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

===== - The golden angle and 1/α are close (difference ≈ 0.47°), but they are not equal within high precision. The discrepancy (~0.34%) is small but definitely physically non-negligible for a fundamental constant. =====
* The Fibonacci trick (using consecutive Fibonacci ratios) just converges to the golden angle, so it cannot by itself produce the exact value of 1/α — at best it gives a near value (the golden angle).
* That near-equality is suggestive: either there is a real geometric relation with a correction term (i.e., α involves the golden-angle geometry plus a small correction arising from more detailed physics), or the similarity is a numerical coincidence (plausible — small dimensionless % differences crop up a lot).
* Because α is dimensionless and derived from e²/(4πϵ₀ħc), a geometric explanation would need to show how those physical constants (charge, ħ, c, permittivity, or vacuum structure) produce a factor near the golden-angle construction. QAT’s spherical geometry idea gives a plausible mechanism to look for such corrections, but the observed numeric mismatch means we need an explicit geometric derivation (or a small correction term) to claim equality.