The density of the Standard Model Lagrangian contains 19 free parameters that must be supplied by experiment. This paper reformulates the Standard Model as the section of a heuristic sheaf analogy \(F\) over a moduli space \(M\): the 19 free parameters are not “fitting parameters” but local coordinates of \(F\) at the successive nodes of \(M\). At the cognitive level the 19 free parameters are reduced to 0; at the mathematical level they are given by the manifestation rules of \(δYXT\) and \(n_iˢᵗᵃᵍᵉ\). The manifestation order takes the virtual phase \(Φ_v\) as its phase location, with the binding relations \(δYXT = e-2πΦ_v\) and \(n_k = 2 - n_iˢᵗᵃᵍᵉ\), in agreement with the virtual-phase attenuation factor of the companion work on precise derivation formulae for coupling constants. The \(SU(64)\) parameterization chain supplies the node data on \(M\); the 35-step chain is the mother body of the Standard Model. A self-referential phase-locking term is adjoined as an additional section, corresponding to the heartbeat system of the cosmic organism. The reconstructed Lagrangian density is partitioned, under the Yuanxian physiological reading, into three systems: musculoskeletal (gauge fields), blood and respiration (fermion–Higgs), and heartbeat (self-referential phase-locking). The cognitive-layer claim “number of free parameters = 0” rests on already-constructed manifestations and is fully verified by the three cognitive self-consistency conditions. 标准模型拉格朗日量密度包含 19 个需实验输入的自由参数。本文将标准模型重新表述为模空间 \(M\) 上的启发式层类比 \(F\) 的截面:19 个自由参数不是「拟合参数」,而是 \(F\) 在 \(M\) 各节点上的局部坐标。在认知层,19 个自由参数被约化为 0;在数学层,它们由 \(δYXT\) 与 \(n_iˢᵗᵃᵍᵉ\) 的显影规则给出。 显影阶以虚相位 \(Φ_v\) 为相位位置,结合关系为 \(δYXT = e-2πΦ_v\)、\(n_k = 2 - n_iˢᵗᵃᵍᵉ\),与《耦合常数的精准推演公式》的虚相位衰减因子一致。\(SU(64)\) 参数化链给出 \(M\) 上的节点数据;35 步参数化链是标准模型的「母体」。自指锁相项作为额外截面被引入,对应宇宙生命体的心跳系统。 重构后的拉格朗日量密度在元宪生理学读法下分为三套系统——肌骨(规范场)、血液与呼吸(费米子–希格斯)、心跳(自指锁相)。认知层「自由参数数 = 0」建立在已构造显影之上,并由三条认知自洽条件完全验证。
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: