mike.appleby

I will answer all your questions instead a few days The underlying theory behind this chart is based on lagrangian and field equations that also quantise G . You don't need to believe me yet, I will sow proof in a few days I hope

'For a person who claims no higher level training in maths or physics you have suddenly introduced a lot of high level stuff, some of it at post doctoral level.' there are 2 things happening here, 1 i am using ai to give a lot of the structural answers as i am not articulate enough to do it myself (but all the answers are based on the work i have done. 2. i am learning a lot very quickly by having to respond (so i thank you all for that) but here is an answer to your other questions Studiot... I appreciate the challenge — and yes, I fully agree that any proposed field must obey physical laws, including Newton’s Third Law. So let me clarify exactly what I'm proposing and what stage the model is at. I'm not suggesting the vacuum is a membrane in the classical, mechanical sense. The analogy to “tension” is just that — an analogy — used to describe a curvature-stabilizing property of the vacuum, which resists deformation and returns to a ground state under angular distortion. So let’s address your questions directly: 1. “Where is it underlying?”It is not beneath space — it is space, or more precisely, a quantized property of the vacuum itself. Think of it as a scalar field that spans spacetime and allows angular curvature to be locally confined, similar to how the Higgs field is considered omnipresent and has measurable effects only where symmetry is broken. 2. “What is it made of?”I’m not asserting it is made of particles. It’s not particulate. Like the metric tensor in GR or the potential field in QED, it is a continuous background structure defined by its ability to support twist-bound curvature wells. Its only defined parameters right now are: A quantized shell index nnn A confinement energy proportional to 1n2\frac{1}{n^2}n21 A geometric constant T0T_0T0, with units of Tesla, derived from proton-scale curvature. 3. “What laws does it obey?”The model aims to be consistent with: Newton's Third Law, by ensuring twist wells only form when angular confinement is matched by vacuum resistance (i.e., every twist implies a restoring tension). Conservation of energy, since mass arises from stored curvature energy. A generalized field dynamic, which I’m currently modeling as: En=A⋅π2/n2⋅S2 where A is tension, S is the resonance period, and nnn defines the harmonic mode. Clarifying the Stage of Development:I'm not claiming the field is experimentally confirmed — this is a developmental geometric framework that is surprisingly consistent with observed particle masses, including leptons, mesons, and hadrons, using a single curvature law. But yes — the field’s ontological status remains hypothetical until it can be directly probed or derived from more fundamental principles. Final Thought:This isn't about stretching metaphors from furniture or membranes. It’s about testing whether mass can be emergent from geometric resonance, and whether that resonance implies an underlying structure that obeys field dynamics. If you'd be open to evaluating the model by its predictive success rather than its metaphors, I’d welcome that. And if you believe Newton’s third law is being violated at some point, I'd love to hear where the contradiction occurs in the equations. well its been fun guys, but it is almost past 1am here and i gotta get up at 6 to work, so we will continue tomorrow night if i get some time.. hope we can go further, this is getting interesting..

well i am very close at the moment, all hadrons are currently calculated to within <1% error using the up quark base units, and im very close with the twist shell (n) I understand and that is a good thing... You're absolutely right to invoke the Hairy Ball Theorem — it's a interesting, and all too truthful theory (just looked it up, and i hate my hair) , and it holds for any continuous tangent vector field on a sphere. But I think we're talking about different things. Let me clarify a bit: 1. The vacuum twist field is not a global directional vector fieldI’m not suggesting there's a single, continuous direction vector at every point in space. Instead, I'm describing localized, quantized twist modes — like standing torsional loops — which exist only where the resonance conditions are met. These are topologically confined, not distributed as a smooth global field. So in topology terms, this isn’t a “hairy ball” trying to be combed flat — it’s more like a vortex on a sphere: localized, quantized, and allowed. 2. “Anchors” are not external points, but emergent nodes in symmetryYou're right: if the vacuum existed everywhere but required external fixed points, that would be a contradiction. But in this model, anchors emerge internally from: Angular quantization (like π/n twist lock), And interference boundaries where symmetry breaks (e.g. destructive twist canceling leading to stable zones). Think of it like a nodal point on a vibrating membrane — it’s not “external,” but it serves as an effective “anchor” in the field. 3. This is closer to topological solitons or torsion fieldsI’d actually argue that what I’m describing aligns more with things like: Skyrmions Hopfions Topological defects in spin systems These are quantized field configurations that are stable because of the topological constraints — not in spite of them. So, if anything, the hairy ball theorem helps motivate the idea that you need localized twist closures, not global smooth fields. You're right — hand-waving "Let the vacuum have tension" isn’t enough, so let me be more precise about what I mean by vacuum tension and angular curvature. 1. What is being stretched?In my model, I’m not referring to stretching of empty space, but to a field embedded in spacetime — a scalar curvature field capable of supporting torsional strain. Think of it like this: Just as General Relativity assigns a metric tensor to define how distances curve due to mass-energy, I propose that the vacuum also contains a latent elastic structure — not visible directly, but capable of supporting localized angular deformation, like twist loops. This structure resists compression or torsion, and this resistance is what I call vacuum tension. It's not that space is “being stretched” — it's that the background field has a rest configuration, and when deformed (by forming a twist), it stores energy — just like tension in a coiled spring. 2. “Angular curvature” vs regular curvatureYou're also right that in most contexts, “curvature” already implies angular deformation. But I used the phrase "angular curvature" specifically to distinguish twist-based torsion from more general Gaussian or Ricci curvature (used in GR). Here’s the nuance: In GR, curvature describes how geodesics converge or diverge — it’s a measure of spatial or spacetime bending. In VRT, I’m describing closed-loop angular distortion — where a field twists upon itself, like a torsional strain field in a circular or spiral configuration. So I’m not referring to directionless scalar curvature, but rather a helical, quantized twist curvature — one with defined angular periodicity (e.g., π/n). If there's a better term than “angular curvature,” I’d be open to it. Maybe “torsional curvature” or “twist-bound curvature” would be clearer? So .... You're right to press on definitions — these concepts do need to be formally defined, and I appreciate the push. To recap: Vacuum tension = energy density stored in a deformation-resistant background field (scalar or torsional), Twist curvature = a quantized, angularly confined curvature mode, distinct from GR-style curvature. If we can agree on those as working definitions, I can then build the rest of the model more rigorously. here is an overview of what i have so far for the n shells... 1. Overview This document outlines the shell resonance framework within the Vacuum Resonance Theory (VRT), where particle masses are predicted based on a geometric confinement model. Each particle corresponds to a twist-stabilized curvature shell with index , such that: Mn = M1/n Where: Mn is the mass of the particle in the nth shell M1 = 938.27 MeV is the proton mass, anchoring the fundamental shell n=1 n is the shell index This formulation gives surprisingly accurate predictions for leptons, mesons, and baryons. 2. Core Physical Assumptions The vacuum supports confined twist fields with quantized angular curvature. These fields form stable standing-wave resonances with inverse mass scaling by shell index. The vacuum has an effective confinement tension T0= 0.63 T, derived from: T₀ ≈ (m_p c) / (e λₚ) This value represents the geometric stiffness needed to confine the proton twist shell. 3. Particle Fits (Integer Shell Indices) Particle Shell Index (n) Predicted Mass (MeV) Actual Mass (MeV) Error (%) Proton 1.0 938.27 938.27 0.00 Neutron 1.0 938.27 939.57 0.14 Muon 9.0 104.25 105.66 1.33 Electron 1836.0 0.51 0.511 0.00 These particles demonstrate excellent fit to the inverse shell rule. 4. Fractional Shell Indices (Speculative) Particle Shell Index (n) Predicted Mass (MeV) Actual Mass (MeV) Error (%) Interpretation Tau 0.5 1876.54 1776.86 5.63 Possible half-shell twist mode Pion 6.5 144.35 139.57 3.42 Harmonic twist interference B Meson 0.5 1876.54 5279.30 64.45 Poor fit; needs separate model These values suggest either twist-pair states, harmonic interference, or nonlinear confinement behaviours. Note: The appearance of fractional -values is currently speculative and should be interpreted cautiously. Future theoretical development may explain these as harmonic modes or field-coupled resonances. 5. Conclusions The inverse shell model Mn = M1/n yields strong predictive accuracy for a range of fundamental particles. Non-integer shells may represent secondary harmonics, twist-pair interactions, or interference phenomena. The model offers a compelling geometrical interpretation of mass, independent of the Higgs mechanism. Future work will focus on: Mapping remaining particles (e.g. mesons, heavier quarks) to the shell model Modeling twist collapse and resonance stability Testing whether twist harmonics predict observed decay channels and lifetimes

