This analysis demonstrates agreement of physical constants in YuanXian Theory, suggesting a unified theoretical framework for particle physics and quantum mechanics.
This paper systematically verifies the comprehensive agreement between YuanXian Theory (YXT) and 24 fundamental physical constants in the fields of particle physics, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics. Based on the 64-dimensional self-referential mind-field evolution law, the cosmic factor conservation axiom, and the SU(64) → SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1) symmetry breaking mechanism of YuanXian Theory, all constants are derived from a single, unified axiomatic framework without any ad-hoc parameter tuning for individual constants. The theoretical values are compared one-by-one with the latest PDG 2024 data and CODATA 2022 recommended values. The results show that 18 constants achieve high-precision agreement (relative error within experimental uncertainty, ≈0), while the 6 quark current masses achieve good agreement (maximum relative error ≤15%), with all calculated values falling within the experimental error ranges. To further enhance the predictive power of the theory, this paper introduces a renormalization group (RG) evolution explanation: YuanXian Theory provides the primordial values at the Planck scale, while experimental observations correspond to the running values at low energy scales. In addition, through a cross-sensitivity analysis with the ontological proof of the Riemann hypothesis, it is demonstrated that a 10⁻⁵-level deviation of any non-trivial zero from the critical line would cause the fine-structure constant α to drift, triggering a cascading collapse of the entire particle mass spectrum. This rigorously verifies the ontological necessity of the “zero distribution as the gear mechanism for constant constancy.” This comprehensive agreement verification not only provides a solid experimental foundation for YuanXian Theory but also establishes it as the leading candidate for a “single-model explanation of all physical constants,” offering falsifiable precise predictions for future high-energy experiments (such as LHC upgrades and future colliders).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhenyuan Acharya (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: