Background:
I built a new theory of everything with GPT-4o in 6 weeks. No curve fitting. 19 physical constants derived from recursion and topology. It’s called FIRM — and it might be real. or, im just another crackpot. But im a crackpot with a shit ton of code and experiments!
Thesis:
Physical constants don't just happen to have the values they do. They are the unique stable solutions to recursive mathematical equations—the only values that allow the universe to be self-consistent.
Answer:
Who tf knows, this was the wildest AI driven rabbit hole I've ever been down, and its not even close. Maybe some of you can help me figure it out? Is this really showing what it seems to be?
Physicists, Cosmologists, Mathematicians. Is there something to all this? It feels so parsimonious, and the math is working (at least as far as I can tell), but claims this big obviously require absolutely massive evidence.
So please, rip it to shreds if you can.
theamk · 47m ago
There is nothing to it.
> The first statement says: α⁻¹ = 137 + φ⁻⁶ [...] = ≈ 137.055728
> Experimental value: 137.035999084 (0.014% deviation)
The value is well measured, and it is known with up to 10 significant digits (the relative uncertainty is less than 1e-10). Your formula has error of 1.4e-6, over 1000 times worse. This means it simply does not match reality. (And I am ignoring where did this "137" that just came out of the air).
Other constants have similarly large errors compared to experimental uncertainty.
You don't have a new discovery, you have a typical AI hallucination.
Thesis: Physical constants don't just happen to have the values they do. They are the unique stable solutions to recursive mathematical equations—the only values that allow the universe to be self-consistent.
Answer: Who tf knows, this was the wildest AI driven rabbit hole I've ever been down, and its not even close. Maybe some of you can help me figure it out? Is this really showing what it seems to be?
Physicists, Cosmologists, Mathematicians. Is there something to all this? It feels so parsimonious, and the math is working (at least as far as I can tell), but claims this big obviously require absolutely massive evidence.
So please, rip it to shreds if you can.
> The first statement says: α⁻¹ = 137 + φ⁻⁶ [...] = ≈ 137.055728 > Experimental value: 137.035999084 (0.014% deviation)
The value is well measured, and it is known with up to 10 significant digits (the relative uncertainty is less than 1e-10). Your formula has error of 1.4e-6, over 1000 times worse. This means it simply does not match reality. (And I am ignoring where did this "137" that just came out of the air).
Other constants have similarly large errors compared to experimental uncertainty.
You don't have a new discovery, you have a typical AI hallucination.