lowtek
Legendary Contributor
FASTLANE INSIDER
EPIC CONTRIBUTOR
Read Fastlane!
Summit Attendee
Speedway Pass
This is certainly crackpottery. Reading over the paper, it seems like it's pretty sophisticated crack pottery, but I can assure you it is precisely that.
There are details that set off my alarm bells. First, it's not written like a physics research paper, in terms of its formatting or flow. It's not even written like an undergrad thesis. It's written like a paper by a crackpot.
Second, it comes across as buzzword salad, with phrases such as: "This equation tells a clear geometric story. The mass of the electron (its total distortive presence in the fluid) has two contributions: a localized wave, and a secondary back reflection. These two parts are separated by 8 orders of magnitude, which means that they take up the entire range of Nature’s scale-hyperbolic-octonion degrees of freedom"
Third, it doesn't cite any other works, even previous work by the paper's author. This is a massive red flag.
Fourth, even though I don't know anything about quantum fluid dynamics (note that I do have a PhD in physics, though) I can easily follow along with the logic of the wikipedia article on quantum vortices. It's written in terms of things a physicist would know and understand. Reading this paper is like reading greek. It simply doesn't make any kind of sense to someone that has even an undergrad training in physics.
It's nonsense.
There are details that set off my alarm bells. First, it's not written like a physics research paper, in terms of its formatting or flow. It's not even written like an undergrad thesis. It's written like a paper by a crackpot.
Second, it comes across as buzzword salad, with phrases such as: "This equation tells a clear geometric story. The mass of the electron (its total distortive presence in the fluid) has two contributions: a localized wave, and a secondary back reflection. These two parts are separated by 8 orders of magnitude, which means that they take up the entire range of Nature’s scale-hyperbolic-octonion degrees of freedom"
Third, it doesn't cite any other works, even previous work by the paper's author. This is a massive red flag.
Fourth, even though I don't know anything about quantum fluid dynamics (note that I do have a PhD in physics, though) I can easily follow along with the logic of the wikipedia article on quantum vortices. It's written in terms of things a physicist would know and understand. Reading this paper is like reading greek. It simply doesn't make any kind of sense to someone that has even an undergrad training in physics.
It's nonsense.