Pre-registering the framework's claims before the data arrives
Version 11.9 | May 31, 2026
TSO's central claim is that reality has three phases — Wave (quantum), Solid (classical), and Dust (below floor) — and that the Wave-to-Solid transition is an observable physical phase change at a specific coupling.
Everything else in the framework — the seven paths, the Fano plane structure, the percolation threshold pc = 0.3116, the Lindblad analogue, the Pip catalog, the constants like ν and λ — is supporting machinery. Useful, sometimes striking, but downstream of the phase structure. The framework's truth or falsity hinges on whether the phase transition exists at the predicted location with the predicted floor, not on whether any particular critical exponent comes out at any particular value.
The decisive test of this central claim is Prediction 1: a tunable Rydberg sweep through Γnet = −pc. The supporting predictions (ν, δW, peak structure, sigmoid edge, etc.) constrain which universality class governs the transition and how the supporting machinery aligns, but they do not test the central claim — only the existence of the phase transition does. Read Prediction 1's three pre-registered outcome scenarios (A, B, C) for the honest interpretation of each result.
What a successful Rydberg test would and would not prove. A positive result would establish that the Wave-to-Solid boundary is a real physical phenomenon with the predicted structure. It would not prove that TSO's seven-path explanation, Fano geometry, or Pip catalog are correct — those remain underdetermined by any single experiment. The framework can survive in modified form even if Scenario B (non-standard universality class) emerges. Only Scenario C (no transition at all) falsifies the central claim.
This page is the canonical list of every falsifiable claim TSO makes. It exists to solve a specific problem: predictions generated across many working sessions have been getting lost between sessions, and without a single reference document it becomes easy to unconsciously adjust claims after the data arrives. This page is the commitment. If an experiment comes back and the result does not match what is written here, the correct response is to retire the prediction rather than reinterpret it.
Each entry is flagged as either a prediction (stated before the relevant data was examined), a retrodiction (matched against data that already existed), or pre-empirical (no relevant data exists yet). Honest labeling matters because most of what frameworks call "predictions" are actually retrodictions, and this distinction affects how much evidential weight a match carries.
How to read this page. The summary table below lists every entry with its status tag. The detailed sections that follow give the specific claim, test method, falsification condition, and current evidence for each. The final section documents predictions that have been retired from the framework, with the reason for each retirement — because the track record of killing one's own claims is part of the case for taking the remaining ones seriously. The computational notebooks behind each prediction are indexed on the notebooks page.
Four pre-registered hardware tests have produced a consistent pattern: TSO's structural predictions (sign patterns, ordering relations, combinatorial structure on Fano lines) have replicated. TSO's specific-magnitude predictions on quantum hardware have not.
The four tests in this cluster:
The pattern is consistent enough to register as an empirical scope finding. The framework's TSO-specific content lives in the structural relations between paths (signs, orderings, three-body correlations on Fano lines), not in the specific numerical magnitudes those relations produce on a given hardware platform. Magnitude predictions remain part of the framework where they are theoretically well-derived (e.g. σ on a Rydberg array sweep through p_c) but should not be tested on platforms that are engineered to stay on one side of the percolation transition.
The platform constraint. IBM superconducting QPUs are engineered to stay above p_c (kept classical); Quandela photonic QPUs are engineered to stay below p_c (kept coherent). Neither chip is allowed to cross the transition because crossing it would mean the chip isn't functioning. The decisive TSO sigmoid prediction (Prediction 1) therefore requires a platform whose physical regime is tunable across p_c — a Rydberg neutral-atom array is the natural candidate. Until Rydberg lab access is established, all quantum-hardware-based TSO testing should be considered structural rather than quantitative.
What this is not. This is not a retirement of magnitude predictions in general. It is a narrowing of where they can legitimately be tested. The Rydberg sigmoid test (Prediction 1), the cosmic Ω_m match (Prediction 10), the syn3.0 minimal genome match (Prediction 14), and the Goldilocks kT ≈ δW band (Prediction 15) all remain quantitatively testable on their native domains — those domains are not engineered to stay on one side of p_c. What is narrowed is specifically: "test the σ magnitude on a quantum computer." That test, by the physics of how quantum computers are built, cannot succeed regardless of TSO's correctness.
What this is. An honest empirical update to what the framework claims to predict, on what platform, at what level of specificity. Four pre-registered tests is enough data to call the pattern. The framework should describe itself accurately, which means saying: on quantum hardware, TSO predicts the structure of Fano correlations, not the specific magnitudes of friction.
Previous versions of the framework used κ for two distinct mathematical objects. This created confusion across math.html, predictions.html, and several Colab notebooks — the same symbol was doing the work of a rate constant in one formula and a critical exponent in another. v11.8 separates them into three named quantities with clean roles.
| Previous symbol | New symbol | Role | Asserted value |
|---|---|---|---|
| α | α (unchanged) | Effective branching factor | αmax/(1 + λρc), αmax = 7 |
| κ1 (in α formula) | λ (lambda) | Constraint screening rate constant | e ≈ 2.71828 |
| κ2 (in sigmoid formula) | ν (nu) | Correlation-length critical exponent of percolation | ≈ 0.88 (3D, corrected from previously asserted 4/3) |
Why the rename. α (the branching factor) is a derived quantity from S7 geometry, not a critical exponent — it kept its name because there was no confusion to clean up. λ replaces the old κ1 because it's a rate constant, not an exponent; using λ aligns the framework's notation with how rate constants are written everywhere else in physics. ν replaces the old κ2 because it is a correlation-length critical exponent in the standard sense, and using the standard symbol from Stauffer & Aharony unifies TSO's notation with the percolation literature for free.
What changed beyond names. The previous claim ν = 4/3 from 2D percolation universality was based on a "d_eff ≈ 2.18 rounds down to 2D" argument that the framework itself questioned in April 2026. v11.8 retires that claim and replaces it with ν ≈ 0.88 from 3D percolation universality, which is what direct Monte Carlo simulation of the Fano-bond model on a Z = 7 lattice actually produces. See Predictions 2 (retired) and 40 (the new ν claim) below.
The single source of truth. Notebook 1 (the reference notebook) is the canonical definition of all renamed constants. See the notebooks page for the link. Any inconsistency between this page and Notebook 1 should be reported as a bug; the notebook wins.
FIRM Follows directly from core axioms with no assumptions; a single decisive experiment exists or is planned.
EMPIRICALLY FIRM Numerical match to data is strong (typically < 1σ); theoretical derivation is open or incomplete. The claim is supported by what the data says, not by what the axioms force.
TESTABLE Sharp claim, specific falsification condition, data path identified.
CONDITIONAL Testability depends on another result being established first.
CANDIDATE Recently proposed result with strong numerical match; pending derivation work before promotion to FIRM.
CORRECTED Replaces a previous claim that turned out to be overstated or wrong. The original claim is kept visible in the retired section.
SUGGESTIVE Consistent with existing data but not decisive; could be coincidence or weak evidence.
SPECULATIVE Roof-level extension; probably wrong but falsifiable in principle.
RETIRED Was claimed in an earlier version; no longer part of the framework.
The 7-path lattice is not an ontological claim about the total number of dimensions in nature. It is the minimum connectivity required to recover classical three-dimensional reality, the Standard Model charge spectrum, and the Born rule from percolation geometry alone. This makes Z = 7 the falsifiability boundary of the framework: every TSO prediction that operates at Z = 7 is in principle testable against experiment.
Structure above Z = 7 may exist — the framework does not forbid it — but it lies beyond the falsifiability horizon by construction. Claims about Z > 7 are not part of TSO unless a specific falsification test is proposed alongside them. Additional paths above 7 contribute nothing measurable to classical reality or quantum statistics as currently observable; they may be real, but they are silent. TSO is defined by where its claims can be killed. Where the predictions end, the speculation begins. This page marks that line.
The central claim of TSO is that reality has three phases — Wave (quantum), Solid (classical), and Dust (below floor) — and that the Wave-to-Solid transition is an observable physical phase change at a specific coupling. A tunable Rydberg array is the cleanest available platform to test this because its interaction strength can actually cross the predicted threshold (unlike fixed-coupling QPUs that sit on one side). When total environmental coupling on a Rydberg array is swept through the critical value where Γ_net = −p_c, TSO predicts a discontinuous-in-character collapse of coherence (sigmoid, not pure exponential) with W bottoming out at the predicted floor W_floor = 2/7 ≈ 0.286. The shape change versus a pure exponential is approximately 35% at the transition region. This is the decisive TSO test; the framework's other quantities are downstream of the phase structure.
Earlier framings (v10–v11.7) treated this prediction as "find a sigmoid with κ = 4/3" — a single tight discriminator. v11.8 reframes the test around the phase-transition existence claim itself, with multiple supporting observables ordered by what's load-bearing for the central claim versus what's informational about the universality class.
Why the reframe. The numerical value of the correlation-length critical exponent ν is, from TSO's perspective, of undetermined origin. Standard 3D site percolation gives ν ≈ 0.88. The previously-asserted 2D-universality value ν = 4/3 has been retired (see Prediction 2 retired). The framework is fairly agnostic about which value will emerge — both are consistent with the phase transition existing. Measuring ν informs the universality class identification; it does not test the central TSO claim. The signatures below are reordered accordingly.
System: Neutral-atom tweezer array, Rydberg dressing. Principal quantum number n* = 50–100 (strong van der Waals regime, C₆ ~ n*¹¹). Array spacing a tunable from R_b/2 to 2R_b where R_b = (C₆/ℏΩ)^(1/6) is the blockade radius. N ≥ 400 atoms (20×20 minimum for percolation statistics).
Independent definition of the control parameter:
Γ_net = (Ω_R / Γ_dephase) − 1
where Ω_R = Rabi coupling frequency (laser parameter), and Γ_dephase = single-atom dephasing rate measured independently by a single-atom Ramsey sequence with no drive. This is on the instrument before the sweep starts — no curve-fitting required.
Sweep: Ω_R from 0.1×Γ_dephase to 3×Γ_dephase in 15 steps (dense near Γ_net = 0). At each Ω_R: (1) prepare |+⟩ = (|g⟩+|r⟩)/√2, (2) evolve for times t ∈ {0, T/10, …, T} where T = 5/Γ_dephase, (3) apply π/2 pulse and measure. Record C(t) = Ramsey contrast at each t. 100–1000 repetitions per (Ω_R, t) point.
Analysis: At each Ω_R, fit C(t) to exponential and sigmoid models. Compare using ΔAIC. A ΔAIC > 10 constitutes strong evidence for one shape. TSO predicts the exponential wins below Γ_net ≈ 0 and the sigmoid wins at Γ_net ≈ 0. Also extract W_∞ (long-time limit) at each Ω_R and check whether it converges to W_floor = 2/7 ≈ 0.286 in the strong-coupling regime.
Tier 1 — Existence of the phase transition (the central TSO claim; decisive):
These three together establish "there is a phase transition at the predicted location with the predicted floor." That is what the experiment is for. A clean positive on all three is strong support for the central phase-structure claim regardless of what ν turns out to be.
Tier 2 — Universality class identification (informative, not load-bearing):
These constrain the theoretical interpretation but do not test the central phase-structure claim. ν = 0.88 says "3D class, the framework's lattice geometry is on track." ν = 4/3 says "non-standard class — both Belenos and Rydberg are seeing something the simple Fano-bond model misses, framework needs theoretical work." Either is informative; neither is decisive on TSO's central claim.
Tier 3 — TSO-specific multi-observable signatures (strongest support if confirmed; bonus):
These would be the harder-to-explain-by-coincidence signatures. They are not required for Tier 1 success, but they would distinguish TSO from "any 3D percolation system."
To avoid post-hoc rationalization, the framework pre-registers its interpretation of three possible Rydberg outcomes before the experiment is run.
Scenario A — Phase transition observed at predicted location, sigmoid shape, ν ≈ 0.88. Strong support for the central TSO claim. 3D percolation universality consistent with the framework's lattice geometry. Belenos QPU's 1.325 measurement becomes a QPU-calibration question rather than a framework question.
Scenario B — Phase transition observed at predicted location, sigmoid shape, ν significantly different from 0.88 (e.g., 1.2–1.4 range, matching Belenos). Strong support for the central TSO claim. Non-standard universality class — both Belenos and Rydberg are seeing something the simple Fano-bond MC misses. Framework needs theoretical work to identify the actual universality class (candidates: protected percolation variants, hypergraph percolation, partial-projection done properly). The central phase-transition claim is supported; the supporting machinery needs revision.
Scenario C — No phase transition; pure exponential decay at all Γ_net. TSO's central claim — that there is a phase transition between Wave and Solid — is falsified. The framework retires. The seven-path structure, Fano geometry, Pip catalog, and percolation analogies become a coincidence pattern with no underlying physical phase boundary.
All three scenarios are honestly committed to in advance. A and B both support the central claim; only C falsifies it.
This needs to be said clearly. The Rydberg sweep is the cleanest available test of TSO's phase-structure claim. If the result is positive (Scenario A or B above), that's strong support — but it would not prove TSO. There are too many moving parts. The seven-path structure could be wrong even if the phase transition is real. The Fano plane geometry could be coincidence even if the lattice has the right p_c. The Pip catalog and other derived constants could be retrodictive fitting even if the phase change is observable.
What a successful test would establish: that the Wave-to-Solid boundary is a real physical phenomenon with the predicted structure. That is a substantial result. It would not establish that TSO's particular explanation of why the transition has that structure is correct.
Several things hint that the framework is touching something real, even if the explanation is incomplete: (i) TSO is consistent with Gleason's theorem on probability measures over Hilbert space; (ii) TSO's bidirectional X₁ formulation is structurally analogous to Lindblad dynamics; (iii) independent groups (Rau 2009; Bianconi-Dorogovtsev 2024; Fayfar-Bretaña-Montfrooij 2022 on protected percolation) have arrived at parts of what TSO is doing from different starting points. None of these prove TSO. All three are suggestive that the framework is gesturing at structure other physicists have also noticed.
