Show HN: G=(hbar*c*2*(1+alpha/3)^2)/(m_p^2*4^64) ≈ 6.6742439706e-11 (8 ppm)

2 pointsposted 9 hours ago
by albert_roca

Item id: 46358670

8 Comments

albert_roca

9 hours ago

  EXPECTED OUTPUT:
  
  OBJECT      | UNIFIED           | GR                | DIFF %
  -----------------------------------------------------------------
  Electron    | 2.53264e+22       | 2.53262e+22       | 0.00084794
  Proton      | 2.53264e+22       | 2.53262e+22       | 0.00084794
  Earth       | 9.81997e+00       | 9.81997e+00       | 0.00000000
  Sun         | 2.73810e+02       | 2.73810e+02       | 0.00000000
  Neutron Star| 2.74798e+12       | 2.74798e+12       | 0.00000000
  Sgr A* (Lim)| 7.14606e+07       | 7.14606e+07       | 0.00000000
  -----------------------------------------------------------------
  
  PHASE 2: G DERIVATION
  Formula:   G = (hbar * c * 2 * (1 + alpha/3)^2) / (mp^2 * 4^64)
  Derived G: 6.67424397056e-11
  CODATA G:  6.67430000000e-11
  Diff:      8.39 ppm (within 22 ppm uncertainty)

pavel_lishin

9 hours ago

Does this mean anything? It looks like you just created a formula where the numbers happen to add up. Is there any more significance to this than 111 * 111 being equal to 12321?

albert_roca

8 hours ago

Valid question. The significance is that the 4^32 scaling factor emerged earlier in the model as a geometric constraint, and 4^64 appears in this equation, apparently because G is inversely proportional to the square of m_P. Hitting G within 8 ppm using a pre-existing constraint to link quantum constants with the proton mass is statistically extremely unlikely. I admit the precision was a surprise to me too, but the fact that it consistently reproduces Schwarzschild dynamics suggests it's not just a lucky number.

pavel_lishin

7 hours ago

There's more arbitrary numbers. Why is alpha divided by three? Why is the result incremented by one, and then squared?

Does any of it mean anything? You mentioned something about holography, but none of these numbers really imply anything about it.

And what are Schwarzschild dynamics in this context?

This sounds like salad.

albert_roca

4 hours ago

The numbers seem to follow a geometric logic:

Alpha / 3: The "3" represents the spatial dimensions.

+1 and squared: 1 is the undistorted space, and it is squared because space intervals are quadratic, like in the Pythagorean theorem.

Holography: In the context of the model, the 4^32 factor is the scaling factor between m_p and m_P (19 orders of magnitude).

Schwarzschild dynamics: The code reproduces the same accelerations as general relativity.

The goal is to find if a single geometric formulation can link QM and GR. Instead of a "salad", I see it as a possible approach to unification without free parameters, only using the same geometry at all scales.

al2o3cr

7 hours ago

Numerology and LLM slop. Meaningless.

Consider the "calculation" for ai_unified for an uncharged case:

     L_src = m hbar / (c*mp^2). 
     Expand and simplify and get L_src = m G / c^2

     L_lim = w * L_src = 2 m G / c^2. Also the value of rs.

     metric_factor is irrelevant, as both ai_gr and ai_unified are divided by it since L_lim = rs

     ai_unified = (c^2 * L_src) / (radius^2 * metric_factor). Expand L_src and get ai_unified = m G / (radius^2 * metric_factor)
This is IDENTICAL to the formula used for ai_gr when there is no charge. Presenting "0% difference" like it is a result is sloppy ignorant bullshitting at best and deliberate fraud at worst.

albert_roca

4 hours ago

The calculation uses m_p , which is independent of G. Deriving G to 8 ppm from m_p is not necessarily "meaningless", or at least it's statistically non-trivial. It is not just "G = G".

You mention the "uncharged case", but ordinary matter is not mathematically neutral. By focusing on the uncharged case only, you ignore that this is an attempt at unification. The model proposes that geometry explains both interactions. You cannot remove one of them, because in nature they happen at once.

The rest of your remarks don't seem "uncharged" at all, but the opposite.

al2o3cr

3 hours ago

    You mention the "uncharged case", but ordinary matter is not mathematically neutral.
YOUR CODE assumes that it is, when it passes "q": 0 for four of the six objects.

For the other two, it passes "q": 1. Let's look at what it does then:

    L_src is much much smaller than Le, by roughly a factor of (mass / mPL)^2

    The calculation of lambda_a uses the electron mass even when calculating for a proton

    For the given objects, metric_factor is negligible.

    ai_unified = c^2 * (alpha * hbar / (me_kg * c)) / r^2 = alpha * (hbar * c) / (me_kg * r^2)

    but alpha = k*e^2 / (hbar * c)

    so ai_unified = k * e^2 / (me_kg * r^2) + small correction of O((mass / mPL)^2)
That's exactly the formula used for acc_coloumb in the code. Also interesting to note the "Coulomb acceleration" for a proton is calculated by dividing the electric force by the mass of the ELECTRON somehow.

As for "Phase 2"? The program's output doesn't even agree with the implementation about the formula being used.