Editing Openai/6897769e-4ee4-800f-aba5-69cca34f701c (section)

=== 1. Tighten the geometry → constants Try to express α (and the small 0.47° correction vs. golden angle) from honest geometry of a spherical 4πr² surface with charge e², Planck action h/2π, c and 1/4πε₀. No numerology — look for a compact geometric expression or small perturbation that naturally produces 1/α ≈ 137.035999. ===
# Run a targeted numerical survey (parametric search) Search plausible simple formula families that combine ϕ (golden ratio / golden angle), π, h, c, e, ε₀ and simple geometric factors (r, 2π, 4π, etc.) to see whether a robust geometric correction term explains the 0.47° difference and yields α within experimental precision. If we find a promising expression, we try to give it a physical interpretation (e.g., spectrum/dispersion from droplet scattering, plasma/temperature correction, boundary-layer effect on the surface).
# Connect to larger-scale predictions Try to produce a compact QAT-inspired version of Einstein’s equations (we sketched one earlier). Then: (A) look for a mapping from Tμν → surface-energy flow (photon-electron events per area per time) and (B) explore Dirac/Mach relations (Mᵤ ∝ t²) as an emergent scaling from the same geometry.
# Check falsifiability / testable predictions Extract 1–3 specific, plausible tests (e.g., small change in fine-structure-like measurable with temperature or plasma environment; subtle angular-dependent scattering signatures; predicted relation between Planck-scale event rate and some astronomical observable).
# Write clean math notes and update your Core Equation document Produce a short technical note (not too long) that you can paste into the Canvas document, and a plain-English summary to use in outreach when/if you want.