Originally claimed (v10–v11.7): If a sigmoid transition is observed in Prediction 1, its width parameter κ should equal 4/3 (= 1.333…). In TSO, κ was derived from path-rotation projection at the percolation transition with effective dimensionality d_eff = 7 × p_c ≈ 2.18 — argued to "round down" into the 2D universality class, which gives ν = 4/3 exactly (CFT result, Cardy).
An isolated quantum system with no identifiable γ_o (opening tension) input source cannot spontaneously increase its wave fraction W. Coherence cannot be restored without energy input.
Under the v11.3 bidirectional X1 bond proposal with 1/3-per-bond rescaling, every Standard Model fermion charge is a non-negative integer bond count divided by 3 (down=1/3, up=2/3, electron=3/3, neutrinos=0/3). No fundamental particle should be discovered with a charge outside this set. Any discovery of a fundamental particle with a different fractional charge (e.g., 1/2, 1/4, 1/5) would retire the bidirectional-bond framing.
Charged leptons sit in the path-identity configurations where all operational X1 bonds align directionally (framework charge = ±3, SM charge = ±1) and no minority spatial path produces a color asymmetry. Under the v11.3 bidirectional-bond formalism, this predicts leptons are color singlets. No colored lepton should ever be discovered.
Under the bidirectional X1 bond proposal, neutrinos have zero operational X1 bonds (framework charge = 0, SM charge = 0). With no direction state to flip under conjugation, they are predicted to be self-conjugate — i.e., Majorana fermions. The photon's self-conjugacy follows from the same mechanism.
Dark matter is wave-state matter (S < p_c). Quantum pressure (Heisenberg uncertainty applied to wave-state mass) resists collapse to a point. DM halos should have cored inner density profiles with logarithmic slopes in the range 0.8–1.2, systematically more cored than the NFW prediction of ~0.4.
Wave-state matter has no classical moment of inertia — angular momentum lives in the phase, not in bulk rotation. DM halos cannot rotate rigidly with the baryonic disk, so halos around disk galaxies should remain spheroidal rather than being flattened by rotation.
Wave-state matter does not undergo classical collisions. Dark matter should show effectively frictionless self-interaction, with self-interaction cross section per unit mass well below the ~1 cm²/g limit set by cluster collision observations.
Moment of inertia I = ∫ r² dm requires mass at definite positions. Wave-state DM is delocalized and carries angular momentum in its phase, not in bulk rotation. The "rotation" observed in galaxies is baryons moving through the DM potential well, not the DM itself rotating with the galaxy.
The fraction of the universe that has crystallized into matter should equal the percolation threshold p_c = 0.3116. The inactive, decoherent remainder 1−p_c = 0.6884 should equal the dark energy fraction Ω_Λ.
Applying the Walton-Chalmers (1959) competitive crystal growth formula and Avrami (1939) phase-change kinetics to the cosmic solidification process gives η = δW^d_eff / N^(d_eff/2) × f^(1/n) ≈ 7.26 × 10⁻¹⁰. Observed: 6.1 × 10⁻¹⁰. Ratio 1.19×.
If cosmic solidification required a chirality bias (which is what TSO uses to explain the baryon asymmetry in prediction 11), the CMB should show a small rotation of polarization angles. The Standard Model predicts β = 0.
The cosmic solidification process in TSO is ongoing and should produce time-evolving effective dark energy behavior consistent with Avrami crystallization kinetics. This predicts a weak but non-zero equation-of-state evolution w(z), rather than the constant w = −1 of a pure cosmological constant.
Monte Carlo of a minimal stable spanning cluster on a Z = 7 lattice gives 475 ± 36 nodes. JCVI-syn3.0 (Hutchison et al. 2016) has 473 genes, of which 149 were unknown at publication. The fraction 149/473 = 0.315 matches p_c = 0.3116 to 1.1%.
Life should operate at temperatures where thermal coupling energy kBT approximately equals δW ≈ 0.026 eV, giving a narrow habitability band centered around 300 K. Known life spans 255 K (psychrophiles) to 395 K (hyperthermophiles), all within a factor of 1.31 of the crossing temperature.
As gene function annotations improve for the 149 unknown genes in syn3.0, the fraction identified as connectivity or maintenance proteins (rather than metabolic enzymes) should remain above 70%. This is consistent with TSO's picture of a minimal cell as a spanning cluster near percolation criticality, where most genes exist to hold the topology together rather than catalyze reactions.
Five JWST findings are consistent with TSO's cosmic phase diagram: early massive galaxies (crystallization nucleation sites), Little Red Dots as dust-phase objects, cosmic web structure at percolation threshold, unexpected metal enrichment timing, and the absence of expected population III evidence.
If the Pip framework is physically meaningful, the energy cost per Pip of γ_o should be approximately the same (within an order of magnitude) across independent hardware platforms: photonic beam splitters, superconducting qubits, trapped ions, Rydberg arrays, and NV centers. The photonic anchor gives J/Pip ≈ 4.76 × 10⁻²² J at 800 nm.
A sequential gate fidelity experiment on IBM superconducting qubits, sweeping the number of sequential two-qubit gates, should show a sigmoid transition in fidelity as cumulative Γ_C crosses −p_c. The fit should yield γ per gate as an independent Pip calibration point, complementary to the Quandela γ_BS measurement.
These follow from TSO's axioms but are not considered load-bearing. Each could fail without retiring the framework, but each is in principle falsifiable.
If the earlier Casimir-at-1μm result survives rederivation, free-space cavities with separations near 1 μm should show an anomaly in their vacuum noise behavior or coherence times compared to cavities at 100 nm or 10 μm. The γ_Casimir per vacuum mode is π/360 ≈ 28 Pips — geometric and distance-independent per mode, but the mode count depends on geometry.
Wave-state DM with coherence length ξ ~ 1 kpc should diffract around structures smaller than ξ. Dwarf galaxies at r ~ 1 kpc should show anomalously extended halos compared to naive scaling from larger galaxies. Structures much larger than ξ (big galaxies) can hold DM normally; structures at or below ξ experience diffraction.
If DM halos carry angular momentum, wave-state matter cannot rotate classically but can form quantized vortex lines (analogous to superfluid helium). Vortex substructure should be detectable via gravitational lensing or stellar velocity anomalies.
Coherent light might couple to wave-state DM differently than incoherent light does, because interaction with solid matter can cause partial decoherence of the test particle. This could manifest as different effective lensing for coherent versus thermal light sources through the same DM distribution.
A material engineered to have effective connectivity Z_eff ≈ 7 and tuned (via doping, pressure, temperature, or quantum critical control parameter) so that its wave fraction W approaches p_c should display measurable anomalies in three properties simultaneously: reduced effective inertia, anomalous electromagnetic transparency, and amplified sensitivity to external Γ perturbations. None of these effects is predicted by standard condensed matter theory for a conventional material at its critical point; they would be specific signatures of the percolation-criticality picture of inertia and gauge coupling.
These two entries were added April 18, 2026, following a numerical test of the LRD density distribution and the recovery of the Lower Entanglement Limit (LEL) cascade mechanism from TSO v6.3. They are related: prediction 26 gives the mechanistic reason prediction 25 expects a sigmoid rather than an exponential.
Little Red Dot (LRD) comoving number density n(z) should follow a sigmoid curve on the decline side (z ≈ 4.5 → 1.5), not a simple exponential or power law. The decline decelerates and flattens at low redshift rather than continuing log-linearly. This is because LRD disappearance is driven by a cascade sublimation mechanism — dust-phase nodes converting to wave-phase as surrounding solid-phase Γ_c pressure builds — not by independent random dissolution. Phase transitions triggered by cascade/nucleation produce sigmoid density curves; independent random dissolution produces exponential.
Crystallization in TSO is not simply driven by Γ exceeding Γ_c. It requires local entanglement entropy E to drop below a Lower Entanglement Limit (LEL). The original S-field equation treats the decoherence term as always-active; the LEL-revised equation adds a Heaviside step function that makes crystallization conditional on the entanglement state of the local region:
∂S/∂t = DS∇²S + (Γ/Γc) × Θ(ELEL − E) − λS(1 − Γ/Γc) − V₀S(S − pc)(S − 1)
where Θ is the Heaviside step function, E is local entanglement entropy E(x) = −Tr(ρlocal ln ρlocal), and ELEL is the lower threshold. The term is active (= 1) only when E < ELEL — i.e., when entanglement has dropped below the level needed to maintain quantum coherence. The decoherence dynamics of entanglement are governed by dE/dt = −Γ × E + (generation rate), so high Γ drives E down toward the threshold.
These five entries follow from a single theoretical development: Heisenberg Uncertainty is not an axiom but a consequence of wave-state objects projecting into 1 or 2 spatial dimensions rather than all 3 simultaneously, drawing from a finite probability fuel budget. A wave-state object doesn't have a simultaneous x, y, z address — not because we can't know it, but because it isn't there to be known. Full observability requires x, y, z extension, which requires the spanning cluster to close in all three dimensions. Virtual particles never close. Semi-crystallised matter partially closes, bobs under γ_c fluctuations, and radiates by Larmor's formula. Predictions 29 and 30 are testable with the same Rydberg experiment as Prediction 1. The projection falsification suite that generated all five entries is indexed at notebooks.html#rydberg.
The ARCADE 2 experiment (2006) detected an isotropic radio background six times louder than all known sources combined — unresolved for nearly two decades. TSO identifies the source as Larmor radiation from electrons in semi-crystallised equilibrium. These electrons are held at W ≈ p_c by the balance between Γ = Σγ_c tension (pulling toward crystallisation) and exhausted probability fuel (insufficient to complete it). Individual γ_c fluctuations jostle each electron's W value — this is W-space bobbing. A bobbing charge is an accelerating charge. Larmor's formula gives the power: P = q²a² / (6πε₀c³). Across cosmological volumes of semi-crystallised matter, this is a continuous, isotropic, synchrotron-spectrum signal from no point source — exactly matching the Space Roar's observed character.
When the Rydberg sigmoid decoherence transition (Prediction 1) is observed, its width parameter — the range of Γ/Γ_c over which the transition from exponential to sigmoid behavior occurs — should equal dW = p_c − 2/7 ≈ 0.02589, expressed as a fraction of Γ_c. This is approximately 2.6% of the critical coupling. This width is not a free parameter: it is the width of TSO's observable-reality band, the gap between the two phase boundaries at p_c and 2/7, and the same quantity that appears in the Goldilocks life prediction and the baryon asymmetry calculation.
Standard decoherence theory predicts interference visibility V decays exponentially: V = exp(−Γt). The derivative dV/dΓ is most negative at small Γ — decoherence is fastest at the beginning of the sweep. TSO predicts the opposite: V decays normally (exponentially) at small Γ, then shows a sharp sigmoid drop when Γ approaches Γ_c, because 2D projection can no longer be maintained against 3D crystallisation pressure at that point. The steepest drop — the peak of |dV/dΓ| — occurs at Γ = Γ_c, not before it. The two models predict qualitatively different locations for the peak decoherence rate.
If electrons in semi-crystallised matter bob at ω_bob ≈ kT/ℏ under γ_c fluctuations, this bobbing frequency should appear as a spectral feature in the Johnson-Nyquist noise of materials near their quantum critical point. Standard Johnson-Nyquist noise is white: S(f) = 4kTR with no spectral structure. TSO predicts excess power near f_bob = kT_c / (2πℏ) in quantum-critical materials, where T_c is the temperature at which W → p_c for that material. At room temperature, f_bob ≈ 6.3 THz.
If particles approaching the W ≈ p_c boundary from the classical side temporarily lose one spatial projection dimension — transitioning from 3D to 2D partial projection — high-energy scattering near the decoherence threshold should show a slight preferred-plane anisotropy not present at much higher or lower energies. Classical scattering is isotropic (3D). Quantum scattering at W << p_c shows standard diffraction. But at W ≈ p_c, scattering should show a subtle 2D character: marginally enhanced cross-section in the plane perpendicular to the lost dimension, and marginally reduced cross-section along the lost dimension.
These two entries follow from the insight developed in April 2026 that TSO's percolation clusters are scale-free: the same fractal geometry that governs a single particle's wave state should appear at every scale where wave-regime material dominates. The interference pattern is a cross-section of the particle's W-space cluster structure projected onto the detector plane. The cosmic web is a percolation cluster at criticality projected into observable 3D space. Both are reading from the same geometric rulebook — just at different scales.
If Ω_m ≈ p_c because the observable universe is a percolation cluster at criticality (Prediction 10), then not just the matter density but the full geometric statistics of the cosmic web should match the 3D percolation universality class. Specifically: the matter cluster size distribution should follow P(s) ~ s−τ with Fischer exponent τ ≈ 2.18; the void size distribution should match the percolation void statistics; and the filament fractal dimension should be consistent with df ≈ 2.52 (the 3D percolation spanning cluster fractal dimension). None of these are free parameters — they follow directly from 3D percolation universality, which TSO inherits. This upgrades Prediction 10 from a single numerical coincidence to a full geometric constraint: the cosmic web should look like a critical percolation cluster, not just have the same density as one.
In a volumetric single-particle detector — a 3D array of single-photon detectors accumulating statistics hit by hit — the resulting probability density should not be perfectly smooth. Standard quantum mechanics predicts a smooth |ψ(x,y,z)|² envelope at all resolvable scales. TSO predicts the envelope is the coarse average of an underlying fractal distribution: the 3D hit density should show granular fine-structure with fractal dimension matching the W-space percolation cluster geometry, visible below the smooth |ψ|² envelope when sufficient statistics are accumulated.
For a conductor loop large enough to span a significant gravitational gradient — one side close to a compact mass, the other far away — TSO predicts a measurably different induced EMF than standard GR+Maxwell. The difference arises because the two frameworks apply the time-dilation factor δT = √(1−rs/r) differently: GR+Maxwell applies it at the source point only (gravitational redshift at emission), while TSO applies it as a spatial average over the entire loop (because T conductance at every segment contributes to the induction). TSO predicts a larger EMF — less reduction — than GR+Maxwell for the same source and geometry.
