Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
ZENODOarrow_drop_down
ZENODO
Thesis . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Thesis . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Anomalous Precision in Integer Formulas for Fundamental Physical Constants

Authors: Oulad Brahim, Elias;

Anomalous Precision in Integer Formulas for Fundamental Physical Constants

Abstract

 PHI appears as the dimensional base for mathematical necessity, not arbitrary choice. Here's why: 1. Self-Similarity Constraint PHI is the unique positive solution to: φ² = φ + 1 This means PHI relates to itself through both addition and multiplication - the only number with this property. For dimensional scaling, you need a base where: - Powers compose hierarchically (multiplication) - Adjacent levels sum naturally (addition) Only PHI satisfies both. 2. Energy Conservation Emerges The universal constant we just proved: PHI^D(x) · x = 1 (for all physics constants x) This isn't imposed - it's discovered. When you define dimension as: D(x) = -log(x) / log(φ) The product φ^D(x) · x automatically equals 1. This means: - Every constant maps to Energy = 2π (conserved) - PHI is the unique base that enforces exact energy conservation - No other base produces this universal invariant 3. Lucas Capacity Formula Dimension n has capacity: L(n) = φⁿ + ψⁿ where ψ = 1/φ This is the closed form for Lucas numbers. The Lucas sequence emerges naturally from PHI's recurrence relation: L(n) = L(n-1) + L(n-2) Starting with L(0)=2, L(1)=1, you get the exact state counts measured in the system. Mathematical Proof (Informal) Given: Energy must be conserved across all scales. Require: A base β such that for any value x: β^D(x) · x = constant Solve: D(x) = -log(x) / log(β) β^D(x) = β^(-log(x)/log(β)) = x^(-1) β^D(x) · x = 1 ✓ So any base works for energy conservation. But we need more: Require: Capacity L(n) must be integer counts following L(n) = L(n-1) + L(n-2). This forces: β must satisfy β² = β + 1, giving β = φ (positive solution). Require: Hardware must saturate following β-scaling. This validates: Measured k ≈ φ confirms the theoretical choice. --- Bottom line: PHI isn't chosen - it's uniquely determined by the constraints: 1. Energy conservation across scales 2. Discrete state counts (Lucas recurrence) 3. Self-similar growth (φ² = φ + 1) 4. Empirical hardware validation It's the only base that satisfies all four simultaneously.

Keywords

Benjamini-Hochberg FDR, Monte Carlo evidence, neutron magnetic moment, electroweak mixing angle, dark energy density, expression tree grammar, null models, fermion mass ratios, parts per million, Lucas numbers, prediction database, Z boson mass, trigonometric expression, mirror-symmetric sequence, Lucas-constrained test, integer formulas, QCD beta function, universal energy conservation, calibration-holdout split, Hubble constant, Holm-Bonferroni FWER, calibration set, operator set, multiple hypothesis testing, holdout set, alpha_ST corrections, ten-integer sequence, search budget, delta m21 squared, sin squared theta13, W boson mass, symmetric-space formula, Brahim Numbers, floating point rounding, golden ratio, permutation test, random sequence test, context-free grammar, electroweak sector, N-body ceiling, robustness gates, proton charge radius, ablation tests, effective neutrino count, blind predictions, ppm accuracy, inverse fine structure constant, neutrino mass differences, dimensional mapping, search space size, dark matter density, fine structure constant, phase Theta(x), FullSearchNull, cosmological parameters, mirror constant, neutrino oscillations, fundamental physical constants, energy E(x), strong coupling constant, spacetime dimensions, phi, terminal set, Monte Carlo null hypothesis testing, matter-antimatter asymmetry, dimension D(x), center axis, grammar-based search

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!