Embedded Files
James Norman Ibbotson
James Norman Ibbotson
The Temporal Dynamics Framework — Book Deposit
The Temporal Dynamics Framework — Book Deposit
A consolidated, self-auditing book deposit: a 2,938-nuclide nuclear mass ledger from four fitted values plus an alpha-derived Coulomb coefficient (mean 0.0062%), scored against the refit semi-empirical mass formula (Paper 80); a defect register of six open and ninety-two closed problems; recorded nulls kept in a dedicated nulls/ folder; sealed, SHA-256-hashed predictions (320 superheavy masses with a pre-registered scoring protocol in verify/SUPERHEAVY_PROTOCOL.md, EMC isotopic direction); a Riemann zero-placement forecasting measurement with a scored sealed holdout, plus the deposited classical explicit-formula benchmark; bootstrap confidence intervals on the mass headline; and 151 reproducible Python runners for every numerical claim, which write only to a scratch directory so the integrity manifest verifies before and after a full re-run. This record consolidates and links 61 previously published Zenodo records.
I put my whole framework through an independent validator. It came back 100 out of 100 — and the honest part is the part that matters.
I put my whole framework through an independent validator. It came back 100 out of 100 — and the honest part is the part that matters.
I’ve spent a long time building the Temporal Dynamics Framework. Particles as standing waves in a single cavity, not little balls of stuff. Mass as how deep the wave nests. A fixed set of universal primes — 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 — setting where the structure can sit. Out of that comes a nuclear mass ledger that lands within 0.0062% across all 2,938 measured nuclides, a quark count that falls out of the geometry instead of being matched to it, and a reading of the Riemann zeros that goes exactly as far as the mathematics allows and stops dead where it doesn’t.
This week I did something I’d been meaning to do for a while. I took the entire framework and wrote it out as a formal dependency graph — every claim a node, every claim resting on the ones underneath it — and ran it through an independent tool built by someone else entirely: the ADEC Theory Validator Engine (v0.7.7), from Gianluca Pisano’s Numeri Primi – Teoremi e Congetture project in Italy.
TDF — ADEC validation pack
TDF — ADEC validation pack
HOW TO USE (paste each JSON into the ADEC Theory Validator, one at a time): ADEC Theory Validator ENGINE v0.7.7
Contents:
per_claim/ one JSON per claim — each is that claim PLUS its full staged dependency chain + self/meta. Validate any one to test just that claim in isolation (e.g. claim_QK1_quark_count.json).
TDF_core_ADEC.json the nuclear-mass core branch (staged: 0.84%->0.026%->0.0062% -> three dials -> NEST is the open boundary).
TDF_riemann_ADEC.json the Riemann strand (carry verified, forbid open; every null and both retractions recorded).
TDF_blackhole_ADEC.json the black-hole branch (standard physics verified; the TDF reading flagged and unweighted; the weakest step, marked so).
TDF_FULL_all_branches.json everything merged + a bridge + a global self/meta.
TDF_riemann_barcode.html the first 50 zeros as a barcode.
Honesty key (as tagged in the deposit):
verified proof = proven / derived / standard physics
concept + flag = hypothesis, no verified proof (NEST, RFRONT, BINT, BFOLD, BLENS...)
status null-fail = tested, did not survive (recorded, not hidden)
status retracted = withdrawn (sqrt2 route-consistency; Unified Conjecture)
Validate the small ones first (one claim each), then the branch files, then the FULL file.
claim_BFOLD_fold_and_lens JSON
claim_BFOLD_fold_and_lens JSON
{
"title": "TDF — CLAIM: The Fold and the Lens (proposal)",
"version": "1.0-claim-2026-08",
"description": "Single-claim ADEC graph: the claim BFOLD with its full staged dependency chain, plus self- and meta-validation. Self-contained; validate this file alone to test just this claim.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "BF1",
"name": "Settling-Well / Fold Reading",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "The interpretive framing: a black hole read as the cleanest settling well and as a fold in a loop (the turn where matter unfolds), rather than a hole that keeps. This is a reading, not a computation.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "BID2",
"name": "Unbinding to ~75% Hydrogen",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "VERIFIED, established physics (not ours): any atom -> (neutron beta decay) -> hydrogen, and the earliest matter came out about 75% hydrogen by mass; the stability bounds and the downhill-to-iron ordering are measured facts. Tagged identity throughout The Fold and the Lens.",
"deps": [
"BF1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Beta decay and the stability valley give ~75% hydrogen as the first element — established physics.",
"steps": [
"Neutron beta decay converts nucleons toward hydrogen.",
"Big-bang nucleosynthesis yields ~75% hydrogen by mass (measured).",
"Binding runs downhill to iron (measured) — an ordering, standard physics."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "BFOLD",
"name": "The Fold and the Lens — a black hole gives matter back (proposal)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "HYPOTHESIS (flagged, no verified proof). Running the binding curve backwards, a black hole returns some matter — unfolding it down a lens — grounded in real accreting/jet systems (4U 1630-47, SS 433), NOT a freestanding singularity claim. Tagged [flag] in the deposit.",
"deps": [
"BID2"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "proposed",
"steps": [
"Reading/derivation declared as a proposal.",
"No verified proof: recorded as a proposed hypothesis (v0.7.7 'proposed')."
]
}
},
{
"id": "BFOLD_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation of BFOLD",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal coherence check for the claim BFOLD: its dependency chain is complete, acyclic, and every proof-bearing ancestor is honestly labelled (derived/fitted/flag/null as in the deposit).",
"deps": [
"BFOLD"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm the dependency chain of BFOLD is complete and acyclic.",
"Confirm each ancestor's proof status matches the deposit's honesty tag.",
"Confirm no verified node in the chain rests on a withdrawn or retracted node."
]
}
},
{
"id": "BFOLD_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation of BFOLD",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check that all validation layers are present for the isolated claim BFOLD.",
"deps": [
"BFOLD_SELF",
"BFOLD"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta layers all present.",
"Verify structural coherence of the isolated chain.",
"Conclude meta-validation for BFOLD."
]
}
}
]
}
claim_BID1_compton_schwarzschild JSON
claim_BID1_compton_schwarzschild JSON
{
"title": "TDF — CLAIM: Compton-Schwarzschild Crossover (standard)",
"version": "1.0-claim-2026-08",
"description": "Single-claim ADEC graph: the claim BID1 with its full staged dependency chain, plus self- and meta-validation. Self-contained; validate this file alone to test just this claim.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "BF1",
"name": "Settling-Well / Fold Reading",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "The interpretive framing: a black hole read as the cleanest settling well and as a fold in a loop (the turn where matter unfolds), rather than a hole that keeps. This is a reading, not a computation.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "BID1",
"name": "Compton–Schwarzschild Crossover",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "VERIFIED, but STANDARD PHYSICS, not this framework's discovery. The Compton wavelength falls with mass while the Schwarzschild radius r_s = 2GM/c^2 rises with it; they cross at the Planck scale. Real and self-standing.",
"deps": [
"BF1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "lambda_C(m) = h/(mc) decreases and r_s(m) = 2GM/c^2 increases with m, crossing at the Planck scale.",
"steps": [
"Compton wavelength lambda_C = h/(mc) falls as m rises.",
"Schwarzschild radius r_s = 2GM/c^2 rises as m rises.",
"The two coincide at the Planck mass/length — standard, textbook."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "BID1_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation of BID1",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal coherence check for the claim BID1: its dependency chain is complete, acyclic, and every proof-bearing ancestor is honestly labelled (derived/fitted/flag/null as in the deposit).",
"deps": [
"BID1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm the dependency chain of BID1 is complete and acyclic.",
"Confirm each ancestor's proof status matches the deposit's honesty tag.",
"Confirm no verified node in the chain rests on a withdrawn or retracted node."
]
}
},
{
"id": "BID1_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation of BID1",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check that all validation layers are present for the isolated claim BID1.",
"deps": [
"BID1_SELF",
"BID1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta layers all present.",
"Verify structural coherence of the isolated chain.",
"Conclude meta-validation for BID1."
]
}
}
]
}
claim_BINT_blackhole_edge JSON
claim_BINT_blackhole_edge JSON
{
"title": "TDF — CLAIM: The Black-Hole Interpretive Edge (boundary)",
"version": "1.0-claim-2026-08",
"description": "Single-claim ADEC graph: the claim BINT with its full staged dependency chain, plus self- and meta-validation. Self-contained; validate this file alone to test just this claim.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "BF1",
"name": "Settling-Well / Fold Reading",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "The interpretive framing: a black hole read as the cleanest settling well and as a fold in a loop (the turn where matter unfolds), rather than a hole that keeps. This is a reading, not a computation.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "BINT",
"name": "The Interpretive Edge — no paper, no number (the boundary)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "THE BOUNDARY, and the deposit is blunt about it: this is the WEAKEST step. There is no written paper behind it and no number attached — it exists as 3D picture files and a reading. What is NOT here: no black-hole entropy, no information-paradox result, no mechanism connecting the resonance picture to horizon thermodynamics with a number. It carries the argument NO weight, and the steps either side of it do not depend on it. No verified proof, by design.",
"deps": [
"BF1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "unverified",
"steps": [
"Formally represented as an open item / named frontier.",
"Not yet verified (v0.7.7 'unverified') — this is the boundary, by design."
]
}
},
{
"id": "BINT_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation of BINT",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal coherence check for the claim BINT: its dependency chain is complete, acyclic, and every proof-bearing ancestor is honestly labelled (derived/fitted/flag/null as in the deposit).",
"deps": [
"BINT"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm the dependency chain of BINT is complete and acyclic.",
"Confirm each ancestor's proof status matches the deposit's honesty tag.",
"Confirm no verified node in the chain rests on a withdrawn or retracted node."
]
}
},
{
"id": "BINT_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation of BINT",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check that all validation layers are present for the isolated claim BINT.",
"deps": [
"BINT_SELF",
"BINT"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta layers all present.",
"Verify structural coherence of the isolated chain.",
"Conclude meta-validation for BINT."
]
}
}
]
}
claim_CO1_alpha_coefficient JSON
claim_CO1_alpha_coefficient JSON
{
"title": "TDF — CLAIM: Alpha-Derived Coulomb Coefficient",
"version": "1.0-claim-2026-08",
"description": "Single-claim ADEC graph: the claim CO1 with its full staged dependency chain, plus self- and meta-validation. Self-contained; validate this file alone to test just this claim.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "F1",
"name": "Cavity Geometry Foundation",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "Every particle is a manifestation of cavity geometry — a standing-wave resonance pattern in a single cavity — not a composite of constituent objects such as quarks or nucleons.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "D1",
"name": "Snugness S(A,Z)",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Snugness S(A,Z) is the geometric fit factor for how tightly a cavity pattern packs at mass number A and charge Z; empirically ~0.96 to 1.00 across the tested nuclei.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "A1",
"name": "No Constituent Objects Axiom",
"kind": "axiom",
"description": "Quarks and nucleons are never treated as real, separate objects; what QFT calls quarks are read as antinodes of a single cavity pattern. Counts agree with the Standard Model to four decimals; only the interpretation differs.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "MS1",
"name": "Mass Stage 1 — the bare ball count (0.84%)",
"kind": "lemma",
"description": "STAGE 1 of the mass proof. Counting the packed balls alone, with nothing shaped, reproduces measured atomic mass to a mean error of 0.84%. Verified — this is where the ladder starts.",
"deps": [
"D1",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Bare packed-ball count reproduces atomic mass to 0.84% mean error across the measured set.",
"steps": [
"Assign each nucleus its ball count from the cavity geometry.",
"Compare the bare count against measured atomic mass.",
"Mean error at this stage: 0.84%."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "C2",
"name": "Packing Constant PR",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "PR = alpha^-1 * sqrt(2) = 193.7981684, alpha^-1 = 137.035999084 (CODATA). PR^3 = 7,278,619.3, the nested boson 'ball count' for a unit cavity.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "MS2",
"name": "Mass Stage 2 — shaped per atom (0.026%)",
"kind": "lemma",
"description": "STAGE 2. Add the geometric shaping: skin (surface, derived), the alpha twist-repulsion (Coulomb, derived from alpha = 0.72 MeV), plus exactly TWO fitted terms (peak-mix and pairing, each with a stated null). The deformation term was REMOVED (PROBLEMS P3) for worsening the fit. Mean error drops to 0.026%. Verified, with the two fitted terms named openly.",
"deps": [
"MS1",
"C2"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Shaping the count with two derived terms and two fitted terms reduces mean error to 0.026%.",
"steps": [
"Add skin (surface) term — derived.",
"Add alpha twist-repulsion (3/5)*alpha*hbar*c/r0 = 0.7200 MeV — derived from alpha, no nuclear-mass tuning.",
"Add peak-mix (asymmetry) and even/odd (pairing) — TWO fitted terms, each carrying a stated null.",
"Remove the deformation term (worsens the fit under the alpha-derived coefficient; best value statistically zero).",
"Mean error at this stage: 0.026%."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "CO1",
"name": "Alpha-Derived Coefficient Corollary",
"kind": "corollary",
"description": "The genuine zero-fitted structural result is scoped narrowly: the twist-repulsion (Coulomb) coefficient falls out of alpha with nothing tuned to a nuclear mass (precision inherited from the external r0 = 1.2 +/- 0.1 fm). It is NOT a claim that the whole mass prediction is unfitted.",
"deps": [
"MS2"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "(3/5)*alpha*hbar*c/r0 = 0.7200 MeV agrees with the textbook fitted 0.711 MeV to ~1.3% with zero nuclear-mass fitting.",
"steps": [
"Compute the Coulomb coefficient from alpha and r0 alone.",
"No nuclear mass is used to tune it.",
"The ~1.3% agreement is derived, not fitted — scoped to this coefficient only."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "CO1_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation of CO1",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal coherence check for the claim CO1: its dependency chain is complete, acyclic, and every proof-bearing ancestor is honestly labelled (derived/fitted/flag/null as in the deposit).",
"deps": [
"CO1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm the dependency chain of CO1 is complete and acyclic.",
"Confirm each ancestor's proof status matches the deposit's honesty tag.",
"Confirm no verified node in the chain rests on a withdrawn or retracted node."
]
}
},
{
"id": "CO1_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation of CO1",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check that all validation layers are present for the isolated claim CO1.",
"deps": [
"CO1_SELF",
"CO1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta layers all present.",
"Verify structural coherence of the isolated chain.",
"Conclude meta-validation for CO1."
]
}
}
]
}
claim_DIAL_three_dials JSON
claim_DIAL_three_dials JSON
{
"title": "TDF — CLAIM: Mass as One Number on Three Dials",
"version": "1.0-claim-2026-08",
"description": "Single-claim ADEC graph: the claim DIAL with its full staged dependency chain, plus self- and meta-validation. Self-contained; validate this file alone to test just this claim.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "F1",
"name": "Cavity Geometry Foundation",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "Every particle is a manifestation of cavity geometry — a standing-wave resonance pattern in a single cavity — not a composite of constituent objects such as quarks or nucleons.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "D1",
"name": "Snugness S(A,Z)",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Snugness S(A,Z) is the geometric fit factor for how tightly a cavity pattern packs at mass number A and charge Z; empirically ~0.96 to 1.00 across the tested nuclei.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "A1",
"name": "No Constituent Objects Axiom",
"kind": "axiom",
"description": "Quarks and nucleons are never treated as real, separate objects; what QFT calls quarks are read as antinodes of a single cavity pattern. Counts agree with the Standard Model to four decimals; only the interpretation differs.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "MS1",
"name": "Mass Stage 1 — the bare ball count (0.84%)",
"kind": "lemma",
"description": "STAGE 1 of the mass proof. Counting the packed balls alone, with nothing shaped, reproduces measured atomic mass to a mean error of 0.84%. Verified — this is where the ladder starts.",
"deps": [
"D1",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Bare packed-ball count reproduces atomic mass to 0.84% mean error across the measured set.",
"steps": [
"Assign each nucleus its ball count from the cavity geometry.",
"Compare the bare count against measured atomic mass.",
"Mean error at this stage: 0.84%."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "C2",
"name": "Packing Constant PR",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "PR = alpha^-1 * sqrt(2) = 193.7981684, alpha^-1 = 137.035999084 (CODATA). PR^3 = 7,278,619.3, the nested boson 'ball count' for a unit cavity.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "MS2",
"name": "Mass Stage 2 — shaped per atom (0.026%)",
"kind": "lemma",
"description": "STAGE 2. Add the geometric shaping: skin (surface, derived), the alpha twist-repulsion (Coulomb, derived from alpha = 0.72 MeV), plus exactly TWO fitted terms (peak-mix and pairing, each with a stated null). The deformation term was REMOVED (PROBLEMS P3) for worsening the fit. Mean error drops to 0.026%. Verified, with the two fitted terms named openly.",
"deps": [
"MS1",
"C2"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Shaping the count with two derived terms and two fitted terms reduces mean error to 0.026%.",
"steps": [
"Add skin (surface) term — derived.",
"Add alpha twist-repulsion (3/5)*alpha*hbar*c/r0 = 0.7200 MeV — derived from alpha, no nuclear-mass tuning.",
"Add peak-mix (asymmetry) and even/odd (pairing) — TWO fitted terms, each carrying a stated null.",
"Remove the deformation term (worsens the fit under the alpha-derived coefficient; best value statistically zero).",
"Mean error at this stage: 0.026%."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "D4",
"name": "SPEED Route Boson Count",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Nested boson count N(A,Z) = (PR^3 / A) * S(A,Z). ~7.28 million shells for a proton (A=1, S=1), decaying as 1/A.",
"deps": [
"C2",
"D1"
]
},
{
"id": "P1",
"name": "Boson Count Consistency",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "The SPEED-route boson counts are internally consistent with each nucleus's snugness.",
"deps": [
"D4",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "N(A,Z) = (PR^3 / A) * S(A,Z) reproduces the deposit's boson counts.",
"steps": [
"PR = alpha^-1 * sqrt(2) = 193.7981684; PR^3 = 7,278,619.3.",
"Apply N = (PR^3 / A) * S per nucleus.",
"Deposit counts: Proton 7,278,619; Carbon-12 572,219; Silicon-28 249,891; Iron-56 122,618; Gold-197 (S=0.9643) 35,628.",
"Each computed count matches the deposit value."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "MS3",
"name": "Mass Stage 3 — electrons folded in (0.0062%, all 2,938 nuclides)",
"kind": "theorem",
"description": "STAGE 3 and the CENTRAL PROVEN RESULT. Folding in the electron rest-mass term (Z*0.511 MeV) for a like-for-like atomic comparison gives 0.0062% mean error across all 2,938 measured nuclides (~0.0012% for medium and heavy nuclei). This is the corpus's tested mass result — this is where the chain IS a proof.",
"deps": [
"MS2",
"P1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "The staged cavity ledger, electron term folded in, reproduces all 2,938 measured nuclides to 0.0062% mean error.",
"steps": [
"Take the Stage-2 shaped ledger.",
"Fold in the electron rest mass Z*0.511 MeV.",
"Aggregate over all 2,938 measured nuclides: mean error 0.0062%.",
"Medium and heavy nuclei: ~0.0012% (iron 0.003%, gold 0.003%)."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "C1",
"name": "Golden Ratio Constant",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "phi = (1+sqrt5)/2 = 1.6180339887, the unique attracting fixed point of J(x)=1+1/x. Sets the angular scale (phi-pi space) for the resonance patterns.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "DIAL",
"name": "The Three Dials — mass as one number",
"kind": "theorem",
"description": "The mass, the ring-rate and the temperature are one dial read three ways: x = m/m_P = f_C/f_P = T/T_P, agreeing to ~1 part in 1e9 (Speed / Temperature / Planck-floor — 'Particle Mass as One Number on Three Dials'). An identity-level result: a rest mass and its Compton frequency are the same fact.",
"deps": [
"MS3",
"C1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "x = m/m_P = f_C/f_P = T/T_P holds to ~1 part in 1e9.",
"steps": [
"f_C = m c^2 / h is the Compton frequency (established physics).",
"Express each of mass, frequency and temperature as the dimensionless ratio to its Planck value.",
"The three ratios coincide to ~1e-9 — one dial, three faces."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "DIAL_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation of DIAL",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal coherence check for the claim DIAL: its dependency chain is complete, acyclic, and every proof-bearing ancestor is honestly labelled (derived/fitted/flag/null as in the deposit).",
"deps": [
"DIAL"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm the dependency chain of DIAL is complete and acyclic.",
"Confirm each ancestor's proof status matches the deposit's honesty tag.",
"Confirm no verified node in the chain rests on a withdrawn or retracted node."
]
}
},
{
"id": "DIAL_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation of DIAL",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check that all validation layers are present for the isolated claim DIAL.",
"deps": [
"DIAL_SELF",
"DIAL"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta layers all present.",
"Verify structural coherence of the isolated chain.",
"Conclude meta-validation for DIAL."
]
}
}
]
}
claim_MS3_mass_ledger JSON
claim_MS3_mass_ledger JSON
{
"title": "TDF — CLAIM: Nuclear Mass Ledger (0.0062%, staged)",
"version": "1.0-claim-2026-08",
"description": "Single-claim ADEC graph: the claim MS3 with its full staged dependency chain, plus self- and meta-validation. Self-contained; validate this file alone to test just this claim.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "F1",
"name": "Cavity Geometry Foundation",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "Every particle is a manifestation of cavity geometry — a standing-wave resonance pattern in a single cavity — not a composite of constituent objects such as quarks or nucleons.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "D1",
"name": "Snugness S(A,Z)",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Snugness S(A,Z) is the geometric fit factor for how tightly a cavity pattern packs at mass number A and charge Z; empirically ~0.96 to 1.00 across the tested nuclei.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "A1",
"name": "No Constituent Objects Axiom",
"kind": "axiom",
"description": "Quarks and nucleons are never treated as real, separate objects; what QFT calls quarks are read as antinodes of a single cavity pattern. Counts agree with the Standard Model to four decimals; only the interpretation differs.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "MS1",
"name": "Mass Stage 1 — the bare ball count (0.84%)",
"kind": "lemma",
"description": "STAGE 1 of the mass proof. Counting the packed balls alone, with nothing shaped, reproduces measured atomic mass to a mean error of 0.84%. Verified — this is where the ladder starts.",
"deps": [
"D1",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Bare packed-ball count reproduces atomic mass to 0.84% mean error across the measured set.",
"steps": [
"Assign each nucleus its ball count from the cavity geometry.",
"Compare the bare count against measured atomic mass.",
"Mean error at this stage: 0.84%."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "C2",
"name": "Packing Constant PR",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "PR = alpha^-1 * sqrt(2) = 193.7981684, alpha^-1 = 137.035999084 (CODATA). PR^3 = 7,278,619.3, the nested boson 'ball count' for a unit cavity.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "MS2",
"name": "Mass Stage 2 — shaped per atom (0.026%)",
"kind": "lemma",
"description": "STAGE 2. Add the geometric shaping: skin (surface, derived), the alpha twist-repulsion (Coulomb, derived from alpha = 0.72 MeV), plus exactly TWO fitted terms (peak-mix and pairing, each with a stated null). The deformation term was REMOVED (PROBLEMS P3) for worsening the fit. Mean error drops to 0.026%. Verified, with the two fitted terms named openly.",
"deps": [
"MS1",
"C2"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Shaping the count with two derived terms and two fitted terms reduces mean error to 0.026%.",
"steps": [
"Add skin (surface) term — derived.",
"Add alpha twist-repulsion (3/5)*alpha*hbar*c/r0 = 0.7200 MeV — derived from alpha, no nuclear-mass tuning.",
"Add peak-mix (asymmetry) and even/odd (pairing) — TWO fitted terms, each carrying a stated null.",
"Remove the deformation term (worsens the fit under the alpha-derived coefficient; best value statistically zero).",
"Mean error at this stage: 0.026%."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "D4",
"name": "SPEED Route Boson Count",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Nested boson count N(A,Z) = (PR^3 / A) * S(A,Z). ~7.28 million shells for a proton (A=1, S=1), decaying as 1/A.",
"deps": [
"C2",
"D1"
]
},
{
"id": "P1",
"name": "Boson Count Consistency",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "The SPEED-route boson counts are internally consistent with each nucleus's snugness.",
"deps": [
"D4",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "N(A,Z) = (PR^3 / A) * S(A,Z) reproduces the deposit's boson counts.",
"steps": [
"PR = alpha^-1 * sqrt(2) = 193.7981684; PR^3 = 7,278,619.3.",
"Apply N = (PR^3 / A) * S per nucleus.",
"Deposit counts: Proton 7,278,619; Carbon-12 572,219; Silicon-28 249,891; Iron-56 122,618; Gold-197 (S=0.9643) 35,628.",
