I saw "relativistic gravitational force between neutrinos" and red flags went up. I've not read the article, just the abstract.

Doing a bit more of a look on the RLM, I found this[1] where they (mis)write the relation between inertial and rest mass. Specifically the gamma^3 factor ...

I've been out of physics for more than 20 years, so it's possible that there has been some new development since my Ph.D. Though 2 additional factors of gamma in special relativity aren't likely.

Color me ... skeptical.

I did follow their Einstein paper reference[2] to see if I had missed something. I didn't. I don't understand the origin of their 2 extra gammas in eqn 1 of the first reference. The paper abstract appears to be a continuation of that work.

From what I could determine, they need the gamma^3 term for their arguments, but it doesn't come from Einstein's paper as they claimed.

Again, I could be missing something, but I don't think I am.

[1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/0...

[2] http://fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Couldn't find it on arxiv, but it is referenced in another of their current articles here:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.09760

Very novel :-/

edit: They have published a book. One can read the preview on Amazon to get a feel for it:

https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Special-Relativity-Strong-Boh...

They aren't attracting any citations.

They model the proton as three neutrinos rotating around a positron. These are spin 1/2, particles, so the composite particle that includes all of them must have a spin that is an integer number: 0, 1 or 2 in this case. But the proton is a 1/2 spin particle. This is a huge red flag.

For comparison, in the Standard Model, the proton is made of two up quarks an one down quark [1]. Each of the has spin 1/2, and the composite particle must have a non integer spin: 1/2 or 3/2 in this case. The proton is the one with spin 1/2. The version with spin 3/2 is the Delta+ particle, that is a 30% "heavier".

[There are other technical details, like if the three rotating neutrinos break the Pauli exclusion principle for neutrinos. I suspect that this is a problem, but I'm not sure. The inclusion of the Higgs boson is very strange. Anyway, the total spin is the easier to explain and check.]

[1] And a bunch of gluons of spin 0 and virtual particles that get compensated and don't affect the total spin. Let's use the naïve version with only three quarks.

An Elsevier link? Really? ugh.

https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.1236...

How common is it for a physics theory to be able to compute so many quantities without fudge factors to make it all work out? I'm not a physicist, so I'm currently imagining this could be quite significant. Is that how physicists are reading it? Also, can any physicists comment on whether this is a top journal.

RLM reminds me of Hestenes (1990):

The Zitterbewegung Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

The zitterbewegung is a local circulatory motion of the electron presumed to be the basis of the electron spin and magnetic moment. A reformulation of the Dirac theory shows that the zitterbewegung need not be attributed to interference between positive and negative energy states as originally proposed by Schroedinger. Rather, it provides a physical interpretation for the complex phase factor in the Dirac wave function generally. Moreover, it extends to a coherent physical interpretation of the entire Dirac theory, and it implies a zitterbewegung interpretation for the Schroedinger theory as well.

http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/ZBW_I_QM.pdf

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/proton-spin-myste... https://phys.org/news/2017-03-proton.html https://phys.org/news/2017-10-proton-puzzle.html RLM model by Vagenas solves the spin problem easily, some are still trying...that theory of everything based on the standard model is just for hackers... lol

It looks like there is a related article by the same author in 2016.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/738/1/0...

Press release: http://www.academyofathens.gr/en/announcements/press-release...

This model seems like an incredible breakthrough. Can any physicists comment on why this model isn’t taken more seriously?

This should have a (2019), shouldn't it?

I see two of my favorite words in all of physics in this theory:

Gravity and Inertia...

So maybe they're onto something there...

Any ELI15?

and red flags went up ...lol PhD = peripheral head death

Hackers you are idiots most of the proton spin does come not by adding the individual spins of neutrinos but from the orbital rotation of the neutrinos. Have you heard of the proton spin crisis...