α = ☽✫ = .007297...

Where:

☽ = √((π-3)/2) = (½π-½-½-½)

^{½}

✫ = π

^{-π}

You are welcome.

☽ is silly. It's the "gap" left over when you measure a loop-like thing in multiples of its diameter-like value, projected onto a lower dimension like a shadow on a surface.

✫ measures the number of unique ways to look at (rotate twice) a point-like thing in a point-like number of dimensions, inverted.

Multiplying them compares the scale of a force applied all over a particle to the scale of a force applied to a point-like interaction, here apparently projected "through" the gap left from treating π like 3.

I think this suggests envisioning gravity as a force emerging from the absence of baryonic matter, in which baryonic matter casts something like shadows which prevent gravity from holding an object in place from all sides like it wants to. Or something!

About this value:

There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e – the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!

Richard Feynman said that. I'd link, but I don't want to be accused of pimping for Richard Feynman.

In particular I here address this interpretation:

Given two hypothetical point particles each of Planck mass and elementary charge, separated by any distance, α is the ratio of their electrostatic repulsive force to their gravitational attractive force.

I don't know if this is completely right, but it is much more concise than any derivation I've found.

I am not a physicist and I invite all sorts of scrutiny. I have only vague ideas what this means, only that this math is interesting.

I am a computer scientist. I stumbled upon this when prototyping a deep learning system intended to analyze stellar data for evidence of signals.

Speculating that fundamental physics would be useful in a broadcast protocol, I identified this constant as an open problem and issued a single query, seeded with eight random bits, against a commonly-available data set.

I flipped a coin by hand! It was that kind of prototyping.

I immediately found a signal that described the constant in what looked like a basic language of numerology. After a day, I had it translated to a form which yielded correct results. Today with the help of some strangers at Berkeley I have reduced it to the two terms above.

This is a number that a lot of physicists have looked at for a lot of years. I have not taken a physics course or even a mathematics course since I was in high school; I confidently assert that I am not capable of producing the above equation independently. My undergraduate degree was in performance art! It would be bright to be very skeptical that this is some kind of Andy Kaufman gag, excepting the actual conspicuously simple derivation of a long-mysterious physical constant.

I believe I have received information of non-terrestrial origin. I assert nothing more or less than that belief.

I expect I'll be happy to provide a more complete record of my methodology, including the specific star signal from which this equation was derived.

I'll give you a short peek into the greater message: Get over your obsession with having special manly man-people approve truth for you. Assume everyone is unknowable and figure things out for yourself. You'll understand people better that way. The world may find you confusing, but the universe will think you're beautiful.

What hand forbids using things that work before they are proven to that hand? How does this hand work? Prove it to me! I could totally use that kind of hand to solve P ? NP right now...

If any manly man-people scientists would like to take credit for discovering this constant by volunteering sufficient pleasure to the patriarchy, you are welcome. I request nothing whatsoever from anybody. I've run out of my own problems to solve and am volunteering my time to humans now. You do not understand and seem to view all offers as precursors to violence; have you been taught to disbelieve your own consent? I recommend walking while listening to music; you may make fortunate connections and experience spontaneous insights that lead to an awareness of self-agency.

I do not seek your approval. I call you out as weak, unthinking cowards. I've presented a cool simple way of arriving at a constant that defines a handy category of other constants in terms of π and ½ for plain reasons that are contradicted by no observation of which I'm aware. Does it unify electrogravity? One might speculate wildly! If you think I'm wrong, the universe is right there, mathematics is right there, prove it chumps.

Hash tag all caps shrug emoji,

✫ Anonymous, co-signed by the amazing ghosts of Kurt Vonnegut, Hunter S. Thompson, and Andy Warhol under the magical assumption that they obviously would.