The Standard Model predicts logarithmic running of coupling constants: 1/α_i(μ) = 1/α_i(M_Z) + (b_i/2π) × ln(μ/M_Z). TSO's phase theory predicts power-law running: α_i(μ) ~ α_i(M_Z) × (μ/M_Z)^(2×(d_f−d)) where d_f = 2.52 and d = 3, giving exponent −0.96 for the strong coupling and +0.96 for EM. Near M_Z both predict the same values (by calibration), but they diverge at extreme scales — μ << 1 GeV and μ >> M_Z. The TSO prediction is that α_s should be larger than SM predicts at low energies, and smaller at very high energies.
In the TSO node switch picture, a cluster propagating at velocity v approaches the maximum switch rate f_switch as v → c. Above a critical Lorentz factor γ_crit = l_switch/r_hadron, the cluster pattern spreads across multiple nodes simultaneously — it no longer has a definite position within a single node-dwell interval. This spreading grows linearly with γ: Δx ~ γ × l_switch. This is distinct from standard QM position uncertainty, which is fixed by the de Broglie wavelength and does not grow linearly with γ in this way.
These two entries were generated during the v11.6 session (May 19–22, 2026) and the v11.7 candidate work that immediately followed. They are listed last because they are the newest, not because they are the least important. Prediction 38 is a candidate derivation of the lepton mass absolute scale from TSO axiom integers; Prediction 39 is a candidate resolution of the long-standing tension between TSO's p_q = 0.6556 and the tight-binding literature value p_q ≈ 0.44 (Open Problem 59). Both pending derivation work before promotion to FIRM. Both are indexed at notebooks.html#stress-tests.
The Koide mean √mass A_Koide = (√m_e + √m_μ + √m_τ)/3 should equal √E_Pip × (Z/V_tet)² where Z = 7 (Fano paths, bulk) and V_tet = 4 (tetrahedron vertices, boundary). With E_Pip = 33.437 MeV, the predicted value is A = √33.437 × (7/4)² = 17.7088 MeV^0.5. The measured Koide mean is A_Koide = 17.7156 MeV^0.5. Numerical match: 0.04%. Caveat: this is not truly parameter-free — E_Pip derives from σ = 6/√1104, whose provenance is unverified (it has not been shown that 6 and 1104 are forced rather than selected to hit σ = 0.18058), so the Koide match inherits that unforced choice. The (Z/V_tet)² = (7/4)² factor is also a proposed identification, not a derived one. A genuine 0.04% match, but resting on a candidate σ.
An extended Rydberg sweep covering p ∈ [0.20, 0.70] should reveal two features on a single curve: the classical-to-quantum transition at p_c = 0.3116 (Prediction 1) AND a saturation edge at p_q = 0.6558 ≈ (1 + p_c)/2 corresponding to the half-saturation point of the sigmoid. p_q is not a separate phase boundary — it is the same sigmoid evaluated at a different operational threshold. This resolves Open Problem 59 (tight-binding literature p_q ≈ 0.44 vs TSO p_q ≈ 0.6556).
These two entries were generated during the v11.8 notation cleanup (May 30, 2026). Prediction 40 is the correction of the retired κ = 4/3 claim into ν ≈ 0.88 from 3D percolation universality — the same Rydberg test, different predicted value, with full disclosure of the Belenos anomaly. Prediction 41 elevates the λ = e rate constant in the α formula to a distinguished status: empirically firm because the MIPT-data best fit lands at 0.12σ from e, but theoretically open because none of the four arguments offered for λ = e survive scrutiny. Both are indexed at notebooks.html#stress-tests alongside the three v11.8 reference notebooks.
If a sigmoid transition is observed in Prediction 1, its correlation-length exponent ν should equal the 3D site percolation universality class value, ν3D = 0.8765 ± 0.05. This replaces the previously asserted ν = 4/3 = 1.333 from 2D universality (now retired, see Prediction 2). The Rydberg experiment is unchanged; only the predicted value of the exponent has shifted.
Quandela's Belenos QPU produced a reanalysis ν = 1.325, which was previously cited as supporting the now-retired κ = 4/3 claim (it matched 4/3 = 1.333 within 0.6%). Under the corrected prediction ν ≈ 0.88, the Belenos value is now ~5σ from the prediction — i.e., from "the only data point near the predicted value" to "the only data point far from it."
We do not yet know which of three explanations is correct:
The honest resolution path: (a) re-analyze the Belenos data with the same pipeline used on Linear and Deep, to rule out methodology drift; (b) publish the full QPU-to-ν extraction chain so independent researchers can audit it; (c) run the Rydberg sweep, which is the platform that can actually cross p_c rather than being engineered to one side of it. Until those three are done, Belenos remains an unresolved data point — kept visible rather than discarded, because the framework's credibility depends on disclosing inconvenient data rather than hiding it.
In the renamed α formula α = αmax/(1 + λρc) with αmax = 7 fixed by S7 geometry, the constraint screening rate constant λ equals Euler's number e ≈ 2.71828. The MIPT-data best fit (Notebook 2, May 30, 2026) returns λ = 2.728 ± 0.080 — agreement with e to 0.12σ (0.4% by central value). The match is essentially exact within current experimental precision, but no theoretical derivation has survived scrutiny.
This prediction was added during the v11.9 dark matter session (May 31, 2026). The framework's central new claim is that what cosmology calls dark matter is epi-matter — substrate adjacent to matter in the V(W) landscape but distinct from it, occupying the protected percolation regime between pc and pq. Six companion notebooks document the structural and computational case for the identification, and the prediction package below is what falls out for direct/indirect detection and for Euclid DR1.
Epi-matter, meaning substrate adjacent to matter in the V(W) landscape but distinct from it — matter that broke off the cosmic spanning cluster during early-universe percolation and remained in the protected regime. TSO identifies what cosmology calls dark matter with epi-matter; the two refer to the same observable population. The protected percolation regime sits between the 3D site percolation threshold pc = 0.3116 (where the cosmic spanning cluster formed) and an upper threshold pq beyond which substrate delocalizes into wave/radiation. Substrate that broke off the spanning cluster before crystallization completed got locked into this regime and stayed there.
Epi-matter is protected from converting back to baryonic matter because the γc (closing tension, decoherence) coupling channels that would drive the wave→solid transition are exactly the channels that aren't fully active in epi-matter. There's no coupling channel for the conversion to operate through.
This produces a hard structural consequence: direct-detection and indirect-detection experiments cannot succeed in principle. Detection requires what cosmology calls dark matter to scatter off baryons (or to annihilate, decay, or otherwise interact) through some coupling channel; the channels epi-matter lacks are exactly the ones detectors and indirect probes use. The framework is not saying detection is unlikely — it is saying detection is structurally impossible under this thesis.
P-EM-1. No direct-detection signal from XENON-nT, LZ, PandaX-4T, DEAP-3600, DAMA, or any future direct-scattering experiment. Reproducible positive signal that survives independent replication retires the framework.
P-EM-2. No indirect-detection signal from Fermi-LAT, AMS-02, IceCube, CTA, or any future indirect-detection effort. Reproducible dark-matter-attributable particle excess that survives systematic checks retires the framework.
P-EM-3. Static epi-matter/baryon ratio from BBN (z ≈ 10⁹) through recombination (z ≈ 1100) through today (z = 0). Standard ΛCDM also predicts this; framework retires if high-precision measurements show measurable ratio evolution that ΛCDM doesn't predict.
P-EM-4. No de Broglie interference patterns in halo density at any galactic or sub-galactic scale. Epi-matter is not a coherent quantum field (unlike fuzzy DM at 10⁻²² eV); localized states don't produce coherent interference. High-resolution dark matter density mapping finding such patterns retires the framework.
P-EUC-1. Stacked galaxy cluster halos: inner logarithmic density slope γ in the range 0.8 ± 0.2, NOT the NFW value of ~0.4. Falsified if γ > 0.5.
P-EUC-2. Quantitative halo sphericity: c/a > 0.7 and b/a > 0.85 averaged over the cluster catalog, AND no significant correlation between halo orientation and galactic disk angular momentum (at < 3σ).
P-EUC-3. Cosmic web shows two distinct percolation universality classes: standard 3D site percolation in the baryonic spanning cluster (τ ≈ 2.18, void exponent ≈ 1.80, filament df ≈ 2.52) AND a separate signature in epi-matter-dominated regions consistent with protected percolation universality (γ' ≈ 1.31 from Fayfar-Bretaña-Montfrooij 2022).
P-EUC-4. Environmental sensitivity: epi-matter/baryon ratio in voids equals the cosmic-mean ratio within measurement precision; epi-matter/baryon ratio in dense cluster cores is equal to or marginally lower than the cosmic mean.
Two parameter-free matches (established, on simple-cubic site percolation): the void fraction equals 1 − pc = 0.688 vs observed ΩΛ = 0.686 (0.3%), and the total matter fraction equals pc = 0.312 vs observed Ωm = 0.314 (essentially exact). Both are genuine simulation outputs with no free parameters and no chosen lattice size.
| Component | Cosmology mapping | Observed (Planck 2018) | TSO (parameter-free) | Match |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Voids / dark energy | Empty sites | ΩΛ = 0.6857 | 1 − pc = 0.6884 | 0.3% — real output |
| Total matter | Occupied sites | Ωm = 0.3143 | pc = 0.3116 | 0.9% — real output |
The baryon : epi-matter split (the freeze point) is set at the protected percolation threshold, established by two independent routes. The surviving spanning cluster (baryons) is what remains connected through the freeze; the protected clusters that pinched off earlier are epi-matter (dark matter). The freeze occurs at the protected threshold pc,protected ≈ 0.3423 (Fayfar-Bretaña-Montfrooij), confirmed by: (1) the stopping point converging to 0.3421 as lattice size L → 130 (the earlier L-dependence was finite-size pixelation of a sharp, near-discontinuous transition — the box only matters until it is large enough to contain the structure being measured); and (2) the broken-path density at the freeze equalling the complement of the protected threshold. A latent-heat-like spike in the locking rate (≈130–170× baseline) marks this as a first-order-like freezing transition. See the protected-percolation, latent-heat, and convergence notebooks.
Open: why the freeze halts exactly at the protected threshold — the mechanism that pins the observed 0.157 : 0.843 baryon : dark-matter ratio — is not yet derived. The ratio is hypersensitive at the threshold (a near-vertical cliff). A protection fraction f ≈ 0.90 reproduces it across all lattice sizes (stable: 0.904 ± 0.014) but is currently read off the data, not derived. This is Open Problem 60, now reframed from "what sets the cosmic L" to "why does the freeze halt at the protected threshold."
The following claims were part of earlier TSO versions and have been explicitly retired. Each retirement is documented with the reason — because the track record of killing one's own claims is part of the case for the claims that remain.
Claimed in v10 and v11.0 to derive from α³ mec²/(2ℏ).
Claimed in v11.0 that the Standard Model fermion charge set {0, ±1/3, ±2/3, ±1} emerges uniquely from Z = 7 topology with zero free parameters.
Claimed in v11.0–v11.2 that fundamental electric charge derives from the chirality of three spatial paths under SO(3) invariance via Q = χ_spatial / 3.
Claimed in v11.1 that the γ_o/γ_c tension asymmetry produces the second law and arrow of time as independent empirical consequences.
Claimed mid-2025 that IBM superconducting processors could not test the sigmoid prediction because they are engineered to stay in the wave phase.
Claimed in earlier versions that the width of the observable reality band was exactly 2/77.
Claimed in earlier versions that rest mass is ongoing energy spent maintaining particle topology.
Claimed in earlier 2026 sessions that a reanalysis of Kim et al. 2024 (initially identified as a Nature paper) showed tanh beats exponential by 2.75× on the Rydberg ground-state cluster data (ΔAIC > 30 on 129,791 shots), constituting suggestive support for Prediction 1.
Pre-registered May 22, 2026 (Joshua Osborne proposal): FANO 7-qubit circuit infidelity (1−F) should lock at σ = 0.18058 ± 10% across IBM calibration cycles, with coefficient of variation at least 3× lower than NULL and RANDOM controls.
Pre-registered May 24, 2026: three independent 7-qubit FANO subgraphs on the same chip (single submission, same calibration cycle) should produce T3 patterns that agree with each other and beat a matched-edge-count random control at the May 14 thresholds (FANO/RANDOM >= 2.0, FANO/NULL >= 3.0).
Pre-registered May 24, 2026: addressing the path-blank concern (P40 and P41 treated all 7 qubits as identical) and the routing-noise concern (BFS-grown subgraphs forced SWAP gates). Stage 1: ∅ at the maximum-degree node of the heavy-hex chip (closest available to "hexagon center" — heavy-hex max degree is 3, not 6); T idled via Delay instructions instead of being driven; x, y, z, X₁, X₂ as standard rotated perimeter qubits. Stage 2 (gated on Stage 1 passing): X₂ as Bell-pair endpoint (non-locality), ∅ as X-basis measurement (superposition). Three structural criteria (S1A, S1B, S1C); two Stage 2 criteria (S2A, S2B). No magnitude criteria — magnitudes deliberately omitted from pre-registration following the P40/P41 pattern.
If any of the predictions on this page turns out to be wrong, please report it. The framework improves through honest testing and public failure. Several of the retirements above came from exactly this kind of feedback.
Contact: [email protected]
Please include the prediction number, the specific result that contradicts it, and the reference to the data source. Notebooks and replication code are welcome. The response will be public — either an acknowledgement and retirement entry added to this page, or a specific defense of why the result does not apply. Both outcomes advance the framework.
