Is the Theory of Extended Particles by Mahmoud Hessaby Gaining Recognition?

[ShayanJ]

There was an Iranian physicist,Mahmoud Hessaaby
As an Iranian,I know him and am familiar with his works
He had a theory called "Theory of Extended Particles"
Now I don't want to make it a matter of nationality
I myself could find maybe just one little page about it on internet and I gained little information from that,So I thought it should be wrong somehow and maybe that's because not much sign can be found about it(it was still strange)
But today,I found the paper here and after reading it,I understood its not that much wrong and even may prove useful.
And its written that professor hessaby, for unclear reasons,didn't publish the theory and that's because there is no sign of it.And now,some one has found one of the few copies of the paper and published it there(in fact in 2011)

I want to know,any one knows about that theory?Does it have supporters?People who work on it?And any other idea.

Thanks

 

[mfb]

Electron mass: 0.510998928 ± 0.000000011 MeV
Muon mass: 105.6583715 ± 0.0000035 MeV
The proposed factor is an exact result of the theory, and the deviation of ~0.5% is way too large to be consistent with the uncertainties of the measured masses.
I did not check the calculation, but the theory, as posted there, is wrong.

In addition, there are so many substitutions, expansions and so on that errors might be common. Calculating some ratios and finding baryons and mesons nearby afterwards is problematic, too. There are many known particles, the chance that one of them is nearby is good. See http://pdglive.lbl.gov/listing.brl?fsizein=1&group=MXXX005 , for example - and those are just mesons without strangeness or heavier quarks.

 

[ShayanJ]

Electron mass: 0.510998928 ± 0.000000011 MeV
Muon mass: 105.6583715 ± 0.0000035 MeV
The proposed factor is an exact result of the theory, and the deviation of ~0.5% is way too large to be consistent with the uncertainties of the measured masses.
I did not check the calculation, but the theory, as posted there, is wrong.

Any theory evolves as time passes and doesn't remain in the form as proposed first.
So it can be about this theory.
One may make corrections to it to reduce the uncertainty.

In addition, there are so many substitutions, expansions and so on that errors might be common. Calculating some ratios and finding baryons and mesons nearby afterwards is problematic, too. There are many known particles, the chance that one of them is nearby is good. See http://pdglive.lbl.gov/listing.brl?fsizein=1&group=MXXX005 , for example - and those are just mesons without strangeness or heavier quarks.

Yes,you're right.The theory may have found those masses by chance.
But the point is,it may not.

 

[Vanadium 50]

We do not discuss unpublished theories here.