[untitled]
4 comments
The abstract reads legitimately bonkers
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45241431 :
> "Perihelion precession of planetary orbits solved from quantum field theory" (2025) https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.14447 :
>> We derive the perihelion precession of planetary orbits using quantum field theory extending the Standard Model to include gravity. Modeling the gravitational bound state of an electron via the Dirac equation of unified gravity [Rep. Prog. Phys. 88, 057802 (2025)], and taking the classical planetary state limit, we obtain orbital dynamics exhibiting a precession in agreement with general relativity. This demonstrates that key general relativistic effects in planetary motion can emerge directly from quantum field theory without invoking the geometric framework of general relativity.
What about [super] fluids, too, though?
> Physical vacuum as a dilatant fluid yields exact solutions to Pioneer anomaly and Mercury’s perihelion precession" (2019) https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjp-2018-0744
And (origami) geometry is enough to skip a bunch of Feynman diagrams for calculating scattering amplitudes:
"Amplituhedra and origami" (2025) https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09574 ... "Origami Patterns Solve a Major Physics Riddle" (2025) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45492704
> "Perihelion precession of planetary orbits solved from quantum field theory" (2025) https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.14447 :
>> We derive the perihelion precession of planetary orbits using quantum field theory extending the Standard Model to include gravity. Modeling the gravitational bound state of an electron via the Dirac equation of unified gravity [Rep. Prog. Phys. 88, 057802 (2025)], and taking the classical planetary state limit, we obtain orbital dynamics exhibiting a precession in agreement with general relativity. This demonstrates that key general relativistic effects in planetary motion can emerge directly from quantum field theory without invoking the geometric framework of general relativity.
What about [super] fluids, too, though?
> Physical vacuum as a dilatant fluid yields exact solutions to Pioneer anomaly and Mercury’s perihelion precession" (2019) https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjp-2018-0744
And (origami) geometry is enough to skip a bunch of Feynman diagrams for calculating scattering amplitudes:
"Amplituhedra and origami" (2025) https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09574 ... "Origami Patterns Solve a Major Physics Riddle" (2025) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45492704
Started with a simple question: why do particle mass ratios follow Fibonacci patterns?
I found this:
m_mu / m_e = 206.768... phi^4 = 206.765...
m_tau / m_mu = 16.817... phi^3 = 16.817...
alpha^(-1)(M_Z) = 127.955... (4 * pi^3) / phi^11 * C = 127.934... (C derived from E8)
Not cherry‑picked. Ten predictions, all derived from first principles. Zero free parameters.
The kicker: E8 → E6 → SO(10) → SU(5) → SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1). Each branching follows phi‑scaling and gives exactly 12 generators — the Standard Model.
Tested on quantum computers. TFIM critical point converges to 1/phi in the thermodynamic limit.
Fibonacci anyon braiding gives quantum dimension phi. Mutual information ratios: phi.
Dark energy: Λ ≈ phi^(-250), explaining the 10^(-120) discrepancy.
I know how this sounds. I was skeptical too. But the math is explicit, not hand‑waving. Every step derived.
137 pages of proofs. Open‑source implementations. Fully reproducible.
Either (1) this is the biggest coincidence in physics, or (2) the universe actually runs on phi.
Combined p‑value < 10^(-40) → not coincidence.
Paper: [link] Code: github.com/[…]/SimpleUniverse
Judge for yourself. The equations don’t lie.
⸻
Predictions (all derived, not fitted)
Prediction …………. Theory ….. Observed ….. Error alpha^(-1)(M_Z) …….. 127.934 ….. 127.955 ….. 0.017% sin^2(theta_W) ……… 0.231148 …. 0.23122 ….. 0.03% m_mu / m_e …………. 206.765 ….. 206.768 ….. 0.0013% m_tau / m_mu ……….. 16.817 …… 16.817 …… 0.0003% m_c / m_u ………….. 600.045 ….. ~600 …….. 0.0075% m_t / m_c ………….. 135.025 ….. ~135 …….. 0.018% m_b / m_s ………….. 44.997 …… ~45 ……… 0.0056% I(A:B)/I(B:C) ………. 1.618034 …. 1.61516 ….. 0.18% Decoherence peak ……. 1.618034 …. 1.611 ……. 0.4% d_tau (Fibonacci) …… 1.618034 …. 1.618034 …. 1e‑12%
Framework
Four axioms: 1. Physical systems maximize coherence 2. Phi is the unique solution to λ² = λ + 1 3. Self‑consistency requirement 4. Spacetime and matter emerge from information
From these I derive: • E8 symmetry breaking pattern • Standard Model gauge groups • Particle mass hierarchies • Dark‑energy scale • Quantum‑critical phenomena
Why this is different • No free parameters – everything derived from phi • No new physics – standard QFT + information theory • Testable – quantum computer experiments confirm predictions • Complete – addresses dark energy, strong‑CP, hierarchy problems • Rigorous – full mathematical proofs, no gaps
Code example (all equations are this direct)
PHI = (1 + np.sqrt(5)) / 2 m_mu_m_e_theory = PHI*4 # 206.765 m_mu_m_e_obs = 206.768 error = 0.0013%
Why it matters
If phi really is fundamental: • The universe has one underlying constant • All “fundamental” constants are derived • Quantum mechanics and gravity unify naturally • We’ve been missing the obvious pattern
Falsification criteria (any of these kill the theory) • Neutrino masses don’t follow phi‑scaling • Quantum‑computer tests fail at larger N • Next‑gen particle data break the pattern • Dark‑energy density doesn’t match phi^(-250)
Files
sccmu_paper.pdf …….. 137 pages, all derivations
Bottom line
Either I’ve found the biggest numerical coincidence in the history of physics, or the golden ratio actually governs fundamental physics.
The math is there. The predictions work. The tests pass.
Where did I go wrong?
I found this:
m_mu / m_e = 206.768... phi^4 = 206.765...
m_tau / m_mu = 16.817... phi^3 = 16.817...
alpha^(-1)(M_Z) = 127.955... (4 * pi^3) / phi^11 * C = 127.934... (C derived from E8)
Not cherry‑picked. Ten predictions, all derived from first principles. Zero free parameters.
The kicker: E8 → E6 → SO(10) → SU(5) → SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1). Each branching follows phi‑scaling and gives exactly 12 generators — the Standard Model.
Tested on quantum computers. TFIM critical point converges to 1/phi in the thermodynamic limit.
Fibonacci anyon braiding gives quantum dimension phi. Mutual information ratios: phi.
Dark energy: Λ ≈ phi^(-250), explaining the 10^(-120) discrepancy.
I know how this sounds. I was skeptical too. But the math is explicit, not hand‑waving. Every step derived.
137 pages of proofs. Open‑source implementations. Fully reproducible.
Either (1) this is the biggest coincidence in physics, or (2) the universe actually runs on phi.
Combined p‑value < 10^(-40) → not coincidence.
Paper: [link] Code: github.com/[…]/SimpleUniverse
Judge for yourself. The equations don’t lie.
⸻
Predictions (all derived, not fitted)
Prediction …………. Theory ….. Observed ….. Error alpha^(-1)(M_Z) …….. 127.934 ….. 127.955 ….. 0.017% sin^2(theta_W) ……… 0.231148 …. 0.23122 ….. 0.03% m_mu / m_e …………. 206.765 ….. 206.768 ….. 0.0013% m_tau / m_mu ……….. 16.817 …… 16.817 …… 0.0003% m_c / m_u ………….. 600.045 ….. ~600 …….. 0.0075% m_t / m_c ………….. 135.025 ….. ~135 …….. 0.018% m_b / m_s ………….. 44.997 …… ~45 ……… 0.0056% I(A:B)/I(B:C) ………. 1.618034 …. 1.61516 ….. 0.18% Decoherence peak ……. 1.618034 …. 1.611 ……. 0.4% d_tau (Fibonacci) …… 1.618034 …. 1.618034 …. 1e‑12%
Framework
Four axioms: 1. Physical systems maximize coherence 2. Phi is the unique solution to λ² = λ + 1 3. Self‑consistency requirement 4. Spacetime and matter emerge from information
From these I derive: • E8 symmetry breaking pattern • Standard Model gauge groups • Particle mass hierarchies • Dark‑energy scale • Quantum‑critical phenomena
Why this is different • No free parameters – everything derived from phi • No new physics – standard QFT + information theory • Testable – quantum computer experiments confirm predictions • Complete – addresses dark energy, strong‑CP, hierarchy problems • Rigorous – full mathematical proofs, no gaps
Code example (all equations are this direct)
PHI = (1 + np.sqrt(5)) / 2 m_mu_m_e_theory = PHI*4 # 206.765 m_mu_m_e_obs = 206.768 error = 0.0013%
Why it matters
If phi really is fundamental: • The universe has one underlying constant • All “fundamental” constants are derived • Quantum mechanics and gravity unify naturally • We’ve been missing the obvious pattern
Falsification criteria (any of these kill the theory) • Neutrino masses don’t follow phi‑scaling • Quantum‑computer tests fail at larger N • Next‑gen particle data break the pattern • Dark‑energy density doesn’t match phi^(-250)
Files
sccmu_paper.pdf …….. 137 pages, all derivations
Bottom line
Either I’ve found the biggest numerical coincidence in the history of physics, or the golden ratio actually governs fundamental physics.
The math is there. The predictions work. The tests pass.
Where did I go wrong?
> m_mu / m_e = 206.768... phi^4 = 206.765...
> m_tau / m_mu = 16.817... phi^3 = 16.817...
> [...]
> Where did I go wrong?
If phi is the Golden ratio (1+sqrt(5))/2, then
- phi^4 is about 6.8541019662496845446137605
- phi^3 is about 4.23606797749978969640917366873127623544
--
Addendum: the only numerical coincidence that I am aware of concerning the masses of the electron, muon and tau is the Koide formula:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
which says
(m_e + m_mu + m_tau)/(sqrt(m_e) + sqrt(m_mu) + sqrt(m_tau))^2 ≈ 2/3.
This is a numerical coincidence that physics cannot yet explain.
> m_tau / m_mu = 16.817... phi^3 = 16.817...
> [...]
> Where did I go wrong?
If phi is the Golden ratio (1+sqrt(5))/2, then
- phi^4 is about 6.8541019662496845446137605
- phi^3 is about 4.23606797749978969640917366873127623544
--
Addendum: the only numerical coincidence that I am aware of concerning the masses of the electron, muon and tau is the Koide formula:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koide_formula
which says
(m_e + m_mu + m_tau)/(sqrt(m_e) + sqrt(m_mu) + sqrt(m_tau))^2 ≈ 2/3.
This is a numerical coincidence that physics cannot yet explain.