64 is dimensionless. It comes from the model's holographic scaling law, where mass scales with surface complexity (m ∼ 4^i). The proton appears at i = 32.
4^32= (2^2)^32 = 2^64
2^64 seems to be the minimum information density required to geometrically define a stable volume. The proton stability implies that nothing simpler can sustain a 3D topology. This limit defines the object's topological complexity, not its lifespan.
Please note that the model is being developed with IA assistance, and I realize that the onthological base needs further refinement.
The proton mass (m_p) is derived as:
m_p = ((√2 · m_P) / 4^32) · (1 + α / 3)
m_p = ((√2 · m_P) / √4^64) · (1 + α / 3)
m_p ≈ 1.67260849206 × 10^-27 kg
Experimental value: 1.67262192595(52) × 10^-27 kg
∆: 8 ppm.
G is derived as:
G = (ħ · c · 2 · (1 + α / 3)^2) / (mp^2 · 4^64)
G ≈ 6.6742439706 × 10^-11
Experimental value: 6.67430(15) × 10^-11 m^3 · kg^-1 · s^-2
∆: 8 ppm.
α_G is derived as:
α_G = (2 · (1 + α / 3)^2) / 4^64
α_G ≈ 5.9061 · 10^–39
Experimental value: ≈ 5.906 · 10^-39
∆: 8 ppm
The terms (1 + α / 3) and 4^64 appear in the three derivations. All of them show the same discrepancy from the experimental value (8 ppm). (Note: There is a typo in the expected output of the previous Python script; it should yield a discrepancy of 8.39 ppm, not 6 ppm.)
The model also derives α as:
α^-1 = (4 · π^3 + π^2 + π) - (α / 24)
α^-1 = 137.0359996
Experimental value: 137.0359991.
∆: < 0.005 ppm.
Is it statistically plausible that this happens by chance? Are there any hidden tricks? AI will find a possible conceptualization for (almost) anything, but I'm trying to get an informed human point of view.