If you are a follower of Science20, you probably know that  I have always been very liberal in this column about what deserves to be mentioned as a possible new idea in Physics. I even invited some "non-conventional", independent scientists to write about their own ideas and pet theories here, in many occasions. I do not think this collides with the main purpose of this blog, which is to discuss real science and do some proper outreach and dissemination. In fact, I find it instructive and enlightening on what really Science is.

Within a certain level of similarity, the material varies a lot in quality, though. The desire to draw the line somewhere fights with the fact that once one looks into seemingly crackpottish, half-baked theories of new physics it becomes very difficult to be a good judge. Who am I to decide whether some crazy concoction hides a bright pearl within? I do not have the correct qualification for that - I am an experimental particle physicist, and although I do know quantum field theory and all that stuff, I do not claim to always be able to grasp complex new formulations. 

Over time, the visibility of this blog made me a target of emails where authors of such theories asked for visibility, support, verification. But today I got a new level of request - a Nobel prize endorsement! The author of that message will pardon me if I disclose its contents, as his quite special request cannot be handled in any other way:

The completed nomination forms must reach the Nobel Committee no later than 31 January of the following year. The Committee  selects the preliminary candidates.
My 2 articles deserved for nomination.
Don't miss deadline, please.

Unfortunately, this is not meant to be a joke - no, the author does think he deserves to be nominated for the Nobel prize in Physics. And this request came after I had scrutinized the above material, and expressed my opinion to its author as follows, in a previous message:

I don't have much to say, unfortunately it seems a rather inconsequential pile of ex-post observations, with no meaning other than what they have to the observer (you).
Sorry for being blunt, but you need to realize that doing science is something else.
Best regards,

But what is this "theory" about then? Well, you can certainly download the above "articles" if you are curious, but if your time is limited I can provide a succinct summary. It all has to do with the tangent function, and the fact that the mass of some hand-picked particles (not even elementary ones, but composite hadrons in fact - pions, kaons, protons, deuterons, b hadrons) seem to be connected with the angle 18 degrees:

Mpi=Mpr x tan(45-2×18)deg
Mk=Mpr x tan(45-18)deg
Md=Mpr x tan(45+18)deg
Mb=Mpr x tan(45+2×18)deg

Well, I leave this here. Of course we don't need to discuss this further, but one thing can be pointed out. Physics is so intriguing and unintelligible in some of its deepest mysteries, that it fascinates us and provides material to our fantasies. And this puts scientists and laymen on the same ground.