I can provide some general insights.
In order to assess the impact and significance of a scientific paper, several factors come into play. These include the quality of the research, the credibility of the author or authors, the paper's publication venue, the reception and recognition it receives from the scientific community, and its ability to influence and inspire further research.
While a paper can present novel ideas or propose new theories, the field of theoretical physics is vast and complex, and scientific revolutions typically occur through the accumulation of evidence and the consensus-building process. Groundbreaking papers often generate interest and may spark further research, discussions, and collaborations in the scientific community. However, it usually takes time and the collective efforts of researchers to evaluate, verify, and build upon new ideas before they can lead to revolutionary changes in theoretical physics.
It's worth noting that scientific revolutions are rare and often require a substantial body of evidence and rigorous scrutiny. The impact of any individual paper, no matter how significant it may seem, is usually assessed in the context of the broader scientific landscape and the cumulative progress made in a particular field.
If you are interested in the specific paper you mentioned, it would be best to read and critically evaluate its content, examine its references and citations, and explore how it has been received by the scientific community. This will provide you with a better understanding of its potential implications and its role within the field of theoretical physics.