Interesting read and definitely matches my own feelings about string theory, dark matter and dark energy.

Yeah. No.

Math is a language.

Sometimes the rules of the language let you know that you need another noun or verb to make a complete sentence.

Sometimes those using the language get so caught up in its formalism that they forget it’s supposed to represent reality.

I wouldn’t call it intellectual fraud. I would say that 120 years in, we’ve reached the end of what details following the math can fill in. As the article points out, it did correctly predict things like antimatter (yes, that’s what the article goes on to prove despite what the intro says). We need some new axiomatic postulates to shape our understanding of reality from which we can follow the math.

Planck quantized action and rotation. Einstein introduced a reference-independent speed of light. Dirac merged them. Einstein added the equivalence principle to relativity to describe gravity which has not been fully merged. If the math doesn’t work, don’t keep adding more. Try new foundational postulates.