Develops a unified geometric treatment of light mesons and strange baryons, highlighting a new framework for mass generation.
The Mass Concept in the Layer Theory of Spacetime – Part IV develops a unified geometric treatment of light mesons and strange baryons within the same layered five-dimensional framework previously used for fermion masses, neutrinos, and heavy hadrons. The central result is that visible hadron masses and spin splittings can be organized by a single matter–Higgs–gauge mode space in the operational layer coordinate z, without introducing new particles, new gauge interactions, or sector-specific confining potentials. In this framework, matter profiles, the localized Higgs background, and delocalized gauge support are treated as genuine profiles in z, while two-body and three-body composite systems are described by induced source and oscillation profiles in the same mode space. Observable hadron masses then arise from controlled even and odd low-energy reductions of this full structure. A central structural result is that the light pseudoscalar channels are identified as boundary-dominated states rather than ordinary bulk hadronic modes, while strange baryons require a universal strange-sensitive geometric completion in the even sector rather than ad hoc flavor-dependent correction terms. The final visible test set — including rho-pi, K*-K, Delta-N, Sigma*-Sigma, Xi*-Xi, and the visible masses of Sigma, Sigma*, Xi, Xi*, and Omega — is reproduced within MeV-scale residuals using current particle data. The construction remains compatible with the heavy-sector closure developed in Part III and yields a latent odd-sector target in the sss channel, providing a nontrivial benchmark for future nonperturbative tests. Part IV therefore closes the visible hadronic sector of the Mass Concept as a predictive and falsifiable extension of the same geometric mechanism developed in Parts I–III. The work is intended as a controlled effective five-dimensional profile theory of composite mass generation and hadron structure, with explicit separation between anchors, derived quantities, and genuine predictions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Raphael Wohlfarter (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: