Nucleon accuracy and the shoe industry

When the inaccuracy of packing nucleons equals the inaccuracy of making orbital slots. Quantum accuracy is all about maintaining the integer 'one' for the group, and that is limited by the nucleon. If the integer 'one' is violated then the conservation of baryon has broken.

Let Qw be (1/2+sqrt(5)/2)*91 and Qn be (3/2)*108.

These are the quant values of the proton Wave/Null pair.

Lets use log two because our computers use it.
The log difference, log2(Qw/Qn) = log2(Qw) - log2(Qn), is 5e-5.

At full accuracy, the difference should be:
 log(2^(Nmax) /2^(Nmax-1)) or log(2) = 1,

But we make that 1/2 to keep Nyquist sampling. Nmax is a twos bit equivalent of the atom that is maximally Fibonacci packed.

At that point the physicist is dealing with the twos binary version of an atom that is Fibonacci packed according to the real wave/particle quantization.  The Fibonacci packing is more efficient than the binary, but more difficult to do math. But the actual standard model, including the Feynman diagrams acts just like a Fibonacci packing. The top wave/Null quants (91,108) come as a pair, and mark the Finonacci integer, the other wave/null quants are separated, using the actual particle quants and their matching wave quants. The standard model, and the atom,  is a Fibonacci packing.

Thus scaling to get our twos binary version of the Fibonacci atom, so we can do math:

 1e4 * [log2(Qw)-log2(Qn)],  must equal 1/2 (with Nyquist sampling).  So, at scale, the twos binary is a 10000 digit integer, a whopper.

Making Fractions

But wait, that's not all.  Somewhere these stupid vacuum elements figured out how to use the proton atom to make crystals, liquids, solids, rocks, galaxies and shoes. I have no clue how they figured this out. But they use different null quant ratios, evidently. So the proton, in its generosity, as agreed to carry fractions, and has a decimal point somewhere up its binary quant chain of 10000 digits. This decimal point allows the proton to hold fractional errors imposed upon it in the making of shoes.

Where is this decimal point? I have little clue, except:

We have one clue, the magnetic null quant is unavailable, and that seems to be 18 orders down from the electron, out of 91.  Plus we have vacuum noise. So 20 out of 91 times 10000 makes a big fraction, in binary digits. The most likely scenario is that the magnetic kept kicking protons free, and with enough free protons, magnetic null quants failed. But about half the digits gained from kicking out the magnetron were needed to manage charge.

Consider the electron, about 14 orders down from the Proton, or 1/6 of 91. That becomes a 1600 digit binary number. Can we describe everything we know about chemistry as a series of subgroups making up 1600 digit binary number?  The periodic table needs 8 digits to count the atoms, another 10 to put them in their place on the chart, another 15 digits to describe their oribital quants. We are at 32 bits, with 1500 left over to describe the chemical elements. Easily done, I think.

 The vacuum phase, using the proton, as invented the decimal point.