This framework reveals metrological principles linking QCD with a geometric unification model, highlighting fresh insights into fundamental physics.
Although many unification programs exist in modern physics (GR, QED/QCD, SMEFT, Einstein--Aether theories, Kaluza--Klein models, and string frameworks), none contain the geometric, ledger-based structures developed in this work. This paper introduces several new advances not present in mainstream theories: A new geometric unit of physics: the double-loxodromic Aether cell \(S²\!×\!Tₗₒₓ\) with fixed flux \(∫ωₛₜ=16π²\). No existing theory employs this bipartite, distributed-charge geometry. A ledger-based unification principle: \[ A_u\,curl={F_q}²{λ_C}²,\]linking magnetic stiffness, square-charge circulation, and Compton-scale kinematics. No standard theory equates these invariants or interprets them as topological constants. Two-geometry representation of charge: electrostatic charge on \(S²\) and magnetic/strong charge on a loxodromic ribbon. This decomposition does not exist in U(1) or SU(3). A new weak interaction: the es--mag overlap scalar \(χ_x\), whose equation of motion generates the holonomy factor \(H(Z)\). This geometric weak channel is unlike the SU(2) electroweak theory. A parameter-free birefringent invariant: \[ β_0={1}{16π²},\]controlling polarization transport in Aether modes; there is no analogue in the Standard Model or in GR. A geometric derivation of the proton mass ratio: \[ m_p/m_e=6π⁵,\]arising from the loxodromic packing constant. No mainstream framework provides an analytic expression for this ratio. A unified action with no empirical coefficients: all sector Lagrangians derive from the Aether cell geometry and QMU ledger identities. A new metrological program: independent realizations of \(A_u\,curl\), and \({F_q}²{λ_C}²\) forming the falsifiable closure\[ C={A_u\,curl}{{F_q}²{λ_C}²}-1.\] These features constitute a genuinely new unification program: geometric, topological, and metrological, with no free scales and no reliance on SI or empirical fitting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thomson, David (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: