This theoretical framework establishes a common origin for quantum states across different physical scales, suggesting implications for cosmological models.
Mittermeier Attractor Theory proposes that electromagnetic, gravitational, and cosmological scales are different readouts of one finite dimensionless quantum state. This work establishes the discrete architecture that makes this claim mathematically determinate. An arithmetic hyperbolic branch fixes a finite phase space, an irreducible Heisenberg register, a topology-selected interface, and a finite transmission carrier. Exact projectors on that carrier connect its topological, Clifford, Weyl, exceptional-geometric, and string-theoretic descriptions without introducing continuously adjustable parameters. The resulting structure provides a common origin for the boundary coupling, the finite-to-continuum response, the electron–Planck hierarchy, and the two cosmological matter projections. The normalized transmission trace determines the continuum response coordinate. The same state then fixes the low-energy electromagnetic boundary condition, generates the electron hierarchy by dimensional transmutation, and converts through the unchanged Rydberg identity to an absolute Planck length and Newton's constant. In cosmology, a single matter coupling is transported through complementary finite-sector normalizations; their weighted deformations are exactly equal, and their difference is an octet-completion invariant of the same carrier. With the Rydberg constant as the sole dimensional anchor, the calculation reproduces the fine-structure constant, the dimensionless gravity invariant, Newton's constant, and the Planck-facing and FRW-completed matter fractions. A machine-readable audit verifies the complete chain. The synthesis defines a finite exceptional boundary architecture in which hyperbolic topology, finite quantum kinematics, Spin(10), triality, G2 geometry, the exceptional cubic, heterotic modular structure, and eleven-dimensional boundary dynamics are representations of one carrier rather than independent numerical assumptions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rainer Andreas Mittermeier (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: