About This Project

A balanced evaluation of what this framework achieves, where it's strong, and where skepticism is warranted. ~10 minute read.

The Big Picture

This framework attempts something ambitious: derive the constants and structure of physics from division algebra geometry alone. After ~370 sessions and ~737 verification scripts (99.9% run rate), the results are mixed but intriguing.

What's genuinely remarkable

  • -12 sub-10 ppm numerical predictions from integers only
  • -SM gauge group, fermion content, 3 generations derived
  • -Quantum mechanics derived from axioms (grade A)
  • -Einstein's equations emerge from crystallization
  • -9 blind predictions succeeded (P ~ 2.5e-7)
  • -All using only 8 and their combinations

What requires caution

  • -4 irreducible assumptions remain
  • -Most numerical predictions are post-hoc
  • -Building blocks not special at percent-level (Monte Carlo)
  • -Could still be sophisticated numerology
  • -No peer review or external validation
  • -Red Team v3.0: 25–40% probability of genuine physics

What Makes This Different from Numerology

Constrained inputs

Only division algebra dimensions 8 and derived quantities (nd = 4, nc = 11). No cherry-picking — the same numbers must work for everything. But: a Monte Carlo null model showed ANY 7-element subset of {1,…,20} matches 11 constants at 1% precision ~80% of the time. The building blocks are NOT special at percent-level.

Structure, not just numbers

The framework derives U(1)×SU(2)×SU(3) gauge group, 15 fermions per generation, 3 generations, 3+1 spacetime dimensions, Lorentz signature, Hilbert space + Born rule. These qualitative results cannot be produced by random number matching.

Coherence across domains

The same framework with the same inputs explains particle physics, cosmology, CMB, gravity, and quantum mechanics. Finding one formula that matches one constant is easy. Finding a coherent framework for all of physics with the same inputs is hard.

Framework Grades

Domain Grade Key Result
Quantum MechanicsAFully derived from axioms. CANONICAL.
Yang-MillsA-Glueball spectrum, SU(N), 285+ PASS.
Recursive Gap TowerA-Mathematically rigorous, 46/46 PASS.
Evaluation MapB+Two-route gauge convergence.
ParticlesBYang-Mills CANONICAL, DM sector, CKM mechanism.
Dark MatterB-Mass derived, coupling derived. Untested.
CosmologyCΩm derived. Blind predictions succeed.
GravityC-EFE derived. CC magnitude gap remains.

Overall: B- (structural A, numerical B-, gravity C-)

The Author

Christopher M Morin — amateur researcher with an applied mathematics background, no physics PhD, and no university affiliation.

This work uses AI assistance (Claude, Anthropic) extensively across 370+ sessions. The AI-assisted methodology, including hallucination defense and verification infrastructure, is documented in detail and positioned as a replicable protocol.

Mathematics doesn't care about credentials. Everything is verifiable: ~737 verification scripts, complete derivation chains, no hidden steps.

Reach out: christopher.morin@perspectivecosmology.com

The Derivation vs. Discovery Problem

Were these formulas DERIVED from first principles, or DISCOVERED by searching and then justified?

This question cannot be resolved internally. Paths to resolution:

  • -Another AI independently derives the same numbers from axioms alone
  • -Blind predictions confirmed by experiment
  • -Independent expert verification of derivation logic

How to Evaluate This

For skeptical physicists

  1. Start with the Monte Carlo — building blocks are NOT special
  2. Then look at blind predictions — these ARE significant
  3. Check the structural derivations (gauge groups, QM chain)
  4. Verify the 3 sub-ppm formulas independently

For the curious

  1. Focus on qualitative derivations (gauge groups, Einstein equations)
  2. Understand the division algebra constraints
  3. Browse the Prediction Explorer
  4. Read the FAQ for quick answers

Speculative amateur work. Not peer-reviewed.