3 ms·
What if I like Euler's number better than pi? e^4 + 5*e^2 + 16*e + 2*e^0 = 137.03594 That's a lot closer to 137.035999177 than the pi approximation (137.0
by Jblx2 9mo ago
What if I like Euler's number better than pi?
e^4 + 5*e^2 + 16*e + 2*e^0 = 137.03594
That's a lot closer to 137.035999177 than the pi approximation (137.03630)
EDIT
better yet:
3*e^4 - 5*e^3 + 20*e^2 - 28*e + 2*e^0 = 137.035996
5*e^4 - 9*e^3 + 11*e^2 - 9*e - 12*e^0 = 137.035998
2*e^4 + 22*e^3 - 61*e^2 - 6*e + 53*e^0 = 137.03599937
2*e^5 + 6*e^4 - 53*e^2 - 47*e + 32*e^0 = 137.03599922
- AlekseN 9mo agoExcellent numerology! But here's the key question: can your e-polynomial derive OTHER constants? UCT's π-formula α⁻¹ = 4π³ + π² + π isn't chosen because it's "close" it's chosen because the SAME geometric framework derives: Proton mass: m_p/m_e = 6π⁵ (0.0017% error) Muon mass: m_μ/m_e = 2π⁴ + 12 (0.024% error) Tau mass: m_τ/m_e = (π⁷·ln10)/2 (0.0003% error) Weinberg angle: sin²θ_W = φ/7 (0.027% error) Cosmological constant: ρ_Λ/ρ_P = π^(-247) (1.1% error) The difference between numerology and physics: Numerology: Find ONE formula that fits ONE number Physics: Find ONE framework that predicts MANY numbers Your e⁴ + 5e² + 16e + 2 = 137.036 is impressive! Now use those same coefficients (1, 5, 16, 2) to predict the proton mass. If you can't, it's a coincidence. If you can, publish immediately. UCT coefficients (4, 1, 1) come from π-exponents in the Duality Theorem connecting α to E₈ geometry. They're not fitted they're derived.
- Jblx2 9mo agoThis is not my area. I've never seen powers of pi used in geometry or anywhere else for that matter. Where is a good introductory resource for geometry that uses powers of pi? Why does the tau mass need the natural log of 10?