It's just bad journalism. His theory has been published in a journal, but has yet to be peer-reviewed. Getting a theory published does not warrant media coverage, having positive reviews and experiments undertaken which support the theory does.
Its like the publicity given to the cold fusion, vaccinations causing autism and the discovery of the Higgs boson - theories that should not have been put out in the mainstream media.
In fact, as a general rule of thumb, ignore any and every science story you read in the media and you won't go far wrong.
-----
warning: long boring bit of analysis -----
But let's have a go at this one anyway and have a look at
the paper itself...
"
Despite significant theoretical progress, experimental anomalies, paradoxes, and enigmas have revealed paradigmatic limitations. Thus, the advancement of scientific understanding requires new models that resolve fundamental problems. Here, I present a theoretical framework that economically fits evidence accumulated from examinations of life."
= it is just a theory rather than something rock-solid. It is a discussion paper rather than "Eureka!". It's worth being cynical: as a professor he has to publish
something every year.
"
The theoretical framework unifies the macrocosmic and microcosmic realms, validates predicted laws of nature, and solves the puzzle of the origin and evolution of cellular life in the universe."
Reconciling the micro and macro scales is the biggest problem in physics and has been for decades. The fellah - biologist who works on RNA in yeast - has solved that problem. The origin of life is a big problem in biology. He cracked that one too. How we got from the replicator molecule to the single cell is only fairly recently being explained, but he's also got that covered. Not bad from one theory, solving 3 major problems in at least 3 different disciplines.
"
Rather than give a comprehensive literature review, I introduce a handful of these ideas and point out their limitations."
A luxury he would not let his students have. I wonder how his peers will feel about that omission.
In the next paragraph he debunks "
the panspermia hypothesis which suggests that life started elsewhere in the universe", "
the primordial soup hypothesis during the early evolution of the Earth, a reducing atmosphere provided the correct environment for the formation of basic organic compounds" and "
the iron-sulfur world theory, primitive life is assumed to have started at deep-sea hydrothermal vents" and "
the RNA (ribonucleic acid) world hypothesis posits that ribonucleotide-based genetic systems evolved prior to protein and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)".
Big deal, they have been debunked anyway. But he goes on to say "
in short, no consensus model for life has emerged" but that does not follow. By means of that statement, and a refusal to do a literature review, he can pretend there are no existing theories that stand up, thereby making it easy for him to claim his theory is the only one and therefore the best.
I expect most scientists will stop reading at that point.
Now to the meat.
"
In the theory proposed herein, I use the heterodox yet simple gyre—a spiral, vortex, whorl, or similar circular pattern—as a core model for understanding life." So all he is proposing is a model.
"
The central idea of this theory is that all physical reality, stretching from the so-called inanimate into the animate realm and from micro- to meso- to macrocosmic scales, can be interpreted and modeled as manifestations of a single geometric entity, the gyre." So his theory is that you can model everything from sub-atomic to galactic cluster scale using geometric patterns. Fairy nuffski. Not much of a "theory of everything" though, is it?
"
This entity is attractive because it has life-like characteristics, undergoes morphogenesis, and is responsive to environmental conditions." Eh, what? So he's saying the model is a good one because it changes shape with scale and what it describes, and therefore is like a lifeform? Only inasmuch as Plasticene people are a valid model of life!
"
The gyromodel depicts the spatiotemporal behavior and properties of elementary particles, celestial bodies, atoms, chemicals, molecules, and systems as quantized packets of information, energy, and/or matter that oscillate between excited and ground states around a singularity." So the singularity is the centre of his concentric geometric shapes. Well, duh.
"
The singularity, in turn, modulates these states by alternating attractive and repulsive forces. The singularity itself is modeled as a gyre, thus evincing a thermodynamic, fractal, and nested organization of the gyromodel." Oh give over! The singularity is a point which is a geometric shape. But claiming thermodynamics apply just because he is modelling physical objects is cheating.
"
In fitting the scientific evidence from quantum gravity to cell division, this theory arrives at an understanding of life that questions traditional beliefs and definitions." It questions them because it does not match established theories, but does not provide empirical evidence to invalidate them. He is saying it is a load of contrived bollocks!
Oh, goody. A lexicon.
"
Focagyre - A gyre that is the focal point of analysis or discussion" but the gyre is everything in the universe - surely there is just the one. Or does he mean the 'scale'?
"
Gyrapex - The relativistically high potential, excited, unstable, learning state of a particle" so particles now have 'learning states'. Is he going to explain how water has a memory too (well established bad science)?
"
Gyre - The spacetime shape or path of a particle or group of particles; a quantum" where quantum here means any scale, so all gyres a quanta.
"
IEM - Information, energy, and/or matter" so equating 'information' with energy or matter, where 'information' can only mean 'state', which is an items energy level. Poor understanding of physics going on here, methinks.
"
Gyrognosis - The thermodynamically demanding process of learning and integrating IEM" OK now we are into pointless terminology; gyrognosis means using energy to change the state of something. That's what thermodynamics is all about!
And so on.
He then goes on to describe the model in various scales which says "there is stuff inside stuff, or orbiting stuff, and each scale can be a different shape". Fancy that. That is followed by unnecessarily complicated names for things being inside things, and different names for things depending on whether you look at them from above or below.
I'll skip 50 pages and go to the conclusion.
1st paragraph says "My theory says there's stuff inside stuff and the stuff effects other stuff".
"
my theory is sui generis" that just means 'one of a kind'.
"
I broach the correctness of the theory, reiterate a handful of original solutions to protracted scientific problems, and discuss several issues related to comprehensiveness. I pepper this subsection with several theoretical predictions." and then picks some random headings from science and relates them to his theory in vague ways. He can get away with that because this is the conclusion - there is no supporting documentation. He is trying to make it seem to the reader that his theory covers all these other matters by merely naming them.
"
Concluding Remarks
In science and theory, the principle of parsimony dictates that the most straightforward, plain, and frugal model of an observation or set thereof is more favorable and likely right."
He is referring to Occam's Razor. Since the theory is that "there is stuff inside stuff" then his theory is probably right.
"
As my theoretical framework coalesces a vast amount of accumulated scientific evidence into one neat, lawful, and interconnected modular structure, it abides by this principle. In conclusion, this catholic theory provides an innovative and elegant solution to the origin, evolution, and nature of life in the cosmos." Can't fault that. He says "stuff affects stuff" which seems fair enough.
"
I humbly proffer my theory as a viable system for knowing life." I should hope he is being humble, it's humbug!
He then gets in 800 references to other papers. Not 799 or 801 but 800. That in itself is dodgy!
And the word count is just over 30,000 (I am struggling to get the exact number). I would not be surprised if it is exactly 30,000 words ... and I bet his contract said he had to have 30,000 words published in 2011. This paper was published 2 days before Xmas!
-----
end of warning -----
I'll tell you what to make of this paper. I'll summarise it:
"Like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel, never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel."
) – to be a decent one, though. They might end up being a bit embarrassed by this.