1) the weak mixing angle
2) the three particle generations and the ratio of their masses
This is remarkable to me.
* I can't find the part about "with space as a secondary effect". Where is it? The paper just start defining everything in a space with 3 timelike and 3 spacelike dimensions.
* The easiness to test prediction is the the ratio of the masses of the three generations of particles. The paper claim they are
m_n = m_0 exp(-α n^γ)
The formula has 3 constants to predict 3 constants. So it's possible to adjust them for each family of 3 particles. It's not clear how the constants are calculated and which constants are shared between the different families of particles.
- top/charm/up quarks: the ratios are 1 : 588 : 80186 Note that the mass of the up quarks is much smaller then 1/3 of the mass of the proton or neutron. That's standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_quark#Mass These masses are very difficult to measure experimentally. The article claims 2.16 ± 0.49 MeV but from Wikipedia:
> Despite being extremely common, the bare mass of the up quark is not well determined, but probably lies between 1.8 and 3.0 MeV/c2. Lattice QCD calculations give a more precise value: 2.01±0.14 MeV/c2.
- bottom/strange/down quarks: missing(?!)
- electron/muon/tau: 1 : 206 : 3477 These values have a extremely high experimental precision. The article claims 0.5109989461 ± 0.0000000031 MeV but Wikipedia says 0.51099895069(16) MeV/c^2
- neutrinos: From the article:
> For neutrinos, this work predicts masses of 0.058 ± 0.004 eV for ν 3; 0:0086 ± 0:0003 eV for ν2, and 0:0023 ± 0:0002 eV for ν1, with mass ratios showing remarkable precision: m2/m1 = 4.5 ± 0.3 and m3/m1 = 21.0 ± 1.5.
But from the experiments we have only upper bounds of the masses. We know they have mass, but we don't know even an approximation of the value. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Flavor,_mass,_and_the... the experimental values are "<0.08x10-6", "<0.17" and "<18.2" so I don't understand how the paper claims "remarkable precision"
brudgers•7mo ago
Time, according to Kant is the a priori condition of all inner experience. [1] I find that a more useful model, though your mileage may vary because giving up all those ding an sich's doesn't come for free. TANSTAAFL.
[1]: and space the a priori condition of all external experience.