I've read the paper that's available on Arxiv and agree it's quackpottery [1]. The paper does not introduce concepts in a scientific way. It seems to me like a series of ramblings or ideas about how things might work, with no results or justifications, indistinguishable from hypothetical future technology in science fiction. There's no actual scientific content, no presentation of a new theory and working out results that derive from it.
Be advised, poelzi seems like an apologist for Stoyan Sarg. See previous comment history where they mention the theory and link to the book numerous times. poelzi seems to mention and link to M. Sarg's book at every opportunity. E.g. [2], while also saying that "The papers helped me to get into the theory, but real deep understanding is not possible from them." This alone should be enough to tell you that it's garbage science. The papers reference material published in M. Sarg's books and do not stand alone.
poelzi, if you believe this is science then you've been led astray. It's not. It's pseudo-scientific make-believe. There are no scientific theories, explanations, or results in M. Sarg's papers. Credible scientists write papers describing their results to the world, that are self-contained and justify the theory and results that they allege. M. Sarg's papers and/or books may contain assertions that his theory actually explains things and makes predictions, but there's no substance in the papers whatsoever that I can tell. For [3] to be a credible paper it would need to extensively document the mathematical modeling that yielded these structures (or cite another paper that does).
Perhaps the degree to which these papers are lacking will be more apparent if you review some respected scientific papers introducing new theories, such as "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field" [4]. If you are a layperson without scientific training, then the introductory paragraphs might not be obviously distinguishable from M. Sarg's writings. However, the paper is concrete and lays out explanations alongside mathematical results. For example, observe page 10 in the PDF where the real mathematics begins, as Maxwell lays out his results with a series of equations interspersed with commentary about what they mean and how they're derived. This continues for the rest of the paper, and is the justification by which Maxwell's results are asserted and explained. Anyone thinking that they can credibly evaluate a unified theory of everything should feel comfortable working with Maxwell's equations on a white board, and using them to predict the behavior of physical systems; his equations are now introductory level for students of physics, and indeed Maxwell's equations are now taught to high school students taking AP Physics C (Electricity and Magnetism).
M. Sarg's papers are absent any kind of explanation or justifications; they are absent mathematics and seem to be bare assertions or "mentions" of ideas in his books. This is not how credible science is published to the world. Anyone can whip up diagrams and data plots alleging that their theory explains something, but without the substance behind it for others to review in a detailed mathematical way, there's no science there.
[1] http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205052
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11166770 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10781247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10770899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10626579 etc.
[3] I came across another paper "Graphical 3D Modeling and Analysis of Molecules and Nanostructures with the BSM-SG Atomic Models", which has a lot of pictures of hypothetical atomic structures, and no mathematics describing the derivation of these structures. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270572848_Graphical...
[4] http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/155/459