[Paladin2]

"There is not a glimpse of physics in that paper. You won't find anything like a "Lagrangian", "amplitudes", "masses", "cross section", "energy", "force", "Hamiltonian", "entropy", "path integral", "temperature", or other words that you expect in physics paper. When he talks about actions, they're always wrong actions from some previous obscure papers that have clearly nothing to do with observable physics either. On the other hand, you find a lot of random assignments of particles to vertices of polytopes - something that you know from papers about the octopi. "

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/exceptionally-simple-theory-of.html

[snarks_when_bored]

Yes, I figured folks would follow links from Peter Woit’s page to Motl’s page. Motl failed to get tenure at Harvard, but he’s learned nothing from the experience.

[devere]

“There is not a glimpse of physics in that paper.”

Smells like envy to me.

The surfer-dude has his union-card ( doctorate in physics, just like Einstein ) and is thereby qualified to be taken seriously.

If surfer-dude’s theory makes testable predictions, it’s at least better than string theory. Experimentation will reveal if he’s correct or not!