Author: Defiant_Efficiency_2

Edit { 2700 views and nobody could find a flaw with the math? I think thats a good sign}

I have created a geometric explanation for the source of the fine structure constant and I want to make sure the math is correct.

I started with redefining the meter using the pendulum equation. This gives a length for the meter that is calibrated with time, through gravity.

This allowed me to express little g as a pure geometric object.
Once I did that, I was able to use it to define other areas of physics the same way.
In doing so, I found geometric relationships for many classical physics equations.

Additionally, I was able to show that the fine structure constant is simply just the natural balance point between two circles in 4dimensions, translated into our 3d world through e^x = pi

I do believe this is actually a potential grand unified theory, because it suggests all forces and fields are just relationships between N dimensional circular or spherical objects.

So if anyone has the time to give this serious thought and consideration and double check my math before I sing this song at the top of a mountain… I would be grateful!

Here is the paper: https://zenodo.org/records/21225706

Hi Everyone, this equation and math framework builds on my previous work, and you can find that post and thread in this reddit here.

The current paper depicted in the photo is here

If you would like to disagree or argue that I have done something wrong, that is probably the better place to address it, since this paper's work builds on top of the work from the previous paper.

In this paper I have derived the electron proton mass relationship from a purely geometric principle, while at the same time maintaining the fine structure constant and upholding all of standard QM calculations.

I am posting this here because I am proud of it, so I want to show it off to anyone who can understand it.

But also I believe this is going to represent a major breakthrough in physics and Quantum mechanics and so I am trying to get some eyes on it and people to take me seriously.

I am not interested to just be right, I am interested to know the correct explanation for the math behind the universe. I am driven by curiosity not ego.

Therefor, I will engage with anyone who challenges these equations on a mathematical principle, but I will not engage with anyone who attacks me personally.

I thank you so much for anyone who understands Quantum Mechanics enough to understand this paper.

This is a physics paper involving the spectral lines of hydrogen. If you are unfamiliar with that topic and the math behind it, you may find this paper difficult to understand.

In my previous papers in this sub, I demonstrated an alternative but equally compatible framework for physics, however it lacked the ability to accurately predict unexplained ratios like the fine structure constant.

Those papers give further context to understand this paper. You can find the first paper in the series that involves gravity and standard kinematics here, and the subreddit here
You can find the second paper in the series, including discussion with other redditors on its successes and faillures here

That second paper showed that even if my system was compatible, it failed to explain the fine structure constant or other constants in any meaningful way.

In my new paper

I have now found the source of that mismatch between my compatible geometrically based system, and the one we are using now. It is due to the spectral lines of hydrogen being measured in units which are not fundamental to the Universe itself.
Angstrom? If you measure it in that you get a multiple that is not fundamentally tied to the equation set itself.

However, what I noticed is, if you take the inverse of the series, it doesn't change the relationships, which was the most important part.

What does change, is that the series converges to 1, and that same 1 is the fundamental unit of measurement from my previous system.

For those people who find this too difficult to understand, I do plan to make another version soon that is more user friendly, and don't take it to heart because it took my years and years and thousands of hours of thinking to be able to understand this myself.

But basically this all points to the fact that yes, QCD and QED are still right, but now all the constants and sources for the constants should be able to be known.

Feynman diagrams are still useful and true, but they become basically a formal statistics route to the same problems.

I do plan to do follow up papers where i should be able to nail all the constants now as coming directly from my system because I have a measurement bridge to use. But it's late at night and I just wanna get this out there and go to sleep.

I am pretty sure once the world picks up what I'm putting down, ya'll are gonna run away with this faster than I can even keep up. I'm not even that smart I just solved this through persistence and trial and error. I always believed I could do it, and I never gave up. I tried lots of things that failed before this though, over the years.