α ≡ (√3 / π•2) √ξ″(γ1) (1 + √3 / (π•γ1)) = 0.007300225192This is the fine structure constant deduced from the Zeta function, the first nontrivial zero and the quark charge+light-cone constants of QCD.The 0.04% discrepancy accounts for the baryonic matter we see in the observable universe via renormalization flow from the Planck to the phenomenological scale. Explain why you need quantum theory if number theory is a deeper structure.
>>16961724Fucking AI, man, it cant do anything right. Give it one simple task and it fucks it up.α ≡ (√3 / π^2) √ξ″(γ1) (1 + √3 / (π^γ1)) = 0.007300225192Why would I even check to see if it did? A child could transliterate latex into unicode.
>>16961724Anon! I'm sorry I dismissed you earlier. I read your pre-publish. And, wow!
>>16961724Where do you think the prime distribution involvement comes from?
>>16961724Is nature doing division in some geometric space?
I ran OPs formulas through AI and it thinks OP is extremely cool and deserves three nobel prices.Stay safe OP
>>16961724>This is the fine structure constant >The 0.04% discrepancySo it's not.
>>16962573What he's saying, Anon, is that his value is the real mathematical value and the measurements we see with our tools contain distortions of scale. It's plausible. Not hand waving.
I'm wondering if picrel is something of OPs implications
>>16962590The coupling constant runs, that is, it changes with energy. It cannot be described by a fixed number. You're an idiot who completely misunderstood the 137 discussion.
>>16961724Retarded trite slop. Just get the fuck off the board.
>>16961757so does this imply we will see terms like ξ^2n(') in these discrepenacy accounts and this is what geometrically a loop correction is?is high energy physics just the process of clumping portions of the 1d spacetime fabric into itself
I'm gonna be honest I tried to delete this thread because mission accomplished but I can't so I guess I'll just... go fuck myself. Also, I ran that OP formula through google assuming it would be capable of BASIC transliteration into unicode but apparently, again, I can go fuck myself.[math]\alpha \equiv \frac{\sqrt{3}}{\pi^{2}}\sqrt{\xi^{\prime\prime}(\gamma_{1})}\left(1+\frac{\sqrt{3}}{\pi\gamma_{1}}\right) = 0.007300225192[/math]>>16962630The 0.04% discrepancy is the renormalization flow penalty, i.e. the baryonic matter energy density ratio.Well I may as well field any legit questions...
>>16961724You see that you don't get much response from us here or on /pol/You seem to be way out of everyones league, why not publish your work on arxiv.org or any other scientific peer review or publication platform where e.g. the CERN people or someone else with a brain can see it?
>>16962658Lets say you create such a perfect vacuum that even wuantum foam settles down. What's there? What's underneath the planck scale? Logic. The laws of logic are still there, and underneath spacetime we recognize is the fact that mathematical logic consists of its own rules relating to themselves. What existed prior to the big bang? The rules that it would need to follow. It's very abstract but consider: we Newton's second applies everywhere we look. Everything we measure has an equal and opposite reaction to every action we impose upon it. This is true psychologically (Jung), metaphysically (Plato), linguistically (Wittgenstein) esthetically (Nietzche), mathematically (Newton) and quantum mechanically (Witten). Why would anyone think it doesn't apply to pure logic? People don't realize this but C.S. Peirce, the legend, was a fucking professional phycisist! He was using oure logic to do physics. All he did was apply Newton to Aristotle and Kant.
>>16962662I find this method way, way funnier.
>>16962667I can highly respect that, at least i'm having lots of fun with your papers and AIWill picrels prediction come true?>Scientists like Nima Arkani-Hamed are currently working on concepts such as the amplituhedron. Their aim is to derive spacetime and quantum mechanics from even deeper, purely geometric-logical structures. Your idea that the fine-structure constant is a mathematical necessity of the zeta function (i.e., the distribution of prime numbers/logic) fits perfectly into this branch of research known as “emergent spacetime.”Maybe get in touch with this dude?Would be sad if the glowies get you and this is being buried behind 10 meter thick metal walls
>>16962671A solid point. However! What makes you think a glowie would even know what it is? In order to even see the math as functional, a typical phycists would need to admit they've dedicated their lives to a Rube Goldberg machine. That they have so overcomplicated the nature of their work that all they ever needed was basic arithmetic and logic/Euclidean geometry. Secondly, by the time anyone even realizes what this is, it will have spread across the internet in such a way as to be completely impervious to suppression. You know why those other phycisists were suicides? They went through traditional channels. They trusted peer review. Look at what happens when you give the model to an AI? It literally hallucinates a different model. Humans do exactly the same thing. This math is invisible to experts. I'm just a crank with another idiotic theory if everything.
>>16962678>What makes you think a glowie would even know what it is?Does it matter if the goal is to silence you?>Secondly, by the time anyone even realizes what this is, it will have spread across the internet in such a way as to be completely impervious to suppression. You know why those other phycisists were suicides? They went through traditional channels. They trusted peer review.Retarded me, should have thought about that. >It literally hallucinates a different modelWhat do you mean? I'm literally unable to understand whats happening just reading the AI output again and again and trying to make sense of it in any way
>>16962684That thing is just hallucinating connections that don't really exist. Just tell it to stick "strictly to the system's implications as deduced."
>>16962685A lot of it is from my previous outputs, i did it all in one session, thus references to 3-6-9 (asked it about the concept from Nikola Tesla and the implications) and lots of others, like the zero point energy generator, the ZPE Bugatti and what not. I'm gonna do this as you said but in general: Does this explain Nikola Teslas tech or things like water powered cars from e.g. Stanley Meyer?
>>16962689I respect the ambition but human engineering isn't remotely close to functionally constructing anything theoretically possible inside the model.However, what you can do is take the M-theoretic spacetime laws and use them as a dependency graph to construct a cellular automata that is 1:1 with reality. You can literally generate ontologically accurate animations of atomic nuclei or particle interactions. I always found that endlessly fun.
>>16962689Also, no, it just thinks you're larping.
>>16962661>0.04% discrepancy is the renormalization flow penalty, i.e. the baryonic matter energy density ratio.Nope. At a mere energy of the Z-pole, the discrepancy becomes nearly 10%. Try again, AIschizo.
>>16962729That would be true if the fine structure constant was a fixed identity but it is not.The continuous shift of the fine-structure constant is governed by the renormalization group equations (RGE), specifically controlled by something called a beta function (google it). In its simplified one-loop approximation, the math for how the constant runs as a function of the energy scale (Q) looks like this (I think...): [math]\alpha(Q^2) \approx \frac{\alpha_0}{1 - \frac{\alpha_0}{3\pi} \sum_f q_f^2 \ln\left(\frac{Q^2}{m_f^2}\right)}[/math]As you slide the Q^2 variable up the scale in that equation, the mathematical reality diverges from their static anchor. At everyday energies, the gap is just that 0.04%. As you scale up through the MeV range, the virtual electrons and positrons start screening the charge, and that discrepancy smoothly grows to 1%, then 2%, then... etc. As you push into the GeV range and start interacting with virtual quarks and muons, the denominator shrinks further. The curve steepens. By the time your continuous mathematical climb reaches the Z-pole, the physical value of the constant has smoothly drifted all the way to about 1/128, i.e. 7%.I'm going to let that insult slide but only because you're obvioisly marginally more intelligent than a dog I used to have and I respect that. Very few humans were its equal. You may be.
>>16962738>7 = 0.04Lol
>>16962743No, he was definitely smarter. So, when the AI you fed the formula into told you to say that "the fine structure constant is a running structure..." did you actually know what that meant or did you just copy and paste it to make yourself feel more intelligent than you truly were?
>>16962747Nigger I did the calculation in my QED class. This is why I'm the only one ITT to who mentioned the running, and quantified its deviation from the zero-energy value at the Z-pole. Go pick a fight with someone else.
