I&#x27;m absolutely sure, that Einstein would have gone with the BSM-SG model. Unfortunately traveling back in time is impossible (from the BSM perspective).<p>Because the BSM model is the hacker approach to physics. If you can&#x27;t unify a theory in 100 years, you most likely made some mistakes and a rewrite makes much more sense. Start from scratch with newest measurements and the simplest assumptions build it from ground up. Of course you must describe the different constants&#x2F;forces of the standard model, but as long as you derive them logically, its absolutely valid.<p>Sorry, but we run out of time to wait 100 years for general physics to catch up. Paradima changes are slow, and we run out of time. Most people do not understand the great danger we are in:<p>arctic methane is just one of it:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=m6pFDu7lLV4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=m6pFDu7lLV4</a><p>If somebody gives me a classical theory of physics with the absolute minimal set of basic assumptions possible; that fits measurements very well, uses a more strict form of logic and provides one with a physical understanding of something that could save humanity:<p>I fucking taking it. I learn the crap out of it and I give my best to save this wonderful planet that we trashed. I studied physics long enough that I know how most, not all of course, tick. I understand the close mindedness of many scientists.<p>That&#x27;s why I&#x27;m promoting it, that&#x27;s why I think it deserves a chance to be investigated. Quite often, when I talk with people about this model, hackers have a much more open attitude to new ideas and very often, after answering many of their questions, I often here: ohh, this actually makes sense. Especially chemists are very fast interested, because it explains, of course, chemical bindings and the interaction between particles very well and understandable.