Hi all, my name is Mike and i am a self taught physics wannabe.. this means i am not of the university type but am extremely interested in the way things work. I had a thought and got to work on a theory to prove that Pi must be dimensional, sounds crazy and a lot of you will dismiss it immediately, but i ask you to just look at my proof. After 2 years of work, i have come to the conclusion that rather than replacing the standard model and all others, my theory actually shows a deeper working of the model, it is like pulling back the curtain to reveal the wizard. Thus, this theory changes nothing that is known (reactive descriptions) but gives a whole new foundational mechanism for the workings of those calculations (all based on 1st principles). So please read my theory and feel free to criticise, deconstruct, suggest changes or mistakes, but keep it civil, remember, i am not a high degree student but that does not mean i cant think. i have attached the theory for your pleasure, i am really curious what you all think. due to file size i have split the theory into 2 , part 1 is about the derivation of Pi and what it does to other constants, part 2 suggests experiments and other complimentary derivations such as de broglie wave, schrodingers equation etc.

files removed by mod

31 minutes ago, mike.appleby said:

Hi all, my name is Mike and i am a self taught physics wannabe.. this means i am not of the university type but am extremely interested in the way things work. I had a thought and got to work on a theory to prove that Pi must be dimensional, sounds crazy and a lot of you will dismiss it immediately, but i ask you to just look at my proof. After 2 years of work, i have come to the conclusion that rather than replacing the standard model and all others, my theory actually shows a deeper working of the model, it is like pulling back the curtain to reveal the wizard. Thus, this theory changes nothing that is known (reactive descriptions) but gives a whole new foundational mechanism for the workings of those calculations (all based on 1st principles). So please read my theory and feel free to criticise, deconstruct, suggest changes or mistakes, but keep it civil, remember, i am not a high degree student but that does not mean i cant think. i have attached the theory for your pleasure, i am really curious what you all think. due to file size i have split the theory into 2 , part 1 is about the derivation of Pi and what it does to other constants, part 2 suggests experiments and other complimentary derivations such as de broglie wave, schrodingers equation etc.

VRT.pdf

vrt part2.pdf

π is a ratio of 2 lengths to one another: circumference divided by diameter. As such it has to be dimensionless. That is just maths, not physics.

Also I see your document is written by AI. That makes it fairly worthless, as it is no surprise to find an LLM arguing anything, whether reasonable or absurd. They are programmed to tell the person instructing them that their ideas are great.

hi, thanks for your response, and yes the back end of the paper is written using ai to get the terminology right, however, the first part of the paper about pi and the plank scales is all mine. as for pi bieng a ratio between 2 numbers, i agree when you look at it mathematically, but when you see that nothing in the universe could exist with ought it and that it does not vary, then there has to be a reason why the value is what it is.. or you would have to think that we live in a matrix, where someone just imputed a number out of thin air and said "no matter what the universe does, this number will always apply". that is the premise of the theory, i am absolutely not trying to prove physics wrong, just trying to understand how we see what we see. as for the ai, that is why i placed it here, i told it how to treat certain aspects and then re write it in scientific terms, so no this is not an ai theory, it is mine , ai was used only to write and search for information that i needed to compare

Oh, there must be a reason for number 2 as well then. Otherwise we would live in a matrix.

Also,

Planck scale is a physics problem, while

Plank scales are presumably an engineering one.

And nobody would impute anything to a number, although people input numbers every day.

And lastly, but not leastly. Yes, we know there are bound to be facts without explanation in this post-Gödel, post-Turing era. A likely example is the Riemann hypothesis.

16 minutes ago, mike.appleby said:

hi, thanks for your response, and yes the back end of the paper is written using ai to get the terminology right, however, the first part of the paper about pi and the plank scales is all mine. as for pi bieng a ratio between 2 numbers, i agree when you look at it mathematically, but when you see that nothing in the universe could exist with ought it and that it does not vary, then there has to be a reason why the value is what it is.. or you would have to think that we live in a matrix, where someone just imputed a number out of thin air and said "no matter what the universe does, this number will always apply". that is the premise of the theory, i am absolutely not trying to prove physics wrong, just trying to understand how we see what we see. as for the ai, that is why i placed it here, i told it how to treat certain aspects and then re write it in scientific terms, so no this is not an ai theory, it is mine , ai was used only to write and search for information that i needed to compare

I repeat, it is a mathematical ratio. It is abstract and does not depend on physics. Just as 2 + 2 =4, whatever the shape or construction of the universe. You might just as well say the universe could not exist without the number 4. You have asked AI to dress up a nonsensical idea in sciency terms, and thereby bamboozled yourself into thinking you have a scientific theory. AI is good at putting lipstick on a pig. But it's still a pig.

But let's see where this notion gets us. What are you saying the dimensions of π are? And then let's work out what the dimensions of the circumference of a circle must be, on that basis. Over to you.

Edited July 23Jul 23 by exchemist

ok, i get your thought about it, but your overlooking the fundamental position, the number 2 is a number we add to something, if you read the theory you would see that i also tackle this, the vacuum (universe) does not see 2, it sees only 1, and many of them, each unit(object) is treated as such and cumulative results are what we add numbers to. This goes for pi also i agree, but if we did not give it a value then it would still have an effect (the same effect) and it is constant. the number 2 is not, it can mean different things, 2 of this 2 of that. All i want is an open mind to the idea that pi would be the result of actions within the vacuum as apposed to just a ratio (the vacuum is deliberate in what it does). The plank scales are still open to interpretation and not set in stone as to what they are.

ok, i say that pi is kg . m / A2 . S3, and that in actual vacuum (physicality) no circle ever fully closes due to magnetic and electric influence (so it spirals). its all layed out in the theory.

and by the way, the part about pi and the results of the dimensional changes, is all me, ai had no say in it, the rest of the paper is where i used ai, the first part on pi is the result of me working for 2 years and is also written by me

5 minutes ago, mike.appleby said:

ok, i get your thought about it, but your overlooking the fundamental position, the number 2 is a number we add to something, if you read the theory you would see that i also tackle this, the vacuum (universe) does not see 2, it sees only 1, and many of them, each unit(object) is treated as such and cumulative results are what we add numbers to. This goes for pi also i agree, but if we did not give it a value then it would still have an effect (the same effect) and it is constant. the number 2 is not, it can mean different things, 2 of this 2 of that. All i want is an open mind to the idea that pi would be the result of actions within the vacuum as apposed to just a ratio (the vacuum is deliberate in what it does). The plank scales are still open to interpretation and not set in stone as to what they are.

ok, i say that pi is kg . m / A2 . S3, and that in actual vacuum (physicality) no circle ever fully closes due to magnetic and electric influence (so it spirals). its all layed out in the theory.

That would mean the units of measure for the circumference of a circle ( πd) are not length, but kg.m²/ A2. S3. Does that make sense to you?

thats not what i am saying. again if you read the theory, at least the first part, you would find that i do not change the meaning of pi when using for geometry as it is not needed (there are no units in maths (geometry). the units are only needed when dealing with physical curvature, and when you read what i wrote, even a circles circumference is a length, only it is attained by using physical (1st principle) equations. it is not as simple as saying, if we use pi to calculate an imaginary circular object we must have units, of course not because no forces or actions are being applied by the vacuum to produce the result. Just a note, I do appreciate your asking these questions, it will help me to better explain things in the future. So thank you and keep going

13 minutes ago, mike.appleby said:

thats not what i am saying. again if you read the theory, at least the first part, you would find that i do not change the meaning of pi when using for geometry as it is not needed (there are no units in maths (geometry). the units are only needed when dealing with physical curvature, and when you read what i wrote, even a circles circumference is a length, only it is attained by using physical (1st principle) equations. it is not as simple as saying, if we use pi to calculate an imaginary circular object we must have units, of course not because no forces or actions are being applied by the vacuum to produce the result. Just a note, I do appreciate your asking these questions, it will help me to better explain things in the future. So thank you and keep going

What are A2 and S3?

Just now, mike.appleby said:

Hi all, my name is Mike and i am a self taught physics wannabe.. this means i am not of the university type but am extremely interested in the way things work. I had a thought and got to work on a theory to prove that Pi must be dimensional, sounds crazy and a lot of you will dismiss it immediately, but i ask you to just look at my proof. After 2 years of work, i have come to the conclusion that rather than replacing the standard model and all others, my theory actually shows a deeper working of the model, it is like pulling back the curtain to reveal the wizard. Thus, this theory changes nothing that is known (reactive descriptions) but gives a whole new foundational mechanism for the workings of those calculations (all based on 1st principles). So please read my theory and feel free to criticise, deconstruct, suggest changes or mistakes, but keep it civil, remember, i am not a high degree student but that does not mean i cant think. i have attached the theory for your pleasure, i am really curious what you all think. due to file size i have split the theory into 2 , part 1 is about the derivation of Pi and what it does to other constants, part 2 suggests experiments and other complimentary derivations such as de broglie wave, schrodingers equation etc.

VRT.pdf

vrt part2.pdf

Before I bother to look, someone please tell me that this is not another one of those golden ratio cranks.

They can hangout 20 pages of drivel without blinking an eyelid.

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

Before I bother to look, someone please tell me that this is not another one of those golden ratio cranks.

They can hangout 20 pages of drivel without blinking an eyelid.

Ooh, that sounds fun, I don't think I've come across one of those.

Pi can be shown to be relevant in mathematics from many angles --pun intended. One of them not having to do with circles at all is the Basel problem: The sum of the reciprocals of all integers squared equals pi²/6. It's, of course, obviously dimensionless from here too.

This had mathematicians scratching their heads for quite a while.

Edited July 23Jul 23 by joigus
minor correction+addition

29 minutes ago, mike.appleby said:

Hi all, my name is Mike and i am a self taught physics wannabe.. this means i am not of the university type but am extremely interested in the way things work. I had a thought and got to work on a theory to prove that Pi must be dimensional, sounds crazy and a lot of you will dismiss it immediately, but i ask you to just look at my proof. After 2 years of work, i have come to the conclusion that rather than replacing the standard model and all others, my theory actually shows a deeper working of the model, it is like pulling back the curtain to reveal the wizard. Thus, this theory changes nothing that is known (reactive descriptions) but gives a whole new foundational mechanism for the workings of those calculations (all based on 1st principles). So please read my theory and feel free to criticise, deconstruct, suggest changes or mistakes, but keep it civil, remember, i am not a high degree student but that does not mean i cant think. i have attached the theory for your pleasure, i am really curious what you all think. due to file size i have split the theory into 2 , part 1 is about the derivation of Pi and what it does to other constants, part 2 suggests experiments and other complimentary derivations such as de broglie wave, schrodingers equation etc.

VRT.pdf

vrt part2.pdf

22 minutes ago, joigus said:

Pi can be shown to be relevant in mathematics from many angles --pun intended. One of them not having to do with circles at all is the Basel problem: The sum of the reciprocals of all integers squared equals pi²/6. It's, of course, obviously dimensionless from here too.

This had mathematicians scratching their heads for quite a while.

And then there’s Euler’s identity.

Just now, mike.appleby said:

(there are no units in maths (geometry). the units are only needed when dealing with physical curvature

Just now, mike.appleby said:

hi, thanks for your response, and yes the back end of the paper is written using ai to get the terminology right, however, the first part of the paper about pi and the plank scales is all mine. as for pi bieng a ratio between 2 numbers, i agree when you look at it mathematically, but when you see that nothing in the universe could exist with ought it and that it does not vary, then there has to be a reason why the value is what it is.

Just now, mike.appleby said:

Hi all, my name is Mike and i am a self taught physics wannabe..

I see you are also a maths wannabe

But of course there are units in maths - it is how we distinguish between length, area and volume and how they are handled, for instance.

How about this famous identity ?

[math]{e^{\pi i}} = - 1[/math]

Moderator Note

This seems more suitable to the speculations section of this forum. Please note the guidelines for this section.

The Speculations forum is provided for those who like to hypothesize new ideas in science. To enrich our discussions above the level of Wild Ass Guesswork (WAG) and give as much meaning as possible to such speculations, we do have some special rules to follow:

1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

2. Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either.

3. Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory.

The movement of a thread into (or out of) Speculations is ultimately at the discretion of moderators, and will be determined on a case by case basis.

