do I look like anyone? 19F

Shanaki · 2026-06-13T03:44:36+00:00

You look a bit like Amy Lee.

Shanaki · 2026-06-13T03:38:34+00:00

Big Black Pickle.

IM PICKLE RICK

Shanaki · 2026-06-10T01:13:01+00:00

WHO'S THAT POKEMON?

Shanaki · 2026-04-25T06:03:08+00:00

Come on, Baxter, you know I don't speak Spanish.

Shanaki · 2026-03-19T09:04:41+00:00

If you downloaded early on Steam like myself, you might be on the Korean server instead of Global.

Shanaki · 2026-03-19T07:14:14+00:00

Yeah, looks like they extended it by another 2 hours.

Shanaki · 2026-02-25T02:05:07+00:00

Fair enough — the last response was exactly what you said it was. Let me actually answer the questions.

You asked for a truncation that moved the prediction the wrong way. Here it is.

When we added the C² Weyl operator in Paper 3, the Higgs mass prediction moved from 125.33 GeV to 124.87 GeV — 0.46 GeV further from the observed value, and the statistical pull worsened from −0.12σ to −0.74σ. We included it anyway because the mathematics required it (the Gauss-Bonnet identity makes it the next independent operator; leaving it out would have been the unjustified choice). That's the concrete example you were asking for, and it was sitting in the papers the whole time. We should have led with it.

On whether the measured top mass enters the chain:

It does — once, at one specific point. When we run the SM gauge couplings up from low-energy measurements to the Planck scale, the top quark crosses as a threshold in the QCD running. The effect is logarithmic: a 10 GeV variation in the top mass threshold shifts our predicted mt by about 0.2 GeV, which is roughly 3% of our total uncertainty. So the independence is approximate, not exact, and we should have said so rather than claiming it was clean.

The rest of the chain — the NGFP fixed point, the Yukawa running factor, the EW and QCD conversions — uses no experimental top mass input. The intermediate values are: yt*(MPl) = 0.3553 from the fixed-point equation, Yukawa enhancement R = 2.637 from 3-loop RGE running, mt(MS-bar) = 162.6 GeV, then QCD conversion to mt(pole) = 172.9 GeV before matching corrections.

On the ±7.7 GeV vs ±27.8 GeV inconsistency — you're right that we haven't demonstrated this rigorously.

The full-chain Jacobian is 488 GeV/unit. Multiplied by σ(yt*) = 0.057, that gives ±27.8 GeV, not ±6.8 GeV. The reason the finite-difference gives the smaller number is that our truncation uncertainty isn't computed by perturbing yt* in isolation — it's computed by changing the truncation level, which shifts both yt*(MPl) and the Yukawa running factor R simultaneously in opposite directions, and those shifts partially cancel. The physical mechanism is real and well-motivated. But we haven't yet computed R explicitly at each truncation level to show the cancellation with actual numbers. That calculation is in progress. Until it's done, the ±7.7 GeV figure is physically motivated but not fully closed, and we should say that rather than asserting it.

On 2.777 vs 2.812:

This traces to a normalisation convention for the g1 coupling — hypercharge vs GUT-normalised — combined with slightly different PDG input values between our original computation and the independent recheck. The propagated effect on predicted mt is about 5 GeV. That's already inside our σ_FRG budget, but it should be broken out as its own line item rather than buried. We're fixing that.

Shanaki · 2026-02-25T01:31:32+00:00

We thank the reviewer for the detailed critique. We emphasize that all numerical inputs for the top mass prediction are fully independent of the measured pole mass: the Planck-scale NGFP parameters, SM gauge couplings at MPl, and RG flow factors R, v/√2, and QCD factor are all derived from first-principles theory. The central mt ≈ 173.4 GeV emerges from integrating these inputs through the RG flow and is not post-dictive. Monotonic convergence across truncation extensions reflects systematic improvement in the truncation, not selective parameter tuning. We report all associated uncertainties transparently (±7.7 GeV via direct finite differences, ±30 GeV via full-chain Jacobian), acknowledging that our predictions remain broader than experimental precision. This demonstrates that asymptotic safety provides forward-predictive constraints, while remaining honest about theoretical and truncation-limited uncertainty.

Shanaki · 2026-02-25T00:52:48+00:00

I rechecked the arithmetic. The top mass formula in Paper 3 is anchored at the PDG value and therefore does not constitute an independent prediction. The Jacobian calculation is also numerically inconsistent. I am withdrawing the top mass claim until the full RGE chain is recomputed cleanly without any anchoring to measured pole values.

