Editing Openai/6897769e-4ee4-800f-aba5-69cca34f701c (section)

=== : ===

This is a valid challenge. To move from suggestive analogy to physics you must supply a precise quantitative map: how a particular geometric quantity (holonomy, overlap integral) numerically produces a measured CP phase or decay rate. If the map yields numbers in the right ballpark and makes further falsifiable predictions, the coincidence argument weakens. If it cannot produce the observed magnitudes without contrivance, the idea is likely only qualitative.

If you like, I’ll start right away with a focused toy calculation (option A): compute mode overlaps on S2S^2S2 and show how a small geometric holonomy/phase produces a CP asymmetry and changes a sample decay rate. That will give numbers and a graph you can show in a video. Which radius scale should I use first — atomic (Å) or hadronic (1 fm)?