I Think I Found Something Weird About Physical Constants(quantummarmelade.substack.com)
quantummarmelade.substack.com
I Think I Found Something Weird About Physical Constants
https://quantummarmelade.substack.com/p/i-think-i-found-something-weird-about
12 comments
Is this something that you have generated with Grok? Have you spent some time yourself to study the math and physics of vibrations and waves before publishing this?
Have you engaged with the material?
[deleted]
If anyone wants to collaborate or has questions or just wants to tell me off, my email is [email protected]
All are welcome.
I'd tell myself off but ive done that already and it didn't help, i'm still doing this shit and cant seem to stop...
maybe i need an intervention.
XD
Interesting post. I noticed that your Optimal: L=2997mm is the same four leading digits as the speed of light 299792458 m/s.
I always thought there was a connection between geometry and the math and physical constants. Once I was thinking about Einstein's equivalence principle between gravity and acceleration and his elevator-in-space argument. He claimed that there is no experiment that the man in the elevator could do to determine if he was in a gravity field or accelerating rocket. It occurred to me that all he had to do was wait because the rocket could not accelerate at 9.81 m/s forever. So I did the math lightspeed/acceleration of gravity = 30559883.59 sec = 353.7023 days for 86,400 sec/day or 96.9% of a year to get to c. Just a coincidence, they say.
I always thought there was a connection between geometry and the math and physical constants. Once I was thinking about Einstein's equivalence principle between gravity and acceleration and his elevator-in-space argument. He claimed that there is no experiment that the man in the elevator could do to determine if he was in a gravity field or accelerating rocket. It occurred to me that all he had to do was wait because the rocket could not accelerate at 9.81 m/s forever. So I did the math lightspeed/acceleration of gravity = 30559883.59 sec = 353.7023 days for 86,400 sec/day or 96.9% of a year to get to c. Just a coincidence, they say.
Holy... i hadn't noticed the speed of light thing!...collab with me if you like. i'm super stoked for engagement , even if someone disproves it all. :)
TY!
If you overlay 30 prime number frequency waves plus 30 more even frequency waves, you're going to have an enormous number of local peaks.
Look at a chart of sin(x) + sin(x/2) + sin(x/3) + sin(x/5) + sin(x/7) + sin(x/11) + sin(x/13) + sin(x/17) + sin(x/19) + sin(x/23) + sin(x/29) + sin(x/31) + sin(x/37) + sin(x/43), you can find a local peak close to practically any number; the chart is effectively entirely composed of peaks.
It's extremely unsurprising that you would find peaks near mathematically relevant numbers, since there are peaks near any number whatsoever. You could pick ten random numbers out of a hat and fine tune those to 99.999%+ accuracy as well using the same scaling procedure.
Look at a chart of sin(x) + sin(x/2) + sin(x/3) + sin(x/5) + sin(x/7) + sin(x/11) + sin(x/13) + sin(x/17) + sin(x/19) + sin(x/23) + sin(x/29) + sin(x/31) + sin(x/37) + sin(x/43), you can find a local peak close to practically any number; the chart is effectively entirely composed of peaks.
It's extremely unsurprising that you would find peaks near mathematically relevant numbers, since there are peaks near any number whatsoever. You could pick ten random numbers out of a hat and fine tune those to 99.999%+ accuracy as well using the same scaling procedure.
I modified hamilton_perfect_finder.py to have new values:
# Target constants CONSTANTS = { 'fine_structure': 131.11, 'phi': 1.9, 'pi': 3.6, 'e': 2.4, 'sqrt_2': 1.1, 'sqrt_3': 1.2, 'sqrt_5': 2.5,
Best results: L = 3017.391610 s = 0.042000 Average: 94.848564% Minimum: 82.509479%
# Target constants CONSTANTS = { 'fine_structure': 131.11, 'phi': 1.9, 'pi': 3.6, 'e': 2.4, 'sqrt_2': 1.1, 'sqrt_3': 1.2, 'sqrt_5': 2.5,
Best results: L = 3017.391610 s = 0.042000 Average: 94.848564% Minimum: 82.509479%
Constants:
sqrt_2 : 100.00000000%
sqrt_3 : 99.99236291%
phi : 99.93928922%
pi : 99.89806320%
e : 99.88623436%
sqrt_5 : 99.85340314%
You're right — that script (hamiltonian_perfect_finder) IS a parameter search tool. It will find matches to whatever targets you give it. That's not the core claim.
The core claim is in the white noise tests and the basic resonance chamber: with FIXED geometry and RANDOM input, the same constants keep appearing. We're not searching for them — they emerge.
Try running topology_wave_generator_tests.py with white noise input. No parameter optimization. See what ratios appear without being told what to look for.
The question isn't 'can we fit these numbers' — it's 'why do these specific numbers keep showing up when we're not looking for them?
Ran hierarchical analysis. At 1% tolerance, 23% of ratios match algebraic combinations of constants (harmonics, products, ratios). 77% unexplained. We're not finding constants everywhere — we're finding a specific ~23% algebraic structure.
The breakdown: 16% are harmonics (2φ, 3π, etc.), 13% are ratios between constants (π/φ, e/√2). This is a coherent algebraic system, not random peak-picking.
Interestingly, the 77/23 split approximates Menger sponge geometry (74/26). Whether that's meaningful or coincidence — worth investigating.
Fucking sick! Dude, this is awesome you ran the code! I'm truly humbled if this is real.