The report analyzes the charge wave’s influence on the mass formula linking α, m_e, and m_π, suggesting a structural relationship.
The electron traverses the quark–lepton boundary B(1,4) with two distinct waves: the mass wave (Dirac oscillation, fermionic, anti-periodic, two traversals from the Arf = 1 spin structure) and the charge wave (electromagnetic field configuration, bosonic, periodic, one traversal to close). The mass wave was addressed in Paper CXXI: it gives the correction 2α√7 to m_e. Here we analyse the charge wave. The key result: the mass formula m_e = (αm_π/2)(1 + 2α√7) is a quadratic equation in α — it creates a triangle relation between three quantities m_e, m_π, and α, mediated by the Fano factor √7. Any two determine the third. Inverting for α given observed m_e = 0.51100 MeV and m_π = 134.977 MeV: alpha^-1 = 137.17 (observed: 137.036, 0.10% discrepancy) [inversion result] The 0.10% discrepancy is exactly the same order as the mass formula's own 0.098% error — the system is self-consistent at first order. This is not a derivation of α from pure geometry, but it demonstrates that the framework contains α, m_e, and m_π in a single constraint surface: the Fano secant √7 mediates between the QCD scale and the electromagnetic scale. A full derivation of α = 1/137.036 from the G₂ structure constants at the B(1,4) boundary is identified as structurally possible and is deferred. Part of the One-Octonion Brane-Bulk Framework series. Anchor DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19120873. Community: one-octonion-brane-bulk. Author: Bharathi Dasan Jagadeesan, M.D., University of Minnesota. ORCID: 0000-0002-1143-941X.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bharathi Jagadeesan (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: