist ... I certainly can't say its correct or incorrect.
It does seem ... too convenient. As in, how could it possibly have taken so many physicists so long to not just try this decades ago?
Basically, they throw the Planck Length and Planck energy (from Quantum Physics) into the Einstein Field Equation (from General Relativity) ...
... and are then able to mathematically derive basically the rest of the laws of physics, which seem to be quite close to or totally in line with the Standard Model (of Quantum Physics).
Unfortunately I do not see any direct comparisons if their predicted values for MeV's of fundamental particles with experimental data...
Anyway, the paper notes 2 interesting, direct implications:
Dark Matter is not real, there's no need for it in this model. Galaxy rotation speeds work out to what we see without need for additional, unseen, mass.
Either A, our universe is mirrored by and entangled with an antiuniverse of antiparticles which all travel backward through time (antitime?), or B, our universe is part of an evolution of ... prior(?) universe(s?) which generate black holes, which do not form singularities but instead create entangled white holes as other universes, expanding spacetimes.
Bonus conclusion:
The Fine Structure Constant may not actually be constant.
I'm not a physicist either, but I'm close enough to tell you that this:
Sounds like gibberish. At the very least, these are all things they personally developed/made up. I'd read past the abstract, but it won't load for me. Has it already been removed?
The fact that the authors are from the most misconduct-y region of the academic world and are engineers also doesn't inspire confidence.
I'll remain sceptic on the claim until the paper is peer reviewed by people who actually know the stuff in it, unlike me.
Paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927650524001130?via%3Dihub
Seems to be free access, for now
I looked a little more closely at the paper and I'm no theoretical physicist but some of this looks pretty dubious on the surface. I don't know but it might just be nonsense.
For example:
Also, a search for some of the authors reveals that they publish on what seems like an odd range of topics, from materials science, through medicine and machine learning, to theoretical physics:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Pobporn-Danvirutai/5893053
https://www.semanticscholar.org/author/Chavis-Srichan/48952334