And as long as I’m noticing what may be completely spurious correlations:
The form of expression for physical potentials (gravity, scalar electric, vector magnetic) at distance r is:
1/r
The form of expression for the probability of a case out of a potential N cases is:
1/N
What if the non-proton mass of the universe is represented by the mismatch between alphaG^-1 and 2^127 of less than a half of a percent?
UniverseNonProtonMassFraction = -(codata[“PlanckConstant”]*
codata[“SpeedOfLight”]/(2 Pi codata[“GravitationalConstant”]*
ParticleData[“Proton”, “Mass”]^2) -
CombinatorialHierarchy[[4]])/CombinatorialHierarchy[[4]]0.485543 %
Another interesting coincidence arises, which is the correspondence of that 0.5% to the right* hand pie chart breakdown of different kinds of “mass”:
It is reasonable to assert that the protons (and their sister nucleons, neutrons) are at a lower energy state (hence lower mass state) than unbound protons. I don’t know how to go about doing all the corrections here (such as attributing dark matter, let alone dark energy to gravitational mass of “dark protons”) but the coincidence is intriguing.
* The left hand side pie chart’s free hydrogen is pretty close to the mass of unbound protons (and there is less helium gas), so we can probably ignore that to first order.
I’ve created a github repo for ANPA and the combinatorial hierarchy’s large number coincidences:
One of the dimensionless ratios first (several decades ago) calculated by the Combinatorial Hierarchy was the proton/electron mass ratio of about 1836.15, and one of the main reasons I bothered writing a python script to calculate the Combinatorial Hierarchy itself, rather than merely the cardinal numbers of its levels, was to find a linkage between the first 3 levels of the CH and the 4th (proton to Plank mass ratio) – which would imply a unification of EM with gravity.
Chasing down a formula for the proton radius in which the proton to electron mass ratio plays a part:
α^2/(𝜋(mp/me)R∞) = proton radius = 8.41235641(34 ±26)e-16 m
(which is better accuracy by far than that measured), the source blog refers to a recent paper “The Origin of Mass and Nature of Gravity” that apparently came up with a similar formula. This half-hour video talks about the paper.
I found the fact that the proton radius (known only to low accuracy) can be calculated from other constants that are known to high accuracy to be most intriguing.
Fundamental Constants at High Energy
Personal communication from David McGoveran (ANPA co-founder):
Quantum gravity from descriptive set theory
Like I keep saying, the studious lack of interest by dark matter theorists in the proton implied by alpha_G_proton = 2^127-1±<1% indicates to me a crippling groupthink has descended on physical theory.
Another quantum gravity theory paper, that I review in the link below, has come up with exactly this same number via a different route.
And there is a third – this one from the “simulation hypothesis” perspective (more or less responding to Tegmark’s “mathematical universe” popularizations):
https://philarchive.org/archive/MACPTA-9v12
