10 ms·
Show HN: G=(hbar*c*2*(1+alpha/3)^2)/(m_p^2*4^64) ≈ 6.6742439706e-11 (8 ppm)
#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""
GEOMETRIC DERIVATION OF G & VALIDATION WITH GR
This script tests the hypothesis that G is a derivative artifact of the
proton's holographic scaling (i=32).
Reference Paper: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17847770
"""
import math
# 1. CONSTANTS (CODATA 2022)
c = 299792458.0 # m/s
hbar = 1.054571817e-34 # J s
alpha = 7.2973525643e-3 # Fine-structure
mp_kg = 1.67262192595e-27 # Proton mass
me_kg = 9.1093837139e-31 # Electron mass
G_codata = 6.67430e-11 # Empirical G (for validation)
# Derived Planck Mass (Standard) for consistency check
mP_std = math.sqrt(hbar * c / G_codata)
def compute_acceleration(name, mass, topo_n, radius):
# PHASE 1: DYNAMIC VALIDATION
# Goal: Recover Schwarzschild metric using geometric projections.
w = 2.0 # Structural limit
# Linear Mass projection (Source)
L_src = (mass * hbar) / (c * mP_std**2)
# Structural Limit (Horizon) - Equivalent to Schwarzschild radius
L_lim = w * L_src
# Electrostatic projection
if topo_n != 0:
lambda_e = hbar / (me_kg * c)
Le = alpha * abs(topo_n) * lambda_e
L_src += Le
# The Unified Geometric Metric
if radius <= L_lim:
return {"name": name, "stat": "HORIZON", "val": 0, "gr": 0}
# Hypotenuse form: ai = c^2 * L / (r^2 * sqrt(1 - 2L/r))
metric_factor = math.sqrt(1.0 - L_lim / radius)
ai_unified = (c**2 * L_src) / (radius**2 * metric_factor)
# GR Benchmark (Schwarzschild)
rs = 2 * G_codata * mass / c**2
acc_newton = (G_codata * mass) / (radius**2)
acc_coulomb = 0.0
if topo_n != 0:
acc_coulomb = (8.98755e9 * 1.60217e-19**2) / (radius**2 * me_kg)
if radius <= rs:
ai_gr = float('inf')
else:
ai_gr = (acc_newton / math.sqrt(1.0 - rs/radius)) + acc_coulomb
return {"name": name, "stat": "OK", "val": ai_unified, "gr": ai_gr}
def derive_closed_G():
# PHASE 2: HOLOGRAPHIC DERIVATION
# Hypothesis: mp scales from mP at i=32 (4^32 surface scaling)
# mp = (sqrt(2) * mP / 4^32) * (1 + alpha/3)
geometry = math.sqrt(2) * (1 + alpha/3)
mP_geo = (mp_kg * 4**32) / geometry
# G = hbar * c / mP^2
return (hbar * c) / (mP_geo**2)
# EXECUTION
objects = [
{"n": "Electron", "m": me_kg, "q": 1, "r": 1e-10},
{"n": "Proton", "m": mp_kg, "q": 1, "r": 1e-10},
{"n": "Earth", "m": 5.972e24, "q": 0, "r": 6.371e6},
{"n": "Sun", "m": 1.989e30, "q": 0, "r": 6.963e8},
{"n": "Neutron Star", "m": 4.14e30, "q": 0, "r": 12000},
{"n": "Sgr A* (Lim)", "m": 8.26e36, "q": 0, "r": 1.23e10}
]
print(f"{'OBJECT':<12}| {'UNIFIED':<18}| {'GR':<18}| {'DIFF %'}")
print("-" * 65)
for obj in objects:
res = compute_acceleration(obj['n'], obj['m'], obj['q'], obj['r'])
if res['stat'] == 'HORIZON':
print(f"{res['name']:<12}| {'SATURATION':<18}| {'HORIZON':<18}| {'MATCH'}")
else:
diff = abs(res['val'] - res['gr']) / res['gr'] * 100
if diff < 1e-9: diff = 0.0
# Formatting with .5e to verify consistency
print(f"{res['name']:<12}| {res['val']:<18.5e}| {res['gr']:<18.5e}| {diff:.8f}")
print("-" * 65)
print("\nPHASE 2: G DERIVATION")
G_calc = derive_closed_G()
disc = abs(G_calc - G_codata) / G_codata * 1e6
print(f"Formula: G = (hbar * c * 2 * (1 + alpha/3)^2) / (mp^2 * 4^64)")
print(f"Derived G: {G_calc:.11e}")
print(f"CODATA G: {G_codata:.11e}")
print(f"Diff: {disc:.2f} ppm (within 22 ppm uncertainty)")
- albert_roca 9mo agoEXPECTED 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 9mo agoDoes 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 9mo agoValid 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 9mo agoThere'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.