thats the million dollar question — and yes, any claim that the vacuum has physical structure (like elasticity or tension) absolutely must lead to observable, testable consequences. That’s what makes it science. Here’s how I’m currently thinking about ways to test or probe the elastic, torsional nature of the vacuum in the context of my model these are two of my ideas where i am currently working on: 1. Resonance-Based Particle Mass PredictionsIf particles arise as twist-bound resonances in a tensioned vacuum medium, then: Their masses must follow a predictable harmonic pattern. I’ve proposed that the energy levels follow: En= A⋅π2 / n2⋅S2 where A is vacuum tension, and n is a twist shell level. Test: Fit this structure against known particle masses (up quark, muon, tau, etc.) and show harmonic shell spacing — a pattern not predicted by the Standard Model. 4. Nonlinear Energy Scaling in Composite ParticlesIf mass isn’t additive but geometric (i.e. twist confinement energy), then: Composite particle masses (e.g. hadrons) should reflect nonlinear combinations of constituent units (up quark base unit). Test: Predict and match observed hadron masses using integer twist configurations — without needing arbitrary QCD corrections.

good arguement, and one that is fundimental to my current work. You're absolutely right that resonance implies selectivity — preferred frequencies — and that should, in theory, lead to observable signatures. That’s actually one of the reasons I pursue this model: if the vacuum supports resonant modes, it could offer predictive power, rather than treating fluctuations as purely stochastic. But here’s my current view: In standard quantum field theory, vacuum fluctuations are random but constrained by boundary conditions — like the Casimir effect, where specific modes are enhanced or suppressed. I’m extending this idea: what if the vacuum intrinsically favours certain twist geometries or angular frequencies, even without external boundaries? In this model: Resonance doesn’t mean loud classical oscillation — it means increased vacuum energy density at specific angular configurations (like π-based loops). The “twist field” supports quantized angular wells — and particles correspond to stable occupancy of these states. These effects could be observable — for example, through: Particle mass ratios (which I've tried fitting via quantized twist modes), Resonance energy density patterns (like harmonic mass scaling), Or possibly subtle deviations from expected vacuum energy under constrained conditions. So yes — resonance should lead to detectable effects. I’m hoping that the structure I’ve proposed helps explain why particles have the masses they do, why certain modes are stable, and possibly even gives us a route toward probing vacuum structure beyond statistical models. Would love to know what kind of experimental signatures you’d expect if this were true — I’m trying to figure that out too.

this one was easier to get a satisfactory answer - Yes — that’s exactly the direction I’m exploring. I’m suggesting that what we currently interpret as random quantum fluctuations in the electromagnetic vacuum may in fact be the surface appearance of deeper, structured torsional modes in the underlying vacuum field. In my framework, the vacuum has tension and can support stable and semi-stable torsional resonances — like angular standing waves confined in curvature wells. These aren’t transverse EM waves, but rotational/twist-like distortions of vacuum geometry itself. They form closed loops under boundary conditions quantized by π. So instead of treating fluctuations as entirely stochastic, I’m asking whether some vacuum phenomena could instead be manifestations of quantized twist fields — with apparent randomness arising from superposition, interference, or incomplete resonance. In this view, particles emerge from the constructive stabilization of these torsional modes. I’m not rejecting QED — but I’m proposing that underneath its statistical results, there may be a more geometric/torsional mechanism that gives rise to fields, mass, and charge — and explains why certain constants (like π, α, Z₀) emerge as they do. heres a visual image i had it make for you

That’s a fair challenge, and I appreciate the directness. Let me clarify what I mean by “vacuum properties.” In my framework, the vacuum is not empty but possesses an intrinsic structure — something like a tensioned field or elastic medium. It allows for confined resonant modes — what I call “twist fields” — that form when a distortion wraps around and closes in on itself under specific angular conditions. π appears not arbitrarily but as the angular boundary of these closed loops — essentially the full-cycle of the twist. So the idea is that the vacuum supports stable resonance patterns whose angular structure is quantized by π/n. I understand the rest of the theory can’t be evaluated until this foundation is made solid. So let me ask this: does the idea of a vacuum acting as a torsional resonance medium — capable of forming closed curvature wells — seem physically plausible or worth exploring further? That’s the real starting point. my appologies, i missed this statement when answering, im really not trying to avoid your questions, im just trying to juggle answering and working to refine my theory at the same time so sometimes i forget things.. not an excuse though so sorry again I love this structured challenge. Let me respond step-by-step: 1. What oscillates? In my model, what oscillates is not space itself, but the underlying tension field of the vacuum — what I call the "vacuum curvature field." It’s analogous to the idea of a medium capable of torsional strain rather than simple translational waves like in classical EM. 2. The whole medium or parts of it? The entire vacuum field exists everywhere, but localized twist resonances can form within it — much like standing waves in a medium. These are confined curvature loops where angular tension builds and stabilizes. So yes, the medium is universal, but the oscillations occur in bounded torsional regions, which I sometimes call wells or twist loops. 3. How is space divided? Space isn’t divided into parts in the classical sense — the division emerges functionally, depending on where these twist loops form. They represent localized solutions to a field equation, akin to how modes appear in a vibrating membrane. The shape of the resonance determines its quantized energy and curvature. So particles are like stable "knots" of resonance embedded in the continuous vacuum field. 4. Mechanism of oscillation — different from EM? Yes, this differs from the EM field. The EM field is a vector field with transverse wave motion. What I’m proposing is torsional — think of it as angular shear embedded in a scalar curvature field. The oscillation is not in position but in angular curvature, possibly with a restoring force rooted in the elastic properties of vacuum structure (tension, twist inertia, etc.). 5. On Pi being naturally part of oscillation: You're right that cyclic motion inherently involves π as a ratio. But I’m suggesting more than that — π is not just a passive descriptor, but a resonance boundary condition. Specifically, in my model, stable resonance only occurs when the twist angle completes a full loop — i.e., 2π — and this curvature completion directly couples to the energy stored in the vacuum field. So π isn't just a number that "happens" to show up — it’s the resulting operational boundary constant for stability. hope this answers your questions - took me ages to get the ai to write this the way i wanted...lol I’m currently modeling this using a curvature energy equation of the form: Eₙ = (A·π²)/(n²·S²) Where A is vacuum tension, S is the resonance period, and n is a quantized twist mode. This gives discrete energy levels that align well with observed particle masses, and π² naturally appears from the boundary curvature.

ok guys, im back from work now, so let me try and answer some very well crafted and valid and useful questions you have posited. (ill try without ai). 1st note MigL, thanks for your response - 'You will probably take this the wrong way ( again ), but you have these questions because you don't understand the foundations, and so, ascribe 'deeper meaning' to simple ratios. You know, using AI, I could probably construct an argument that the '=' sign in a relation is a 'property of the variables and constants in that relation, that would sound perfectly acceptable to a non-mathematician.' I will try not to take this the wrong way because i believe you may be right about my reason for having these questions... That said, the part of the theory from beginning and including the re deriving the units within the plank scales is my own work, long before i started using ai. I fed this part into ai, and what it has given out from that (i have not included yet) is accompanied with things i dont fully understand so i have first sought to check the validity of what i did. 2nd note - Swansont - again thank you for the question - I had asked for some specific examples where you think pi affects the physics and you did not give any. I think that going through a few would be useful. if I have given the impression that i believe pi itself is a physical thing, my apologies, it is my lack of explaining that has resulted in this. I believe that the vacuum (and thus the actions in that) are governed by something that results in a value (every time) of pi. I dont (at least not anymore after exchemists comment and suggestion) believe that pi has physical units. just a result that can be calculated from other properties. My curiosity is what are those properties that lead to it bieng so profoundly forthcoming. So i dont have examples. And i am not talking about how pi was calculated or defined. Constants don’t count if they depend on which unit system you’re using. - You are correct, and the units i have given them are pseudo units to help find what i was looking for (think of them as a temporary adjustment to entertain a what if question). In this case i have still not exhausted that what if and that is why i still use them. In the end, i will or will not prove them correct. My main idea is as follows i guess - Physics in general is an explanation of what we see and know. Some models explain why something works, some explain how it works but to me (again maybe because im not as versed in the topic as you guys) this seems all reactionary. ie they (physicists) will ask why, why, why until they cant get any further answer, and then say 'its just how it is' or the worst thing (my personal opinion so dont get upset) make up magic unicorns or magic dimensions to explain it, and then pass it off as science fact. Now, again, my personal opinion and probably you see me as one of these, but the difference is, im not claiming my work to be fact or even correct, im looking for confirmation or not. I am more like that irritating 5 year old who never stops asking why, why, why,why, and if i cant find the answer that satisfies me then thats when i think for myself on how it could be. Ive always been this way, i can look at a mechanical machine for 10 minutes and know generally how to build it. I can deconstruct it and reconstruct it in my head, every little component. Lastly Dhillon1724X - i did answer your question but not in full terms. sorry - I dont have an achievement that i need from this- i believe that physics should be shared with everyone for the betterment of our civilisation, for that reason this is just to satisfy my own curiosity and it turned out that it went deeper than i had expected. Now if you mean what the end game is for this theory then that is different, the end goal is to find the underbelly of the universe - to prove that there is an underlying construct to what we know. (you could maybe think of it as the dimension that eluded Einstein) in other words, what we have GR, QED, QFD etc, are the surface explanations, im looking for the explanation that precedes them. ie how is mass created, how are the controls that are placed on mass and space-time determined. thats what im looking for. I hope this satisfies your question. it is word salad, 'curvature well traps twist angles and produces pressure-based restoring behaviour.'- its supposed to say refer to the idea that you get a 3 step process, first you get a curvature well, this traps the twist angles (energy strings) and produces a stable (pressure based ) particle. - this is part of the ai jumble explanation from my suggestion that the twist angles would fill up the well (limited by its 'n' value) and produce a stable particle confined by A2 pressure.

