Reports graviton dispersion coefficient in quantum gravity framework, suggesting zero free parameters.
This paper derives the graviton dispersion coefficient α introduced in Document 22 and left as "O(1) from the attention-lattice dynamics" in Paper XIII. The result is exact and parameter-free: α = 1/28. The derivation proceeds from a single observation: RGM is background-independent. The foam geometry is not a pre-existing crystal — it is generated dynamically by the attention mechanism. The Gaussian kernel width σ used in Paper XIII cannot be an external parameter; it must emerge from the variance of the softmax attention distribution over the descriptor space. For unit-norm descriptor vectors uniformly distributed on S^(d-1) with d = 13 (the dimension of the SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) gauge group generators plus the gravitational amplitude component), the softmax variance theorem gives σ² = 1/(d+1) = 1/14 exactly. Therefore α = σ²/2 = 1/28 exactly. The complete graviton dispersion relation is E² = p²c² + (1/28)·p⁴·L_QF²/ℏ². The convergence constant of Paper XIII is simultaneously fixed to C = 1/28. Consistency with GW170817 is confirmed by 31 orders of magnitude. A testable prediction follows: a 251 TeV photon from a 600 Mpc source should arrive approximately 11 days later than a low-energy counterpart, due to the RGM dispersion — measurable by next-generation multi-messenger instruments (Einstein Telescope, LHAASO). The connection to Ng and Steinbring (2025), who confirmed the holographic foam scaling δl ~ l^(1/3)·L_QF^(2/3) using GRB 221009A, is established: their position-space holographic result and the RGM momentum-space dispersion coefficient are complementary descriptions of the same foam structure, related by Fourier transform. With α = 1/28, the RGM quantum gravity framework contains zero free parameters. All fundamental constants of the gravitational sector — G_N, α, and the continuum limit convergence rate — are derived from the five postulates of Paper I. Builds on Papers I–XIII of the RGM series.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Timothy Gleason (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: