@Fine did you see this? good blog fodder... which proof/ flaw? is mentioned in the article? thetimes.co.uk/article/…

@vzn: if i remember correctly, atiyah had attempted to solve a very famous problem in arxiv.org/abs/1610.09366 but entirely failed to do so, his attempt was full of flaws.

atiyah has (apparently) submitted another solution to a remarkable problem, but he was warned by his close friends to not do so. and it appears that several people keep on detecting errors in his proposed solutions, but they don't make a "big scene" out of it, out of respect for atiyah

atiyah has clearly lost his mind

@Fine sad! hadnt heard that. unf that presumably decent article is behind a paywall, argh. but have heard many stories like that. recently it was grothendieck. vzn1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/… and there are a few logicians who deteriorated at the end of their lives also. (iirc fortnow blogged about it once.) overall it might make an interesting book topic. unf its considered something like "dirty laundry" by scientists. macabre? :|

@vzn, regarding my Google patent story, it was hot on reddit ( reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6h08z5/… ), and recently very hot in media in Poland (some English: wbj.pl/… ), but I hope it is close to being resolved.

I see "cellular automata" - again very fashionable topic (Wolfram?) , which doesn't seem to have much in common with reality: please explain e.g. Coulomb law with it. Before getting to exotic explanations, we should understand what we know: like EM field, for which standard view misses understanding of infinite energy for point charge.

Asking for field configuration for electron, which is maintained with time, by definition means it a soliton of some fields (e.g. EM) - the problem is to figure out the details.

Wow, my question why asking for EM field structure of electron is controversial ( physics.stackexchange.com/questions/352546/… ) was put "on hold" as controversial (off-topic for mainstream) ... maybe they could at least explain why?? - answering to my original question

So maybe I should use the next iteration: "Why the question why it is controversial, is controversial?" ?

@JarekDuda lets face it SE fmt sometimes rigorously enforces groupthink. this is not limited to Physics, its a global property of the software/ culture etc. cf physics.stackexchange.com/questions/315123/… and also Skeptics...

@JarekDuda why do you think the topic is "fashionable"? there was a large scale rejection, even excoriation of Wolframs work by the scientific community. only fringe scientists take it seriously in physics etc. 't hooft has looked into it at length, but he fits the stereotype of the smbc "old physicist" just cited. think the magic realization is that some simple 3d CA rules lead to solitons, but apparently nobody has demonstrated that yet. think it is likely not hard to show with simulations...

@vzn, it is still better than in physicsforums, where you write feeling the threat of permanent ban. Regarding cellural automata for fundamental physics, I have met a few enthusiasts in Kraków, a week ago I was suggested "Quantum cellular automata and free quantum field theory" paper ...

@JarekDuda Quantum cellular automata and free quantum field theory / D'Ariano, Perinotti / arxiv.org/abs/1608.02004

@JarekDuda not too familiar with physicsforums. do they have a stated policy on mainstream vs fringe physics? this site was created by Physics contrarians/ splinter group, you might have some luck with it, found it to be not inhospitable with some small dabbling awhile back physicsoverflow.org

@vzn, from my experience, physicsforums is extremely orthodox. Thanks for the physicsoverflow suggestion, let's try there: physicsoverflow.org/revisions/39521

oh, it has like 20 reviews in 3 years, great ... I give up.

@JarekDuda lol so just give up for today :P ... havent we at least est a mutual admiration society of size 2? "rome wasnt built in a day" :|

@vzn, I was e.g. at two EmQM conferences - the first one started by Couder's lecture (lots of available material: emqm13.org/abstracts emqm15.org/presentations/speaker-presentations ) ... but they are still around dBB/Couder etc. ... while maybe there is finally a time to make further steps: ask for dynamics and structure of particles ...

@JarekDuda a cohort @ThomasKlimpel seriously investigating these areas also tipped me off to the amazing/ breakthru EmQM conf. vzn1.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/… Couder is a real/ rare visionary. it probably will take a few more and at least over a decade more to substantially spread the soliton model. have collected a bunch of recent links, am planning to blog on it again sooner or later. have you read Bush?

@vzn, I was recently on soliton conference in neighboring department ( th.if.uj.edu.pl/~wereszcz/sig6.html ) - tried to ask the (as we could recently see controversial) question why we cannot model electron this way ... and got only some avoiding enigmatic responses - with a clear feeling that they only really care about math, not real physics.

Another world of questions is understanding trajectories of electron - we finally have to ask if we accept dBB/Couder view on electron - also in atoms, molecules, solids... and there is a surprisingly successful foundation built for for nearly half a century by Gryzinski: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-fall_atomic_model