[larens (OP)]

My most accurate proposed value is 137.0359990621 for the local low energy inverse fine structure constant. The CODATA empirical value is 137.035 999 084(21), so they are off by one standard deviation. I claimed a higher accuracy for the dalton/electron mass ratio, but there was an ambiguity in determining the least significant digits, so I am not now pushing it.

[Bored chemist]

The axioms of quantum mechanics are not "clearly true" to the vast majority of people.

Nor are the laws of cricket.
But it's possible to deduce them by watching the game (for long enough).
In the same way, we can watch the universe and deduce the laws of QM.

However, your "axioms" don't seem to follow that pattern.

If there is supporting evidence for them, please show it.

[Bored chemist]

My most accurate proposed value is 137.0359990621 for the local low energy inverse fine structure constant. The CODATA empirical value is 137.035 999 084(21), so they are off by one standard deviation. I claimed a higher accuracy for the dalton/electron mass ratio, but there was an ambiguity in determining the least significant digits, so I am not now pushing it.

Please show your working.

[larens (OP)]

Nor are the laws of cricket.
But it's possible to deduce them by watching the game (for long enough).
In the same way, we can watch the universe and deduce the laws of QM.

However, your "axioms" don't seem to follow that pattern.

If there is supporting evidence for them, please show it.

The universe is more complicated than a cricket game. To find its rules one needs to use sophisticated instruments, e.g., atomic microscopes, large telescopes, and large particle colliders. To get started, however, one needs to analyze one's basic experience before going to a cricket game. Descartes pointed the way in saying, "I think, therefore I am." Therefore consciousness is the most certain category of being. Next he observed that his thoughts were orderly. Thus a way of putting things in order is necessary, which I am calling "language". Thirdly, we are constantly engaged with physical reality. This is the simple experience of the natural trinity.

You may ask, "Why don't we just continue and have 10 categories of being, as Aristotle proposed?" One needs to know when to switch to a deeper analysis. Aristotle also threw out the consideration of atoms, and thought that stars existed on a rotating sphere, He had not considered the limited resolution of eyes and the existence of inertial frames of reference. I am reminded of the message of the Muses in Plato's Republic. They say that empiricists are blind to their message.

The evidence for modern physics theories commonly involves extending results to higher accuracy. In previous replies I gave my high accuracy predictions for the mass of the axion and the value of the inverse fine structure constant. The latter is really a prediction that the observed value is not going to change. I made the prediction many years ago. For several years the CODATA value shifted to a difference greater than two standard deviations. Now it is back to just one standard deviation. This implies that their value was flawed by a systematic error for a while. If this is not evidence, than what is?

My determination of the value of the inverse fine structure constant extends from the use of the number 100 in exponential functions that I mentioned in my last post. Explaining it fully will be fairly long. I need to set up separate threads for such specific explanations. Otherwise this thread will become unmanageable, since it is about a general theory that covers all branches of science. In the meantime I would like other people to address the question, "What form of evidence for this entire theory would I find most convincing?"

[Kryptid]

In the meantime I would like other people to address the question, "What form of evidence for this entire theory would I find most convincing?"

Since you made a prediction for the axion's mass, the ability to replicate the spectrum of other particle masses would be nice.

[evan_au]

I agree that prime numbers have been a fruitful area of investigation for mathematicians since at least the early Greek mathematicians.
- And it's still important: Many published theorems in mathematics depend on the (as yet unproven) Riemann hypothesis
- The Riemann hypothesis relates to the prime numbers
- One mathematician described this proof as "One of the hardest ways to win a million dollars": There is a prize of 1 million dollars to the first mathematician who proves (or disproves) the Riemann hypothesis.
- Mathematicians think it is true - and I'm sure many hope it is true; their careers were based on this assumption.

All this calculus is eventually based on natural numbers. To work with something truly different we need to go deeper into mathematics

I suggest that a fruitful area of new mathematics has been fractals with their fractional dimensions, and chaos theory,  with strange attractors.

We have been able to apply it to applications like the length of coastlines and behavior of heart rhythms. But important applications still exist in economics, ecosystems and climate.
- People tend to think "everything will continue as it has before", but the weight of humanity is now large enough to tip the scales of ecosystems and the climate.
- This is likely to dump us into unfamiliar territory
- So gaining an understanding of chaotic systems is important

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

Since new theories here are on the "Lighter Side"

I agree that the "Lighter Side" is a good place to start a discussion of philosophy.

Do expect that if it is to be accepted as a "Theory of Everything" with concrete predictions, then you will be expected to justify your assumptions.

There were so few students in Newton's day that sometimes he taught classes with no students.

Universities were shut down 1655-1656 due to the black plague.
- A bit like universities today with COVID-19
- The difference is that students can now view the sole lecturer from a remote location, and from a remote timezone.

[larens (OP)]

I tossed out the value of the inverse fine structure constant as bait, since people were not being specific about what they regarded as evidence. I do not appreciate the strategy of people just demanding more and more evidence with no commitment to ever being satisfied.

[Kryptid]

It would be nice, if the thread were not being shadow banned since reply #20. I tossed out the value of the inverse fine structure constant as bait, since people were not being specific about what they regarded as evidence. I do not appreciate the strategy of people just demanding more and more evidence with no commitment to ever being satisfied.

I was rather specific in reply #24.

[larens (OP)]

@evan_au

* Since Ramanujan's 1915 article on highly composite numbers, they are also important. Robin's Theorem connects them to the Riemann Hypothesis.

* The derivation of the value of the inverse fine structure constant uses fractional dimensions. I have used fractals themselves in interpreting reductionism within my theory.

* The solar system is on the boundary of chaos. While this is probably important at a deeper level, I have instead used semiclassical chemistry to describe the origin of life in the solar system.

* Fractals and chaos are not key to deriving fundamental constants. Finite simple groups are.

* Our main disagreement has been on how to order the justification of my assumptions. A "Theory of Everything" is so large that this is a nontrivial problem. I would start at a middle level of abstraction, then alternate between building superstructure and foundations. This still leaves a lot of choice, e.g., how to order the explanation of different disciplines. When I am presented with a criterion that was accepted in Euclid's day, but not since at least the time of Copernicus, I do not think that person is being intellectually responsible.

* Newton did not start teaching until after the plague.

 
@Kryptid

I explained in reply #8 that the part of the theory giving particle masses was incomplete, so I set it aside for things that are more accurate. In the limit of free particles, it is fairly accurate. The geometry behind the Koide relations is also nonintuitive enough, that I would not want to start there.

[Bored chemist]

I tossed out the value of the inverse fine structure constant as bait, since people were not being specific about what they regarded as evidence.

And I asked you how you arrived at the number you got.

My most accurate proposed value is 137.0359990621 for the local low energy inverse fine structure constant. The CODATA empirical value is 137.035 999 084(21), so they are off by one standard deviation. I claimed a higher accuracy for the dalton/electron mass ratio, but there was an ambiguity in determining the least significant digits, so I am not now pushing it.

Please show your working.

I'm still waiting.

[larens (OP)]

The value of the inverse fine structure constant (VIFSC) is a good example of a serendipity, i.e., improbable coincidence. Its derivation includes the quotient of two large numbers minus a privileged number being less than one. It uses five numbers privileged by being in a symmetrical pair or central line of the array I described in reply #13. These are 2, 5, 10, 100, and 1000. The primordial VIFSC is 1000[(product of first 2^5 primes)/(pi^100)-10]. Pi is paired with e. The ratio of primordial gravitational forces between a pair of reduced Planck masses and a pair of electrons is e^100. The local VIFSC is 137 + 36/1000 - 937900/10^12. The integral part of the primordial VIFSC is 137. The largest highly composite number that is a square is 36. It is also used in the derivation of 937900, the ratio of the speed of light to the unit velocity of the molecular system of units in the theory. The speed of sound in the atmosphere is about one unit velocity. 937900 is derived by an inverse preferred number operation. It has 36 divisors with consecutive divisors nominally differing by a factor of the square root of 2 before rounding. The exponents of powers of 1000 fall in a sequence with successive squaring by 2. The nominal mass of the heaviest particle, the tritop, in electron masses is 1000^2. The last numerator in the local VIFSC is 1000^4. The minus sign arises because of the relativity of values. My including the associated fundamental constants allows you to see how the theory fits together like a jigsaw puzzle.

[larens (OP)]

In the meantime I would like other people to address the question, "What form of evidence for this entire theory would I find most convincing?"

Since you made a prediction for the axion's mass, the ability to replicate the spectrum of other particle masses would be nice.

Wikipedia has a short introduction to the Koide relations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula

To apply them to quarks and leptons one needs the masses of the top quark and the tau in electron masses. The tritop consists of 3 top quarks, so the top quark mass is 1/3 that of the tritop, which I gave as one million in my last reply #30.
The tau mass is approximately the sum of the first 2^5 primes, so pairs with the main factor in the numerator of the primordial VIFSC in my last reply.

[larens (OP)]

I suggest that a fruitful area of new mathematics has been fractals with their fractional dimensions, and chaos theory,  with strange attractors.

The non-Lie type of finite simple groups (FSG) are fundamentally more important than fractals and chaos, because they allow the derivation of fundamental constants. Lie groups are differentiable, so have an infinite number of points in their manifolds. Infinite sets are usually pathological for deriving constants, because infinity + anything = infinity. In reply #7 I started to discuss how extending the concept of simplicity leads to unique constants for the universe. The basic idea of simplicity is that you describe something large from a minimum number of axioms. FSG have just 6 axioms: closure, associativity, identity, invertibility, finiteness, and simplicity (indivisibility). FSG are a large set of mathematical building blocks. The Classification theorem insures that one knows of all of them when using them.

[Bored chemist]

I'm still waiting.

[larens (OP)]

I'm still waiting.

You may be waiting a long time. I am not going to explain my entire theory to someone who is not seriously engaged in considering my work and has a strategy of just perfunctorily demanding more.

[Bored chemist]

I'm still waiting.

You may be waiting a long time. I am not going to explain my entire theory to someone who is not seriously engaged in considering my work and has a strategy of just perfunctorily demanding more.

What I am "demanding" is the bare  minimum.

Good luck with your studies.

"How is the biggest scientific breakthrough since Newton to be recognized?"
It doesn't look like we will find out any time soon.

[larens (OP)]

What I am "demanding" is the bare  minimum.

Once again you are making  a perfunctory demand while refusing to define your terms. Supposed this is the "soft side" of the forum. I have presented enough, however, that someone knowledgeable in fundamental mathematical science should be able to easily understand the essence of my theory. I note a double standard here. Contemporary scientists have been able to derive ZERO fundamental constants. They have been allowed to get away with espousing superficial philosophy, e.g., Tegmark's mathematical universe and the multiverse based Anthropic Principle.

[larens (OP)]

Unlike with the quarks and leptons, I never showed how to derive the axion mass. It is the mass equivalent to the kinetic energy of one Dalton moving at one unit velocity of the theory, i.e., c/937900, which I explained in reply #30. Neutrino/axion mass ratios are 2, 18, and 98. These value are squares times two. Neutrino masses can only be measured as differences of mass squared. The two is necessary to cancel the 1/2 in the kinetic energy formula.

[Bored chemist]

Once again you are making  a perfunctory demand while refusing to define your terms.

Do you really need an explanation of "Please show your working" next to a quote where you tell us your estimate of the fine structure constant. OK, if you insist.

Show us the calculation and the inputs.

As I say, that's the bare minimum that will get you taken remotely seriously.

[larens (OP)]

Show us the calculation and the inputs.

You sound like a math teacher. This is not a math class. Scientific papers do not show arithmetic. They give algebraic expressions and any inputs not standardly known. This is the minimum for scientific papers. They also give a context to support the rationalization for using the given expressions and inputs. All this I minimally gave in reply #30.