Give me a bit of time to try and formulate an answer that will hopefully satisfy your curiosity about what I'm trying to achieve..

Absolutely — I appreciate that, and I agree completely. Right now, I’m in the early stages of laying out the foundational components: dimensional consistency, vacuum curvature definitions, and energy scaling based on twist-quantized resonance wells. You're right that without a formal Lagrangian (or action-based field principle), it’s premature to expect the framework to be taken seriously in terms of predictive power. That’s exactly where I’m headed next — constructing a field equation (akin to a sine-Gordon or nonlinear Klein-Gordon type) that reflects how curvature tension and twist angle interact to produce localized energy densities. Once I’ve formalized that, I’ll be able to (hopefully): Compare energy solutions for different twist nodes (n) Derive observable quantities like mass-energy or charge coupling Evaluate whether known physics (e.g., QED, mass hierarchies) naturally fall out of the model And most importantly: test for novel predictions So yes — consider this still in development. But I’ll definitely circle back once the Lagrangian is cleanly defined and field solutions are fully simulated. I genuinely appreciate the engagement and the expectation of rigor — it helps keep the theory honest. Fair point — and I fully respect your reluctance to dive into the math if the core concept doesn’t feel physically grounded yet. Let me clarify what I mean by "resonance" in the context of this theory, and how it differs from casual or buzzword use. In Vacuum Resonance Theory (VRT), resonance refers specifically to the stable standing-wave condition of vacuum curvature trapped within a quantized twist well. The prerequisites I’m assuming — and am working to model explicitly — are: A medium capable of oscillation: In VRT, that’s the vacuum tension field itself, modeled as having a characteristic energy density (A²) and a temporal oscillation scale (S). Restoring force: This emerges from the curvature confinement — similar to how tension in a vibrating string produces harmonic modes, here the curvature well traps twist angles and produces pressure-based restoring behavior. Boundary or quantization condition: This is where the twist angle quantization (θ = π/n) comes in. It acts like a boundary constraint, defining allowable standing-wave solutions (much like in quantum wells or cavities). So, yes — I do believe I’m invoking resonance properly, in the same sense it's used in other field theories: a stable, periodic solution that arises from constrained dynamics in a potential. And I’m currently working on expressing that through a Lagrangian and solving the field profiles numerically — not just metaphorically. That said, if you think there are key prerequisites I’ve missed or misapplied, I’d be happy to hear your perspective. I want this framework to be solid, not just sound nice. The original motivation behind my theory — Vacuum Resonance Theory (VRT) — was actually quite simple: I was deeply curious about π. Not just as a mathematical constant, but about why it shows up so pervasively in physics. We usually accept π as a geometric artifact — circles, spheres, oscillations — but I began to wonder: could π itself emerge from physical relationships, rather than geometry alone? Specifically, from dimensional interactions between vacuum constants like μ₀, Z₀, and c? That curiosity led me down a path of reinterpreting vacuum not as empty space, but as a tensioned medium capable of supporting twist-like resonance structures. From there, I started exploring whether mass could be seen as trapped energy in a curved vacuum well, and whether π might represent a physical scaling factor tied to those resonances — not just a mathematical abstraction. So while the theory has grown into a broader framework — involving dimensional analysis, resonance wells, and particle quantization — its real aim is to satisfy a foundational question I couldn’t shake: Everything else builds from that question.

