Extract from a comment by myself a few days ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44357022> I think it makes no sense, but as HN discourage swallow dismissal ...
> 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)
Then then claim something like: "1 : 4.5 : 21.0"
> - top/charm/up quarks: the ratios are 1 : 588 : 80186
> - bottom/strange/down quarks: missing(?!)
> - electron/muon/tau: 1 : 206 : 3477
> - 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"
After a few days, I consider the missing bottom/strange/down quarks a huge red flag, because any referee would ask it.
Also, by Sabine Hossenfelder "Time has 3 dimensions and that explains particle masses, physicist claims" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWzK6nITCK0 that explains the errors in many of the other equations.