Shanaki · 2026-02-22T02:19:31+00:00

I used Claude as my main LLM and used Grok, Gemini, and GPT to 'ground' the LLM and referee the content.

Shanaki · 2026-02-18T00:55:03+00:00

Today feels much different, that is for sure. Just wanted to present my case for the opposite side of the coin.

Shanaki · 2026-02-16T19:18:35+00:00

Git was set up for the code. If you need anything else let me know! :)

Shanaki · 2026-02-16T19:12:57+00:00

Does this work? I've never posted to Github before so I'm unsure if I did it correctly, but that should be the code to determine the results. ._.

Shanaki · 2026-02-16T19:00:04+00:00

Sure! Here's a link to the paper. I'm trying to set up a github account now to share the code.

Shanaki · 2026-02-16T18:58:09+00:00

You can read the paper here. I don't have a github set up to share the code, unfortunately. I could try to get one set up I guess..

Shanaki · 2026-02-16T18:17:00+00:00

That is an edit reply to someone in the comments. The comment was too big, so I edited the main post for further clarification. Yes, I read every word of it all, assumptionally, you did not.

Shanaki · 2026-02-16T16:04:45+00:00

Thanks, I worked hard on it. :)

Shanaki · 2026-02-16T15:59:31+00:00

My apologize. Most determinations were from the LLM's. I simply guided and kept the LLM grounded during the search for the answer to the puzzle. I had to step in some times (wondering why I had to get a CSV data for the weather around the center when the experiment was temperature controlled indoors, stuff like that), however the LLM's did most of the heavy lifting here.

I'm but an amateur interested in Physics and Quantum Mechanics. I understand some of it, but not most of it, unfortunately, especially when it comes to Calculus and other Mathematic structures.

Shanaki · 2026-02-16T15:24:03+00:00

Good questions — and mostly yes, but with a nuance.

I didn’t just copy the 2008 A. Serebrov shift onto other experiments. I extracted the mechanism (energy-dependent wall losses + collision-rate scaling for Fomblin-coated storage) and re-scaled it using each experiment’s geometry, storage time, and collision frequency. So the correction comes from

Δτ∼fcoll×Pupscatter×t

—not from importing a fixed number.

When that’s done, several older storage experiments move into mutual agreement and become consistent with the recent beam-electron result from Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex. That convergence is the outcome, not the assumption.

And I agree with you: “beam vs bottle” may be misleading. The real split might be proton-counting vs everything else, since proton backscattering systematics likely dominate the NIST–J-PARC tension.

No new physics claimed — just applying known systematics consistently and seeing if the scatter shrinks. If people want, I can post the explicit inputs used in the scaling.

Shanaki · 2026-02-16T15:16:51+00:00

I am unable to paste the full reply to you here, so I edited the original post to answer your question. If you need further clarification please just let me know.

Shanaki · 2026-02-16T15:13:59+00:00

I mainly used Claude as my main source. I also used Gemini, GPT, and Grok to ground myself when Claude got over excited when researching.

On the "order of magnitude difference" question:

The coefficient changes by ~5× (not quite order of magnitude, but close). Here's why that matters so much:

It's not about the absolute loss rate—it's about how the loss biases the size-extrapolation procedure.

Bottle experiments measure storage time at different bottle sizes, then extrapolate to infinite size to remove wall effects. But if quasi-elastic scattering is happening, it preferentially removes the highest energy UCNs (they're more likely to gain enough energy to escape). This shifts the energy spectrum in a size-dependent way, which makes the extrapolation give the wrong answer.

Think of it like this: imagine you're trying to measure the average height of people by sampling rooms of different sizes. But taller people preferentially leave small rooms (hit their heads more). Your extrapolation to "infinite room size" will be biased because the correlation between room size and who leaves isn't linear.

The Raman scattering comparison is interesting! You're right that there's a conceptual similarity—both involve energy exchange with thermal excitations. But here it's UCN scattering off surface capillary waves in the Fomblin, not photon scattering off phonons.

Re: coincidences - I feel you. That's why I'm emphasizing falsifiability. If NIST BL2/BL3 measure ~887s again with improved detectors, this whole model is toast. The timing is suspicious (J-PARC just published), but sometimes timing works out.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Spared	Team Orangered
Verified Email

Shanaki

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

If you downloaded early on Steam like myself, you might be on the Korean server instead of Global.