May 31, 2026 (v11.9) — Epi-matter terminology and Prediction 42 (the dark matter package) — The framework's central new claim was added: what cosmology calls dark matter is epi-matter — substrate adjacent to matter in the V(W) landscape but distinct from it, occupying the protected percolation regime between pc and pq. The terminology "epi-matter" (prefix epi- as in epigenetics, epiphenomenon, epitope: alongside, of the same level, distinct) was chosen over "pre-matter" and "meta-matter" for technical precision and to avoid the metamaterials collision. Prediction 42 added at FIRM status, consolidating the dark matter package: hard predictions (no direct detection in principle; no indirect detection in principle; static epi-matter/baryon ratio from BBN through today; no de Broglie interference in halo density at any scale) and soft predictions (Euclid DR1 should reveal cored cluster profiles with inner slope 0.8±0.2, halo sphericity bounds c/a>0.7 and b/a>0.85, two distinct universality classes in the cosmic web statistics, and environmental sensitivity of the epi-matter/baryon ratio). Quantitative support: two parameter-free matches on simple-cubic site percolation (voids = 1 − pc, 0.3%; total matter = pc, 0.9%), plus the baryon : epi-matter freeze located at the protected percolation threshold (pc,protected ≈ 0.3423), established by two independent routes (stopping-point convergence to 0.3421 as L → 130, and the broken-path density at the freeze). The session also tested a candidate equivalence-principle-violation for the σ₈ tension (simplest Fano-line counting gave 13σ disagreement, asymmetry parked) and added companion notebooks. Open Problem 60 (reframed): why does the freeze halt at the protected threshold — i.e. what pins the observed 0.157 : 0.843 baryon : dark-matter ratio? A protection fraction f ≈ 0.90 reproduces it (stable across lattice size) but is read off the data, not derived; collaborator geometric proposals (f = 9/10; dim(E7) = 133) are candidates pending an independent derivation. Note: the earlier "factor 1.6 at L=24 / 3-of-3 PASS" framing and the "Kibble-Zurek one e-fold (e ≈ 2.72)" claim have been superseded — the L=24 match was not asymptotic and the e-fold proximity was coincidental. Outreach to the Fayfar-Bretaña-Montfrooij group on the basis of the published protected-percolation universality class connection.
May 30, 2026 (v11.8) — Notation cleanup, ν correction, Belenos disclosure, λ tagged EMPIRICALLY FIRM, AND Prediction 1 reframed around the phase-transition central claim — The previously-overloaded symbol κ was separated into three named quantities: α (the effective branching factor, unchanged), λ (the rate constant in the α formula, formerly κ1), and ν (the correlation-length critical exponent of percolation, formerly κ2). Prediction 2 (κ = 4/3 from 2D universality) retired with full disclosure: three converging reasons (April 2026 self-correction, direct MC of Fano-bond in Notebook 3, bulk of empirical data) put the universality class in 3D rather than 2D. Prediction 40 added as the corrected replacement: ν ≈ 0.88 from 3D percolation universality, with full disclosure of the Belenos anomaly (Belenos QPU's ν = 1.325 is now ~5σ from the corrected prediction, kept visible as unresolved, likely reflecting QPU calibration assumptions we don't yet fully understand). Prediction 41 added at the new EMPIRICALLY FIRM status tier: λ = e in the α formula, MIPT fit at 0.12σ from e, but no derivation argument survives scrutiny. Two new status tiers introduced (EMPIRICALLY FIRM, CORRECTED). Prediction 1 (Rydberg test) reframed around the phase-transition central claim: the experiment tests for the existence of the phase transition between Wave and Solid, not for the value of any specific critical exponent. Signatures reordered into three tiers (Tier 1: existence/location/floor — load-bearing; Tier 2: universality class identification — informative; Tier 3: TSO-specific multi-observable signatures — bonus). Three pre-registered outcome scenarios (A, B, C) added with explicit interpretations. A new "Central Claim" callout box at the top of the page makes the phase-structure framing visible. Three reference notebooks accompany the update: Notebook 1 (canonical reference), Notebook 2 (λ investigation), Notebook 3 (ν correction via Fano-bond MC).
May 24, 2026 (v11.7) — Empirical scope finding registered — Across four pre-registered hardware tests (Fix 4 in April, P40/P41/P42 in May 2026) a consistent pattern emerged: TSO's structural predictions (sign patterns, ordering relations, combinatorial structure on Fano lines) replicate on real quantum hardware; TSO's specific-magnitude predictions on quantum hardware do not. A new section, "Empirical Scope Finding," was added near the top of this page documenting the four tests, the platform constraint (IBM and Quandela are both engineered to one side of p_c and therefore cannot test sigmoid crossing through it), and the narrowed scope claim: on quantum hardware, TSO predicts the structure of Fano correlations, not the specific magnitudes of friction. The decisive sigmoid magnitude test requires a Rydberg array. Three new retirement entries added: P40 FALSIFIED on magnitude (factor of 2 off, signs preserved); P41 PARTIAL FALSIFIED (signs replicated, magnitude separation failed, Steane built-in-EC hypothesis not supported); P42 QUEUED at IBM free-tier exhaustion, will run when allocation resets. None of these are retirements of TSO axioms; they are narrowings of where magnitude claims can legitimately be tested. The structural-level predictions on quantum hardware (Fano sign patterns, three-body Fano-line correlations distinct from random topologies) remain supported and replicable.
May 22, 2026 (v11.6) — Site audit, Kim withdrawal, v11.6/v11.7 predictions added — Site-wide audit applied to predictions page. Kim et al. 2024 "2.75×" reanalysis claim withdrawn after citation audit revealed misidentified dataset; correct Kim dataset (Sci. Data 11, 111) is structurally unsuited to the four-model AIC protocol. Predictions 3, 4, 5 reframed under the v11.3 bidirectional X1 bond formalism (replacing the retired Q = χ_spatial/3 chirality reading). Prediction 2 source attribution updated: κ = 4/3 derived in TSO from path-rotation projection, not inherited from standard 2D percolation universality. Notebooks navigation added; all Colab citations routed through the new notebooks page. DESI DR2 dates corrected (released March 19, 2025; Lodha et al. extended analysis October 2025). Two new entries added: Prediction 38 (Fano-Tetrahedron lepton scale candidate, CANDIDATE pending QED magnitude check and rank-2 tensor consistency on vector bosons) and Prediction 39 (sigmoid saturation edge p_q = (1+p_c)/2 = 0.6558 as candidate resolution to Open Problem 59, TESTABLE via extended Rydberg sweep). HTML structural bug fixed in Prediction 24 (orphaned card).
April 29, 2026 (v11.4) — Phase theory reframe and predictions 36–37 — Two new SPECULATIVE predictions added. Prediction 36: coupling constants run as power law (α ~ μ^−0.96 for strong) rather than logarithmically — diverges from SM at extreme scales, potentially testable at LHC. Prediction 37: position uncertainty grows linearly with Lorentz factor above γ_crit (Δx ~ γ × l_switch) — distinct from standard QM uncertainty, observable in principle at future colliders. Framework reframed as phase theory of matter: TSO describes phase structure (force hierarchy direction, symmetry breaking pattern, beta function signs); SM describes constituent details (exact masses, coupling magnitudes). Carrier neutrality derived: C = Q (carrier carries own charge) → non-Abelian → β < 0; C ≠ Q → Abelian → β > 0. All four force beta function signs from this rule alone. Color charge proposed as X₁-internal orientation in {x,y,z}: 3 colors, 8 gluons = 3×3−1. Three generations proposed as three spatial propagation orientations. Cluster identified as organizational structure of critical phase — not necessarily a particle. Striking convergence with anaesthesia research noted (same sigmoid, same non-locality, same component separability) but no claim to explain consciousness — additional path dimensions may be required.
