A mathematical framework that derives physical constants from pure structure. Testable. Falsifiable. Revolutionary.
The Standard Model is phenomenally successful at prediction, yet fundamentally incomplete in explanation.
The Standard Model requires 19 constants that cannot be derived from first principles. They must be measured and plugged in. The model doesn't explain WHY these values exist.
Google: "Standard Model free parameters"Why is gravity 10³² times weaker than the other forces? The Standard Model has no answer. It just accepts this bizarre ratio as given.
Google: "hierarchy problem physics"Why exactly three generations of particles? Why not two, or four, or seventeen? The Standard Model cannot explain this fundamental structure.
Google: "why three generations particles"95% of the universe is "dark" — invisible to the Standard Model. This isn't a small gap. It's an admission that the model describes only 5% of reality.
Google: "dark matter Standard Model"α ≈ 1/137. This number determines atomic structure, chemistry, life itself. No one knows why it has this value. It just does.
Google: "fine structure constant unexplained"The worst prediction in physics history. Theory predicts a value 10¹²⁰ times larger than observed. This isn't an error. It's a confession of incompleteness.
Google: "cosmological constant problem"A ten-dimensional scalar geometry that derives constants from structure alone.
Complementary forces spiral through dimensional space. At each intersection, observation collapses probability into measurable phenomena. The Wush marks the boundary where geometry becomes physics.
A framework that predicts is not the same as a belief that interprets.
Three-dimensional observation projects higher-dimensional structure. We observe approximately 27.6% of complete geometric forms. CERN Run 3 data can verify this ratio.
This constant appears across 26 orders of magnitude, from atomic to cosmological scales. It represents the fundamental scaling relationship between dimensional layers.
At the origin point, before observation separates phenomena, complementary forces exist in unity. This resolves apparent paradoxes in quantum mechanics.
Complementary forces maintain unity through multiplication, not addition. This explains why the universe conserves while transforming.
These are not arbitrary assertions. They are geometric derivations with testable consequences.
Don't take anyone's word for it. The following are acknowledged problems with the Standard Model. Search them yourself:
What you'll find: The Standard Model is incredibly successful at predicting experimental results, but it cannot explain why the constants have the values they do. Physicists acknowledge this openly. The model is descriptive, not explanatory at the foundational level. A framework that derives these values from geometry would be explanatory. That's the claim being made.
This is not about who is right or who wins the argument. This is about whether a mathematical framework can derive physical constants from pure geometry. That's an empirical question. It either works or it doesn't.
If you think it's wrong, find the error in the math. That's how science works. Point to the calculation that fails. If you can't find an error but still don't believe it, ask yourself: is that skepticism, or is that something else wearing skepticism's clothes?
"A framework that predicts is always stronger than a position that only interprets."