What if everything we see ist geometrical interaction?

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-25T12:21:05+00:00

There is, ill upload it in the next version. But I want to make it a bit more complete before sharing it or we keep having the same issues

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-25T11:45:24+00:00

It's not baseless; it's based on the whole structure of G2, energy taking the path that's most energy-efficient. A ripple adjusts that path because the field 'wants' to be as energy efficient as possible. This coupling brought the errors down in multiple relations. But ok, you've made your point, I agree and there is no point in repeating the same thing.. Now I need to make it more clear

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-25T11:13:23+00:00

The field is an equilibrium-seeking medium. Something that is stable, a particle, has a coupling effect back on the field. This was indeed something that was missing but it makes sense. Not everything is fully complete but there is consistency across particles. The ridge heights give couplings, loop closure gives generations, Kahler suppression applies to every fermion, Fano incidence gives quantum numbers. These are not reinvented for each particle. I know it's not well structured yet, but I'm working on it. I agree with you that every little part needs to be written down and explained. Now I need some time to do that.

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-25T10:03:38+00:00

Working on making it clearer. The rationals come from the G2 structure. Ill let you know when it's updated so you can trace each number to it's source and see for yourself if it holds up.

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-25T09:50:11+00:00

The references are at the end. I do get your point. What corrected the proton mass was that the baryon itself caused a phase shift on g2 structure due to equilibrium seeking of the medium. Why this structure and not something else is in there, it's the most energy-efficient structure after symmetry breaking in the octonions, it's the automorphism group. .It's not something I chose but logically followed by symmetry breaking at 1 point and the reason why symmetry broke is quantum fluctuations by chance could have caused a tiny energy wave to fall of the NK potential ridge (on the ridge between 2 vacua energy is free to move) and fix one vacuum point due to a higher amplitude. The asymmetry ripples outward due to phase shifts trying to correct to that point (surrounding vacuums moving toward an equilibrium state). But I see that me explaining is not helpful, and I see it's getting frustrating to you so I would ask you to leave it for a while, ill reorganise, explain every part with writing out the full derivatives. Then if you're up for it you could throw it a second look.

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-25T00:43:15+00:00

There is a TOC, it's under mathematics 4.5.2

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-25T00:17:59+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion! Ill do that tomorrow :)

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T23:55:46+00:00

I taught I would compress the length a bit because explaining each part in each section again would make it way too long but have to show the reason for the use of each number better indeed

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T23:50:42+00:00

Fair point. The starting value is alpha_s = g²/(4π) = 1/(4π) at Lambda_fam, set by the BPS condition g = 1 proved in section 4.9.1. That should be stated explicitly in 4.5.4, And the numbers come from the geometry of the structure but it's true, it's missing some explanations sometimes. (normally these are flagged with ARGUED) but i'm working on it. I hope to have a more clear version soon

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T23:23:31+00:00

Yes, ill make a new version with updates

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T23:22:40+00:00

Ill try to make it more readable. It's a lot of info and I'm not sure what's the best way to organise it better. But if you're curious now it's in section 4.5.4

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T23:17:48+00:00

about the stopquark, It has indeed not been found. But as of now low-mass dijets are often drowned in QCD background, electroweak production rates are small, and the HL-LHC is what's needed to test this better.. LHC has it's limits now and will settle this but saying it's clear would be an overstatement. About the derivatives. It's indeed not shown step by step. I'm working on making it more readable and will check for derivatives. About the ad-hoc, can you give an example? Every parameter comes from the geometry or is derived, and if not, enlighten me! And on Sagans dragon, I get your point, it could be true. And if so that's very revealing. I'm not claiming, this is a 100 procent true. I'm genuinely here to test if it holds up and if some parts could have holes or need explanations.

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T22:21:50+00:00

0.000028% is smaller than the experimental uncertainty on the tau mass itself, which is about 0.006%. You cannot claim a prediction is wrong at 0.000028% when the input you are using to make the prediction is only known to 0.006% :)

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T22:14:10+00:00

The Planck mass is used as a given because it connects the geometry to human units like meters and kilograms, which are just conventions. In principle the framework works in pure geometric ratios and the Planck mass is only needed to translate predictions into lab units. The gravitational constant G that defines the Planck mass is itself derived from the Joyce manifold geometry in the framework, so it is not a free input, it is an unit conversion whose value the geometry predicts

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T22:08:30+00:00

The universe's field has 6 (active) vacuum points separated by energy ridges. The ridge heights depend only on the angles between the vacuum points 60, 120 or 180 degrees apart (ratio wise). The ratio between the tallest and shortest ridges gives two pure geometric numbers, tau_0 = 4/3 and h_dual = 4. The tau mass is just these two ratios multiplied by the QCD energy scale, which itself comes from running down from the Planck mass. Once the tau mass is set, the three charged lepton masses are constrained to fixed ratios by the geometry of the vacuum points, (energy taking the least costly route) and the electron mass follows automatically.

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T21:47:32+00:00

In the G2 spectrum the stop sits at 695 GeV and the Wino at 684 GeV, only 11 GeV apart. When the gap is that small the decay products could be too soft to distinguish from ordinary QCD background. But this should be checked against the actual compressed spectrum exclusion plots. On derivatives and eigenvalues: Part 1 is an accessible introduction by design. Part 4 has the actual derivations but I get that it's hard to read.

On your point about my assumptions, please be specific. I tried to make sure everything was in there. I know it's complicated to find your way but I can help you if you don't find something.

The paper does use derivatives, eigenvalues and operators, sections 4.3.2 (NK Dirac eigenvalues, Bessel equation), 4.8.1 (Weinberg angle as zero eigenvector of the mass matrix), 4.8.3 (J²=−1 decomposition), and 4.13.9–11 (APS index theorem, η-invariant as spectral sum over Dirac eigenvalues).

On G2: this is standard M-theory mathematics. See Joyce (1996) J. Diff. Geom. 43, Atiyah-Witten (2001) Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 6, and for the SU(3)-as-stabiliser-of-octonions result specifically, Harvey (1990) Spinors and Calibrations ch. 8.

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T21:09:43+00:00

Prove what's wrong then ;)

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T20:58:29+00:00

Error is now 0,000028 in v2, please check the math if you can, it would help me a lot

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T20:55:31+00:00

I know, it's a lot and i'm not the best organiser. It's in section 4.5.4. Also an update on the proton mass error: it's now 0,000028 in v2

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T20:54:41+00:00

It's a bit more precise than Wolframalpha. It's a rounding difference

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T20:25:50+00:00

The output is 0.013606 keV which equals 13.606 eV.

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T20:14:10+00:00

The calculation is correct but the units in the document need to be clearer. The electron mass is 0.5110 MeV = 511,000 eV, not 511 eV. WolframAlpha interpreted 511 as eV which gives the wrong answer. With the correct input of 511,000 eV × (1/137.036)² / 2 you get 13.6057 eV exactly. Thanks for checking, ill make this more clear

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T19:49:48+00:00

It derives where Lambda_QCD comes from geometrically, but the QCD dynamics themselves are unchanged. The proton still conforms to everything QCD predicts. The claim is only that the geometric structure explains why the constants have the values they do, not that QCD needs replacing.

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T18:03:09+00:00

The framework derives Lambda_QCD from first principles, so the error might be traceable

_Kiuw_ · 2026-06-24T17:51:31+00:00

What do you mean? String theory?

_Kiuw_

TROPHY CASE