This is the dynamics extension of the Geometry of Sound (GoS) model, continuing the empirical geometric model of fundamental particle masses (v19, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22650356). MAIN RESULTS: 1. N = 8 from dynamics: 7.9867 assemblies per Merkaba cycle yield N = 8, the Higgs hierarchy level. Direct derivation, not a postulate. 2. Unified Higgs system from one formula X = X_tree * (1 + A_breath^2 / k): - VEV = sqrt(2*pi) * m_P * alpha^8 * (1 + A^2/8) = 246.2205 GeV (exp. 246.22, 0.0002%) - m_H = m_P * alpha^8 * sqrt(phi) * (1 + A^2/1.5) = 125.2408 GeV (exp. 125.25, 0.0074%) - lambda = phi/(4pi) * (1 + A^2) = 0.129317 (exp. 0.129383, 0.051%) - Standard Model consistency: m_H = sqrt(2*lambda*VEV^2) holds to 0.025% 3. Six quarks from six antipodal pairs of icosahedron faces. 4. Z boson: sin^2(theta_W) = phi/7 = 0.231148 (exp. 0.231227, 0.03%). 5. W bosons on icosahedron vertices (5 of 6 pairs active). 6. alpha_s = 10 * alpha * phi = 0.118074 (0.06%). 7. Gravity: 1/r law confirmed through Merkaba synchronization. 8. Yang-Mills: Laplacian spectrum of dodecahedron is phi-organized, mass gap lambda_1 > 0 (physical analogy, not proof). HONEST LIMITATIONS:- Attempt to derive k as a function of Platonic sphere ratios NOT confirmed statistically (Z < 2sigma due to look-elsewhere effect).- Exact formula for gravitational constant G not found.- Strict SU(3) interpretation of 8 gluon paths requires QFT formalization.- Dynamical derivation of neutrinos (N=14) remains open. The model is empirical and requires QFT formalization for a complete theory. All results are reproducible through the included Python scripts. DISCLAIMER: This work is a continuation of GoS v19 (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22650356). It is an empirical geometric model, not a complete physical theory. All derivations require formalization via Quantum Field Theory. The author welcomes constructive criticism and collaboration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yuriy S. Vinogradov (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: