You are qualified to say all that because ...? Just asking
It doesn't take a lot of 'qualification' to know when you have stepped in a pile of bull s....
I blew you off with a cynical answer, which wasn't helpful. This is a more appropriate reply.
Yes, I believe I am qualified. I have an engineering degree from a top rated accredited university. I retired from a major corporation as the director of a technology center there. As such, part of my job was to approve and therefore edit technical papers and test reports. I approved many hundreds of them. Some of these became the basis for a UN International Standard. I have testified as an Expert Witness in a large patent lawsuit.
One of the first things I look for in any equality is "Are the units consistent?" Are the units on the left side of an equal sign the same as the units on the right side? In Engineering Mechanics, there are just two basic units of measurement, the cgs (centimeter-gram-seconds) system and the fps (foot pound-seconds) system, the Metric and the English systems. Almost all basic measurements can be defined in these systems, and units have to be consistent in all equations.
The first two items I mentioned, time is not the inverse of amplitude, and Power has different units than intensity, thus, they failed this requirement.
The next, pair production avalanche, is simply a group of meaningless buzzwords. They are undefined in the document, and their context is undefined. That's always a no-no in a valid technical paper.
The last, polarization of the local vacuum state, illustrates meaningless obfuscation. A vacuum is the absence of anything, it can't be polarized. Combining the words, local, vacuum, and state is just unnecessary fluff, to sound technical.
These four were just examples I found quickly, and I didn't want to waste any more time. The patent was full of such drivel.