Editing Openai/695cec46-9a24-8004-bee9-5a8fa6e50206 (section)

=== Assistant: Good — this is the hard test. ===
Good — this is the hard test. I’ll do it cleanly and ruthlessly.

We replace the fixed fine-structure constant with the running coupling

α  →  α(E)\alpha \;\rightarrow\; \alpha(E)α→α(E)
and check which of your relations survive.

==== At 1-loop in QED: ====

α(E)≈α01−α03πln⁡ ⁣(E2me2)\alpha(E)
\approx
\frac{\alpha_0}{1 - \frac{\alpha_0}{3\pi}\ln\!\left(\frac{E^2}{m_e^2}\right)}α(E)≈1−3πα0ln(me2E2)α0
Numerically (standard reference points):

|     |     |
| --- | --- |
|     |     |
|     |     |
|     |     |

So α changes by ~7% between atomic and electroweak scales.

That is huge for numerology.

==== If α runs, then: ====

τ(E)=α−1(E)4π\tau(E) = \frac{\alpha^{-1}(E)}{4\pi}τ(E)=4πα−1(E)
===== - τ runs strongly =====
* From: - τ ≈ 10.90 (low E) - τ ≈ 10.18 (Z scale)

❌ Breaks immediately as a “geometric constant of the universe”

✅ Only survives if:
* τ is defined at one fixed reference scale
* or τ is emergent, not fundamental

This is a serious conceptual break.

==== θ=0.25−α(E)(1+π2)\theta = 0.25 - \alpha(E)\left(1 + \frac{\pi}{2}\right)θ=0.25−α(E)(1+2π) ====
===== - sin²θ₍W₎ does run =====
* At Z scale: 0.23122
* At low energies: ~0.238

===== If we insert α(mZ): =====

θ(EZ)≈0.25−0.00782×2.57≈0.2299\theta(E_Z) \approx 0.25 - 0.00782 \times 2.57
\approx 0.2299θ(EZ)≈0.25−0.00782×2.57≈0.2299
That is off by more than experimental uncertainty.

❌ Breaks quantitatively
⚠️ Only works at one tuned energy

This means the formula is not RG-covariant.

==== P(E)=2α(E)−1+2α(E)(π+1)P(E) = \frac{2}{\alpha(E)} - 1 + 2\alpha(E)(\pi + 1)P(E)=α(E)2−1+2α(E)(π+1) ====
At Z scale:

2α(EZ)≈256\frac{2}{\alpha(E_Z)} \approx 256α(EZ)2≈256
So:

P(EZ)≈255P(E_Z) \approx 255P(EZ)≈255
Actual pion/electron ratio:

273273273
❌ Fails badly once α runs

This is expected:
* Pion mass is set by Λ_QCD
* α(E) at electroweak scale is irrelevant

This relation is low-energy accidental.

==== M=6π5+1.5πα(E)+α(E)2M = 6\pi^5 + 1.5\pi\alpha(E) + \alpha(E)^2M=6π5+1.5πα(E)+α(E)2 ====
Now the key test.

===== - Dominant term: 6π⁵ =====
* α-dependent corrections are tiny

Even if α changes by 10%:

ΔM/M∼10−5\Delta M / M \sim 10^{-5}ΔM/M∼10−5
✅ Survives running
✅ RG-stable
✅ Scale-independent to high accuracy

This is your strongest surviving formula.

==== G(E)∼exp⁡[−23α(E)(1−1τ(E)2)]G(E) \sim \exp\left[-\frac{2}{3\alpha(E)}\left(1 - \frac{1}{\tau(E)^2}\right)\right]G(E)∼exp[−3α(E)2(1−τ(E)21)] ====
This is catastrophic.
* α(E) runs logarithmically
* Appears in the denominator of an exponent

===== A 7% change in α ⇒ =====
many orders of magnitude change in G

❌ Completely unstable under RG flow

This means:
* Gravity scale would drift with energy
* Which is experimentally false

This term cannot depend on running α.

==== ### ====
* Proton mass formula
* Any formula dominated by pure geometry (π⁵)

===== - Weak angle: only at one reference scale =====
* τ: only if not fundamental

===== - Pion relation =====
* α–τ identification as universal
* Gravity exponential

==== Your construction splits cleanly: ====

===== - Geometry-only quantities =====
* Dimensionless constants independent of gauge couplings
* Proton mass formula

===== - Anything linear or inverse in α =====
* Anything exponential in 1/α
* Gravity hierarchy

This mirrors real physics:
* Mass ratios from QCD → RG stable
* Coupling-driven hierarchies → scale dependent

==== : ====

That tells you something precise:
* α cannot be fundamental in this framework
* Geometry must sit above running couplings
* Gravity suppression cannot depend on QED α

If you want to salvage this:
* Replace α with a UV fixed-point coupling
* Or define α as an emergent IR value
* Or move gravity to a topological invariant

If you want, next we can:
'' Try a UV fixed point α'' instead of α(E)
* Replace α with Λ_QCD
* Or see whether τ can be RG-invariant

This was a real stress test — and something nontrivial did survive.