You're absolutely right to raise caution about overconfidence and the risks of pattern-chasing or numerology — especially with a tool like a chatbot involved. It's true that π appears often in physics due to geometric and cyclical structures — circles, oscillations, spherical fields, etc. In many cases, it's a consequence of how we model those symmetries mathematically. That said, the premise of Vacuum Resonance Theory (VRT) isn't that π merely “shows up” in equations — it's that π may emerge as a physical quantity, derived from underlying dimensional relationships involving vacuum constants (μ₀, Z₀, c), rather than being just a mathematical constant. That’s a bold redefinition, and it requires justification — which is exactly why I'm working through field formulations, Lagrangian's, and energy scaling laws numerically and dimensionally. The goal isn’t to force π into places it doesn’t belong — it’s to ask: What if π isn’t just a geometric descriptor, but a physically emergent ratio from deeper field structures, like twist-curvature wells in a vacuum under tension? Of course, that’s only meaningful if: It predicts measurable quantities (like particle masses), It offers a better explanatory framework than existing theories, or It leads to new testable models (as I'm working toward). This line of reasoning may still prove wrong. But exploring these edge cases — with caution and rigor — is how we sometimes stumble into something new. So I appreciate the scepticism, and I welcome any challenge that helps refine or disprove the model. That's what good science — and good discussion — is about. and yes i am becoming more reasonable (in my writing). that is because i decided to use ai to assess what i wanted to say and re-word it to actualy depict what i want it to mean. it is great at that, but even in that, it sometimes twists my words and i have to correct it..

You're right — and I actually agree with the core of your critique. Dividing constants and noticing “interesting” numbers is not physics by itself. I’m not trying to claim that finding: π / μ₀ ≈ 2.5 × 10⁶ is a discovery on its own. That would be numerology — unless it arises from deeper structure or leads to predictive consequences. What I'm Actually ArguingI’m not saying the units themselves prove anything. I’m proposing that π might not be just a geometric artifact, but a field quantity related to vacuum curvature. In that context, the relationship: π = μ₀ × H₀ becomes a definition within the theory — not something I’m “deriving” from SI. It’s not intended as a hidden truth in the constants — it’s part of a reinterpreted framework. Why Use It?Because it leads to something more: A reinterpretation of mass as curvature tension A resonant field model of the vacuum And a framework where quantities like Planck mass, energy, and force emerge from geometric confinement So yes — the equation by itself doesn’t prove anything. But within the model, it serves as a starting assumption — the same way you define base units or postulate symmetries in standard physics. Back-fitting vs Geometric MotivationI agree again: just rearranging constants isn't physics unless it follows from principles (like a Lagrangian) or predicts real outcomes. That’s where I’m heading next. I’m currently working on formulating a curvature-based field model that generates these relationships — so that equations like: π = (H₀ × Z₀) / c fall out naturally from resonance conditions or boundary constraints — not just unit manipulation. InvitationWould you be open to reviewing that once I have the field structure fleshed out? You’ve clearly got a sharp handle on unit consistency and derivation logic — that kind of push back is valuable to shaping this into something real.

