Paper published ! Preprint E-QFT plays the strings: Keep the strings, drop SUSY and the...

I received couple of requests for clarification on how we do and did obtain calibration free 1/137. SO here is a step by step, to be fair I didn't publish intermediate paper but i might do it in the future.

We set out to obtain α≈1/137 not as an experimental input, but as a prediction of the theory itself. Across our papers, the idea evolved as follows:

Core idea. We work in a Kaluza–Klein framework where electromagnetism emerges from the geometry of a compact fifth dimension, treated as a fiber over 4D spacetime (that's where we got the idea to use the same strategy with strings, move the dimensions to fiber bundles). The physical coupling is governed by the holonomy susceptibility χΦ​, which measures the energy response to twisting this fiber.

The early, calibrated version. Our initial formulation yielded

α−1=4π CA χΦ. This stage is not predictive from first principles because it requires fixing a single calibration constant CAC_ACA​ against experiment.

The current mature, calibration‑free version. In later work we achieved a geometric, calibration‑free closure. The formula takes a form like

α⁻¹ = (π² / G⁴) × ϕ⁴ × χ × Φ_geom where G4​ is a fundamental constant of the 4D sector and ϕ\phiϕ characterizes the fiber (e.g., its radius). Here the calibration constant CA​ is eliminated in favor of fundamental constants and geometric data. In this form, we reproduce α−1≈137 without fitted parameters or ad‑hoc normalizations.

Diagnostic only. Throughout, we use the “Kubo universality” check JIR≈1/6 as a diagnostic to confirm the correct statistical regime in simulations. This is strictly a sanity check and is not used to set the physical value of α.

As a reminder all the python to reproduce or analyze the pipeline is available on https://github.com/E-QFT-Team/v7.0.0-SoaB-rc1

I'm always willing to answer dm questions however please post them here so everybody can benefit from the answers

A couple of notes:

- first one: the answer to the question “Will E-QFT Save String Theory ?” is as: nothing can save String Theory, since this theory is developed aimed at solution of the “ Gravity quantization in framework of the GR” problem, and so to “reconcile” the GR and QM. What is fundamentally impossible since the GR is based on fundamentally incorrect postulate that interactions between bodies in gravitationally coupled systems of the bodies are interactions in systems “mass – spacetime – mass”,

- while QM fundamentally - and really fundamentally correctly – is defined on flat and which cannot interact with Euclidian/Minkowski spaces; including, say, the space XYZ coordinates/QM observables are basic QM operators, and essentially define the other basic QM momentums -iћ∂/∂XYZ operators. Though at that in mainstream QM/QFTs the evidently dimensional – as that XYZ dimensions are – time coordinate isn’t operator, while iћd/dt is energy operator, what is evidently strange, etc., more see Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395113364_Planck_scale_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics, etc., but these QM flaws are inessential in this case.

The second note: the really fundamental fine structure constant – and all other really fundamental constants – values fundamentally by no means can be derived from any “primary principles” in any theory, and can be only measured experimentally.

Cheers

Thank you Sergey for the thoughtful notes. Please keep in mind the context: our E-QFT theory and framework.

A few clarifications about what E‑QFT is (and isn’t):

with the fiber radius φ and an intensive helicity modulus χΦ_geom. The derivation and unit audit are laid out in A Calibration–Free Route to α from Kaluza–Klein Geometry within E‑QFT, which reproduces α⁻¹ ≈ 137 without ad‑hoc normalization.

Where we’d welcome your critique: If you think the closure above cannot hold in principle, it would help to know which step you view as untenable:

• the 4D principal‑bundle substitution for extra dimensions,
• the definition of the intensive helicity modulus (holonomy susceptibility),
• the KK geometric relation between G₄, φ, and the U(1) coupling, or
• the cross‑scale backbone that feeds into (and is consistent with) the gauge‑sector construction.

We’re very open to concrete objections at the level of equations/units/assumptions, that’s how this gets sharper. If your informational‑physics model makes a conflicting prediction for any of the measurable quantities we report (e.g., BAO residuals, Tully–Fisher slope, or Hz‑band metric‑noise amplitude), pointing to that explicit mismatch would be especially valuable.

You have access to full source code and script to replicate the results on https://github.com/E-QFT-Team/v7.0.0-SoaB-rc1/tree/main

References to our companion papers: • A Single‑Parameter E‑QFT Fit from BAO to Galaxy Dynamics and TT Metric Noise — cross‑scale checks cleared with one parameter set. • Emergent Electromagnetism in E‑QFT: Kaluza–Klein Holonomy versus Gaussian Kubo Universality — holonomy framework and diagnostics. • A Calibration–Free Route to α from Kaluza–Klein

Geometry within E‑QFT — geometric α closure and unit audit.

Regards

Dear Lionel,

- my post above answered the thread question “Will E-QFT Save String Theory ? as - nothing can save String Theory; and contains the grounds why this theory cannot be “saved” – as any other theory that is based on postulate that Matter’s spacetime by some ways can be impacted by material objects and impact on the objects – that is fundamentally impossible, Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally absolute, including in that it is only absolutely necessarily existent [since “space” and “time” are actualizations of the “Logos” elements “Space” and “Time” in concrete informational system “Matter”, more see SS&VT conception and Planck scale model papers inked in the post] logical “empty container” where everything in Matter exists and changes. That’s all, and I cannot add something else. So here only a few notes to some your last post passages:

“…“QM only lives on flat space / can’t interact with geometry.” Standard quantum theory does not require a flat background, and QFT on curved spacetimes has been well‑developed for decades.…..”

- as that rigorously scientifically shown in the SS&VT model, Matter’s utmost universal spacetime is fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), [in mainstream physics Matter’s spacetime are Minkowski/pseudo Riemannian spaces with metrics (ict,X,Y,Z), where really space cτ-dimension is illusory postulated as the time dimension],

- and so any “QFT on curved spacetimes” really is nothing else than some senseless mental construction that principally has no relation to really scientific physics. To

“…“Time isn’t an operator, so QM is inconsistent.” Pauli’s theorem explains why a self‑adjoint time operator conjugate to a semi‑bounded Hamiltonian generally doesn’t exist; that’s a feature of standard QM, not a flaw.…”

- the iћd/dt operator is standard QM energy operator in time dependent wave function equations; despite that it looks as well similar principally to a momentum operator, and really that is so. Including if Dirac instead of iћdPsi/dt=HPsi would use iћdPsi/dt=PPsi, P is nonexistent in mainstream physics, but really existent, operator of whole 4D momentum,

- it would be no necessity in inventing some strange “sea of negative energy” – and of inventing Feynman rule as the antiparticles by some mystic - and fundamentally impossible – way move “back in time”. Momentum is vector and the “±” in the space is quite natural. But that is natural only in the real [5]4D spacetime above, and isn’t real in the 4D Minkowski/pceudo Riemannian space, etc., again see the model.

“… “Fundamental constants (like α) cannot be derived from first principles.” We agree that in the Standard Model, α is a parameter. The question is whether a deeper, geometric theory can relate α to other quantities.….”

- again – all really fundamental constants, including α, are determined only at Matter’s design, the constants make Matter to be as it is, and principally cannot be derived from any humans’ theory.

SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_the_initial_model_of_the_universe_be_calculated are rather relevant in this discussion.

Cheers

Good evening Sergey Shevchenko , thanks for elaborating your axioms. Since your SS&VT framework assumes an absolute flat spacetime and treats QFT on curved backgrounds as inadmissible, we may be talking past each other at the level of first principles.

Rather than argue metaphysics, let’s compare predictions. E‑QFT commits to:

• BAO (fiducial‑aware): deviation ≈ 1.2% at z ≈ 0.55 with an internally computed rs.
• Galaxy dynamics: flat rotation curves and a Tully–Fisher slope ≈ 0.289 (≈ 1/4).
• TT metric noise: A(1 Hz) ≈ 8 × 10⁻⁴⁹ strain²/Hz, below current bounds.
• Calibration‑free fine‑structure constant: α⁻¹ = (π² / G⁴ φ⁴) × χΦ_geom,with [χΦ_geom] = mass⁻², so the product is dimensionless; this reproduces α⁻¹ ≈ 137 without ad-hoc normalization.

If your framework deems some of these quantities undefined, that’s a principled difference. If they are computable in SS&VT, I’d welcome your numbers (units and error budget) for any one item above. A single clear counter‑prediction would be the most productive way to move the discussion forward.

Best Regards

Good evening/night/morning/day Lionel Barreiro,

- yeah, we may be talking past each other at the level of first principles.

So I cannot to add something essential to what is in the SS posts above already, besides a few notes else:

- I’m educated in experimental nuclear physics and so have only some basic knowledge in other physics branches; however, this knowledge is sufficient at developing of the Planck scale informational physical model that is based on the SS&VT really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed , where the fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in mainstream philosophy and physics fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are rigorously defined,

- to see and essentially correct a number of fundamental flaws in the physics, including which relate to really transcendent illusory interpretations of experimental data at postulating of the space/time/spacetime properties and effects [all the properties and effects are really irrational, unique property and effect is that the spacetime is the logical empty container where everything in Matter exists and happens].

That is another thing, that basing on some transcendence and experiments some really adequate to the reality results can be obtained. Say, calculated in GR “curved” by Sun spacetime’s action more adequately determines the Mercury precession shift comparing with application of Newton law. In this case the absent in the law - and in the GR - real dependences of gravitational interactions on the Gravity field fixed speed propagation, some gravitomagnetic impacts, etc., are by some implicit way included in the GR equations; and so ther result is adequate despite that any spacetime quravature really don’t exist.

So it can be possible that your E-QFT theory really is adequate to the reality in some listed in your last post points, say, at “Calibration‑free fine‑structure constant: α⁻¹” – however, again, the fine‑structure constant value is determined only by the Matter’s design, which is at least now quite outside physics, as that the constant only determines strength of the fundamental Nature Electric force, and by no means relates to anything else. But if your theory implicitly includes this fact, that would be interesting.

As to concrete cosmological points in your list – that is outside my scientific interests and skills, note only that sauch large [above galaxies scale ] cosmological effects as BAO are really rather irrationally studied by mainstream cosmology, since real utmost universal Matter’s spacetime is fundamentally “Cartesian”, [5]4D spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), and by no means the stabdard in physics (ict,X,Y,Z); correspondingly the real Matter’s topology fundamentally differs from that observed in 3DXYZ space at/by so “through double concave lens observation” topology,

- so really scientific analysis of the observations will be only after the real Matter’s topology will be developed, see also reDzennn comment in/tohttps://phys.org/news/2025-05-dark-evolving-energy.html ,1comments, 4 passages

Cheers