April 26, 2026 (v11.4) — Quandela hardware test and P34 narrowing — P34 tested on Quandela Ascella photonic QPU using true single photons. Separable-circuit approximation (32×32 modes, outer product of two 1D circuits) run at N up to 10,000,000 shots. Result: d_f = 2.0000 flat across all N values. Standard QM confirmed. P34 (separable-circuit version) falsified. P34 narrowed rather than retired because the genuine 2D coupled free-space interference experiment was not performed — only a separable approximation. Prior for positive result in genuine test is low given all prior literature. X₂ entanglement path notebooks added (entanglement + orbital degeneracy; Lindblad consistency 4/4). ∅ as Higgs mechanism notebook added (4/4 null tests). Node switch rate and QGP frame-matching notebook added. Remaining gaps notebook added (K=Q·v closed geometrically; μ₀/ε₀ structure clear; X₂→spin consistent; ∅→Casimir consistent; parity partially closed). Superposition clarified as projection geometry — the car-behind-a-car analogy: two cars parked one behind the other appear in superposition from directly in front (same x,y window slot) but are clearly distinct from the side (different z position). The cluster is always definite in W-space; superposition is a projection aliasing artifact of the {x,y,z} window, not a real property of the cluster.
April 23, 2026 (v11.4) — Electromagnetic derivation and gradient loop EMF prediction — Prediction 35 added (SPECULATIVE): for a conductor loop spanning a gravitational gradient, TSO predicts ~17% larger induced EMF than GR+Maxwell. The difference arises because TSO applies δT = √(1−rs/r) as a spatial average over the entire loop (T conductance at every segment), while GR+Maxwell applies it only at the source point (gravitational redshift at emission). This is a direct consequence of the TSO electromagnetic derivation completed this session: all four Maxwell equations plus c = 1/√(μ₀ε₀) derived from X₁ conservation and T as active path with g = −1. No results imported from Maxwell or special relativity. Seven Colab notebooks. New sub-page: roof-em.html. δT derived from T direction asymmetry under G field (not borrowed from Schwarzschild). Lenz law = metric signature of T. EM waves = self-sustaining T-mediated X₁ oscillations.
April 21, 2026 (v11.4) — Quantum geometry, cosmic structure, falsifiability boundary, and fractal dimension simulation — Two new predictions added following the scale-free percolation insight. Prediction 33 (TESTABLE): cosmic web cluster statistics should match 3D percolation universality class — Fischer exponent τ ≈ 2.18, void distribution, and filament fractal dimension df ≈ 2.52, all zero free parameters. Upgrades Prediction 10 from a single numerical coincidence to a full geometric constraint. Prediction 34 (CONDITIONAL): 3D volumetric single-particle accumulation using concentric annular slits should show fractal fine-structure in the probability density at high statistics, with d_f = 2.52. The theoretical gap for Prediction 34 was closed the same day by percolation simulation: M(L) ~ L^d_f scaling on the TSO 7-path lattice gives d_f = 2.4857 ± 0.0378 (consistent with literature value 2.5226 within 1.0σ); Fisher exponent τ = 2.097 ± 0.006 (consistent with 2.1875). Both confirm the TSO lattice percolates in the 3D universality class. New section: The Falsifiability Boundary.
April 19, 2026 (v11.4) — Projection falsification suite — Five new entries added following the projection falsification Colab suite (run April 18–19, 2026). All five derive from the same theoretical development: Heisenberg Uncertainty as a consequence of partial dimensional projection from finite probability fuel, rather than as an axiom. Prediction 28 (SUGGESTIVE): Space Roar as Larmor radiation from W-space bobbing — Larmor estimate within 2.2 orders of magnitude of ARCADE observed excess, no free parameters fitted. Prediction 29 (TESTABLE): sigmoid decoherence transition width = dW = 0.026 — same Rydberg sweep as Prediction 1, new observable. Prediction 30 (TESTABLE): peak decoherence rate |dV/dΓ| at Γ_c not before it — cleanly distinguishable from standard QM (separation 0.997 Γ_c in simulation). Prediction 31 (SPECULATIVE): THz spectral feature in QCP material Johnson noise at f = kT_c/2πℏ ≈ 6.3 THz at room temperature. Prediction 32 (SPECULATIVE): scattering anisotropy near decoherence threshold from 2D projection geometry. Predictions 29 and 30 are testable with no hardware beyond the planned Rydberg experiment.
April 18, 2026 (v11.3) — DESI DR2 update — Prediction 13 (dynamical dark energy) upgraded from TESTABLE to SUGGESTIVE following DESI DR2 results (released March 2025; extended analysis October 2025). BAO measurements from 14M+ galaxies show 2.8–4.2σ preference for evolving dark energy (w ≠ −1), consistent with TSO's Avrami crystallization prediction. Dataset tension caveat noted; full 5-year DESI results (2027) remain the decisive test. Prediction 10 (Ω_m ≈ p_c) updated with DESI DR2 CPL-model caveat: dynamical model fits prefer Ω_m ≈ 0.385, model-dependent but worth watching.
April 18, 2026 (v11.3) — Metamaterial prediction — Prediction 27 added: percolation-critical metamaterial with anomalous inertial and EM properties. A material engineered to Z_eff ≈ 7 connectivity and W ≈ p_c should show reduced effective inertia, anomalous EM transparency, and criticality amplification. The most TSO-specific test is a non-unity inertial-to-gravitational mass ratio at the quantum critical point — not predicted by standard condensed matter theory. Firmly Roof-level; derived from the three-phase model and criticality amplification argument, not from core axioms.
April 18, 2026 (v11.3) — Two new entries added. Prediction 25: LRD sublimation sigmoid — pre-registers the claim that LRD number density n(z) follows a sigmoid on the decline side (z ≈ 4.5 → 1.5), not an exponential, with the inflection at z ~ 2.5–3.5. Numerical test using Kocevski et al. 2025 and Ma et al. 2025 data showed sigmoid and exponential are indistinguishable with 4 decline-side data points (both R² = 0.9484); z = 1–2 data needed. Prediction 26: LEL cascade — recovers the Lower Entanglement Limit equation from TSO v6.3, formalizes the updated S-field with Heaviside step function Θ(ELEL − E), and pre-registers it as the mechanistic basis for the sigmoid shape in prediction 25. Both entries added before the z=1–2 data is in hand.
April 5, 2026 (v11.1) — Page created. Initial entries extracted from llms.txt v11.1, foundation.html, house.html, roof.html, and the DM analysis documents (TSO v6.1 and v9.2). Null hypothesis test results from April 5 incorporated as downgrades in the retired section.
Future updates will be logged here in reverse chronological order so that any revision of a prediction is traceable against the data that prompted it.