50 minutes ago, exchemist said:

And then there’s Euler’s identity.

Oh. That one is even more spectacular! Only pi, e, and -1 involved. But then our friend would tell us e must come from some physical law.

46 minutes ago, studiot said:

How about this famous identity ?

Yes! The topic is unending.

I would conclude following in The-Princess-Bride style:

You keep using this number... I do not think it means what you think it means.

Same logic applies to 1 being the ratio of the length of one side of a square to another.

It’s a property of a square, just like pi is a property of a circle. Pythagoras gives us relationships for a right triangle. It’s a tautology, not magic. If you had varying properties they wouldn’t be these shapes (at least in a Cartesian system)

3 hours ago, mike.appleby said:

again if you read the theory

Rules say you need to post material for discussion here. Not via links or uploaded files.

4 hours ago, mike.appleby said:

i do not change the meaning of pi when using for geometry as it is not needed (there are no units in maths (geometry).

Layman question: Without units in mathematics, how do you distinguish between radians and degrees in geometry?

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Layman question: Without units in mathematics, how do you distinguish between radians and degrees in geometry?

Degrees and radians are not units. They’re more like a convention of how you are dividing a circle — into 360 pieces or 2pi pieces — and are marking which one you’re using.

Pi is not only an irrational number (one that cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers). It is also a transcendental number.

That means pi cannot be the root to any rational-coefficient, finite-order polynomic equation.

Irrational numbers are kind of like "the beyond" of the realm of numbers (and ironically most of the numbers that exist).

Transcendental numbers would be something like the beyond of the beyond. That's the realm of pi, e, and phi (the golden ratio).

It would be highly suspicious that any simple argument gave as a result that pi has dimensions. Dimensional quantities are by their sheer nature ruler-generated multiples of a unit (a number that represents 1 in our scale).

Any argument purporting to prove that pi is dimensionful would have to be labyrinthine, transcendental itself, based on infinite series at the very least.

So I don't think so.

Edited July 23Jul 23 by joigus
minor correction

In all honesty most of the would be Pi is something else brigade have actually latched on to some obscure (real or imagined) effect which has Pi in its definining expression.

They then treat this as the definition of Pi, rather than the other way round, and claim all other uses are secondary or flawed.

Again rather than introduce a new constant or parameter for their purpose.

So I prefer to wait and see what mike has to say when he can add to (improve) his posting.

hi guys, finally my 24 hour period is over so now i can reply to you (for those i didn't pm. here is my first summary for your interest. pleas comment, challenge or ask questions. - its a bit long but please make sure to read it all...

 

Explanation of thought process

Let me begin by expelling any misconception you might have of my intentions. I do not aim to replace π or to re-value it. My intention is to show that when we study the effects within the vacuum where curvature in any form is concerned, the fact that the value of π reveals itself (with ought exception, ie constant) dictates that some event within the functioning of said vacuum produces an effect that this constant describes. Now weather or not π has a physical effect on the vacuum or is just the result of action taken by the vacuum, it must still depict an event happening and thus must involve units (that is my out of the box train of thought). Again, I am not trying to change any known (well established and proven) theories or to suggest in any way they are wrong. I believe what I have found is an important side of physics that has been over looked. Now, it is to be determined if we indeed continue to call it Pi (when talking in this context) or if we decide to give it its own definition that is linked to Pi, that is not for me to decide.

This paper is being offered open source in the hope that the community can work together to solve the issues. The use of Ai later in the paper was maybe a mistake, but I did limit what it could suggest by telling it what my idea was and rejecting a lot of solutions it came up with due to not complying with (what I know of) experimentally and mathematically proven theories and

Overview
Vacuum Resonance Theory (VRT) suggests that the use of π in physical applications must be due to causality. This simply means that when dealing with the calculations of curvature in the physical world (not in imaginary projects that have no physical meaning) it (the vacuum) does not do this for no reason as physics has suggested (that π remains dimensionless), rather just as all other constants, the vacuum does something that results in π as the middle ground. This is the basis of the theory, Pi must have a behind the scenes physical interacting reason for always being the value it is, otherwise it should be changeable.  The theory also suggests (as a possibility) a reinterpretation of some  fundamental constants, particle formation, and field interactions as emergent phenomena from the geometry and oscillation of the vacuum itself. Rather than modifying existing physical laws, VRT provides a geometric substrate behind established physics, offering a curvature-based origin for mass derivation, charge, and resonance.

The theory shows how current maths fails (in relation to units) when confronted with certain equations, in these cases the reaction of most physicists is to say, even though the answer is correct, the units aren’t so it means nothing.. We strongly dispute that and show why

Here is an example of one such calculation

C = H_vrt Z₀ / Pi = M² Kg / A² S³ which is not m/s       

where H_vrt  and π are (according to physics) dimensionless.

and H_vrt is a derived number in the theory of 2.5 x 10⁶ (this is a known quantity within physics)

In this, they would say that just because the resulting number is the same doesn’t mean its right?

We are challenging all of that thinking and saying it does we just haven’t understood why yet.

---

Core Principles

1. Dimensional π (Pi): In VRT, π is assigned physical units: This dimensional form allows π to serve as a curvature-completion operator within the vacuum field.

2. Vacuum Twist Tension (A²): A universal vacuum curvature constant: This tension defines the energy density needed to form stable field curvature structures.

3. Unit derivision A and Kg: derived by first defining what A is in terms of units. Further, we solve for kg, and give reasoning behind what we do.

---

Testable Predictions ( suggested by ai)

1. Electron Mass/Charge Correlation: Predicts that all charged leptons possess the same internal twist-unit charge (545,590), differing only in curvature depth (mass).

2. Resonant Decay Geometry: During beta decay, VRT predicts that the expelled energy forms an up-quark-like seed that is immediately captured into a vacuum twist, forming an electron. Predictable based on curvature energy profiles.

3. π-Twist Completion Threshold: A particle acquires rest mass only once its twist geometry achieves a full π-radian closure — predicts why mass less particles remain mass less (e.g. photons).

---

Experimental Suggestions (suggested by ai)

• Investigate geometric asymmetries in high-energy decay to test the emergence of twist resonance wells.

• Design Casimir-style torsion traps to observe spontaneous curvature formation.

• Test for twist-unit charge quantization via electron orbital perturbation under vacuum modulation.

for anyone interested in the full theory, i will make it available.

Edited July 24Jul 24 by mike.appleby

Just now, mike.appleby said:

Let me begin by expelling any misconception you might have of my intentions. I do not aim to replace π or to re-value it. My intention is to show that when we study the effects within the vacuum where curvature in any form is concerned, the fact that the value of π reveals itself (with ought exception, ie constant) dictates that some event within the functioning of said vacuum produces an effect that this constant describes. Now weather or not π has a physical effect on the vacuum or is just the result of action taken by the vacuum, it must still depict an event happening and thus must involve units (that is my out of the box train of thought). Again, I am not trying to change any known (well established and proven) theories or to suggest in any way they are wrong. I believe what I have found is an important side of physics that has been over looked. Now, it is to be determined if we indeed continue to call it Pi (when talking in this context) or if we decide to give it its own definition that is linked to Pi, that is not for me to decide.

Let me ask you this simple question.

Just now, mike.appleby said:

Now weather or not π has a physical effect on the vacuum or is just the result of action taken by the vacuum, it must still depict an event happening and thus must involve units

What proof or evidence do you have to back this claim up ?

I ask because your use of 'it must' and 'thus' means that you consider there is some Law that requires this.

So please outline this Law.

I observe that any worthy summary of Physics will contain a section on 'dimensionless constants' , such as Reynolds Number, which have no units but definitely affect that which they are applied to, in defiance of any requirement to the contrary.

as i said -"that is my out of the box train of thought" - this is simply the direction that i took as a postulate in order to find what i found, With any theory you need to start with a conviction and this was mine, sorry for the confusion..

Just now, mike.appleby said:

as i said -"that is my out of the box train of thought" - this is simply the direction that i took as a postulate in order to find what i found, With any theory you need to start with a conviction and this was mine, sorry for the confusion..

So are we agreed that your train of thought was incorrect in stating that it requires Pi to have units ?