> what he’s saying sounds interesting even to a physics PhD I’d imagine
Why would you imagine that?
> The scientific community doesn’t know why there’s 3 generations of particles, heck I’ve barely heard anyone in my life even mention the fact.
Your random encounters with information are not a good guide here. The generatation issue is often described as one of the main open problems in particle physics.
Why would you imagine that?
> The scientific community doesn’t know why there’s 3 generations of particles, heck I’ve barely heard anyone in my life even mention the fact.
Your random encounters with information are not a good guide here. The generatation issue is often described as one of the main open problems in particle physics.
Here are some links about particle generations:
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/august-2015/the-mys...
https://particleadventure.org/three_gen.html https://particleadventure.org/beyond_start.html
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/generation+of+fundamental+part...
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-why-are-ther...
I could go on.
The reason Weinstein focuses on it is because he's a crank, and cranks are attracted to notorious problems.
> Some of what he’s saying is undoubtedly true.
Such as? I'm reminded of the quote, "What is new is not true; and what is true is not new."