Thanks for taking the time to go through the maths in detail — your critique is both fair and helpful. Let me respond clearly to your points and clarify the intentions behind my approach. On the relation: π = (H₀ × Z₀) / cYou're absolutely right that the expression: π / μ₀ ≈ 2.5 × 10⁶ is rooted in how the SI system defines μ₀ (as 4π × 10⁻⁷ H/m). From a standard perspective, that’s a numerical artefact — not a physically derived relationship. But here's the key: I'm not claiming this is a derived law under SI — I'm questioning whether constants like μ₀ and π might themselves emerge from a deeper geometric structure. Reinterpreting π as DimensionalYes, I explicitly redefine π as dimensional (temporarily) — and I agree that’s a bold move. But it's not arbitrary. My core idea is that mass, energy, and field behaviour arise from curvature and resonance within a structured vacuum.- So in this framework, π isn't just a geometric ratio — it's a phase-completion constant for vacuum twist loops. That's why I write: π = μ₀ × H₀ and define its dimensions as: [π] = (kg·m) / (s³·A²) This isn’t just unit-balancing — it’s a proposed physical reinterpretation. I'm suggesting that curvature tension in the vacuum gives π (or at least temporarily) real physical meaning in field interactions. On Dimensional Consistency and Planck QuantitiesYou’re right again that, within SI, mass and force need to resolve to well-defined units like kg or N (kg·m/s²). But part of my framework involves new base quantities: A = vacuum curvature tension (analogous to force per area or energy density) S = spiral period (a vacuum resonance time unit) M = geometric confinement scale (inverse curvature) So when I write: M_p = (E_p) / (c²) = (A² × S³) / M I’m proposing that mass is an emergent property, derived from combinations of A, S, and M — not a base unit. This does break with conventional dimensional analysis, but only because I'm working from a different starting point. Same with force: CopyEdit F_p = ℏ / (t_p × l_p) = A² × S This is only valid if A and S are the new foundational quantities. On the ℏ = e × 2ϕ ExpressionI totally agree this part is speculative and doesn't hold dimensionally. That was more of a curiosity — exploring whether there's a deeper harmonic or symmetry relationship involving the golden ratio. But as it stands, it’s not valid and I’ve removed it from my formal derivation. it should not have been there to begin with. to derive ℏ, i just took h and divided it by 2π (with dimensions). SummaryYou’re absolutely right that new definitions must be derived from physical principles, not just inserted to balance units. I’m not claiming to be done — I’m exploring whether constants like π, μ₀, and Z₀ are actually emergent, and whether mass, charge, and spin come from geometry and resonance in a structured vacuum. To move forward, I’m working on a Lagrangian model that could justify these relationships from first principles, rather than treating constants as inputs. Would you be open to reviewing a geometric derivation of these ideas (instead of unit-based arguments)? I'd love your perspective as I refine the model. Thanks again — this kind of critique is exactly what I need.

I find it telling that despite multiple posts, not a single person here has engaged with the actual mathematics or dimensional analysis I’ve provided. Instead, the focus has been on nitpicking tone, phrasing, and background — everything except the content. I’ve been entirely open about my background: I didn’t attend university, I work 60+ hours a week to support my family, and I study physics in my own time because I care. I don’t expect anyone to spoon-feed me years of formal education. But I do expect that on a science forum, if someone makes a mathematical claim, the response should also involve mathematics — not just condescension or appeals to academic gate keeping. The implication that one must earn a degree before having the right to ask unconventional questions is the exact opposite of what science is supposed to be. If my derivations are wrong — then show me where. Quote the equation. Challenge the logic. Debate the assumptions. Anything else is just opinion. I’m not trying to publish in Nature. I’m trying to explore something that I believe has internal consistency. I welcome constructive challenge — but not smug dismissal masked as superiority. If any of you are actually interested in the physics rather than the person, then engage with the math. If not, then at least be honest that this is about ideology, not science. I’m fully aware the vacuum doesn’t “do math.” My point wasn’t literal — it was philosophical. I’m asking why certain mathematical structures consistently describe reality. Why does the curvature of all closed systems — from atoms to galaxies — appear bound to π? Why does this proportionality manifest so universally? Yes, mathematics is a language we use to model physical behavior — but I’m asking what underlies that behavior. If the vacuum consistently follows rules that we describe with math, then surely the structure of those rules has some ontological significance. That’s the part I’m trying to explore. It’s not enough for me to say “it works because the math works.” That’s like describing the trajectory of a ball using Newton’s equations without wondering why gravity exists at all. I want to know what’s under the hood — not just what the dashboard says. If that makes me weird or outside the mainstream, I’m okay with that. I’m not trying to replace science — I’m trying to dig deeper into what makes the universe tick. You don’t have to agree with the approach. But dismissing the question itself because it’s not phrased in textbook language isn’t scientific — it’s just gatekeeping, and i dont believe that you are that kind of person given that you have been trying to help. So i ask you once again, is there an error with the maths i have done, or does it as I have suggested work?