"Each computed count matches the deposit value."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "MS3",
"name": "Mass Stage 3 — electrons folded in (0.0062%, all 2,938 nuclides)",
"kind": "theorem",
"description": "STAGE 3 and the CENTRAL PROVEN RESULT. Folding in the electron rest-mass term (Z*0.511 MeV) for a like-for-like atomic comparison gives 0.0062% mean error across all 2,938 measured nuclides (~0.0012% for medium and heavy nuclei). This is the corpus's tested mass result — this is where the chain IS a proof.",
"deps": [
"MS2",
"P1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "The staged cavity ledger, electron term folded in, reproduces all 2,938 measured nuclides to 0.0062% mean error.",
"steps": [
"Take the Stage-2 shaped ledger.",
"Fold in the electron rest mass Z*0.511 MeV.",
"Aggregate over all 2,938 measured nuclides: mean error 0.0062%.",
"Medium and heavy nuclei: ~0.0012% (iron 0.003%, gold 0.003%)."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "MS3_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation of MS3",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal coherence check for the claim MS3: its dependency chain is complete, acyclic, and every proof-bearing ancestor is honestly labelled (derived/fitted/flag/null as in the deposit).",
"deps": [
"MS3"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm the dependency chain of MS3 is complete and acyclic.",
"Confirm each ancestor's proof status matches the deposit's honesty tag.",
"Confirm no verified node in the chain rests on a withdrawn or retracted node."
]
}
},
{
"id": "MS3_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation of MS3",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check that all validation layers are present for the isolated claim MS3.",
"deps": [
"MS3_SELF",
"MS3"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta layers all present.",
"Verify structural coherence of the isolated chain.",
"Conclude meta-validation for MS3."
]
}
}
]
}
claim_NEST_nest_frontier JSON
claim_NEST_nest_frontier JSON
{
"title": "TDF — CLAIM: The Nest Level (open frontier)",
"version": "1.0-claim-2026-08",
"description": "Single-claim ADEC graph: the claim NEST with its full staged dependency chain, plus self- and meta-validation. Self-contained; validate this file alone to test just this claim.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "F1",
"name": "Cavity Geometry Foundation",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "Every particle is a manifestation of cavity geometry — a standing-wave resonance pattern in a single cavity — not a composite of constituent objects such as quarks or nucleons.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "D1",
"name": "Snugness S(A,Z)",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Snugness S(A,Z) is the geometric fit factor for how tightly a cavity pattern packs at mass number A and charge Z; empirically ~0.96 to 1.00 across the tested nuclei.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "A1",
"name": "No Constituent Objects Axiom",
"kind": "axiom",
"description": "Quarks and nucleons are never treated as real, separate objects; what QFT calls quarks are read as antinodes of a single cavity pattern. Counts agree with the Standard Model to four decimals; only the interpretation differs.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "MS1",
"name": "Mass Stage 1 — the bare ball count (0.84%)",
"kind": "lemma",
"description": "STAGE 1 of the mass proof. Counting the packed balls alone, with nothing shaped, reproduces measured atomic mass to a mean error of 0.84%. Verified — this is where the ladder starts.",
"deps": [
"D1",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Bare packed-ball count reproduces atomic mass to 0.84% mean error across the measured set.",
"steps": [
"Assign each nucleus its ball count from the cavity geometry.",
"Compare the bare count against measured atomic mass.",
"Mean error at this stage: 0.84%."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "C2",
"name": "Packing Constant PR",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "PR = alpha^-1 * sqrt(2) = 193.7981684, alpha^-1 = 137.035999084 (CODATA). PR^3 = 7,278,619.3, the nested boson 'ball count' for a unit cavity.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "MS2",
"name": "Mass Stage 2 — shaped per atom (0.026%)",
"kind": "lemma",
"description": "STAGE 2. Add the geometric shaping: skin (surface, derived), the alpha twist-repulsion (Coulomb, derived from alpha = 0.72 MeV), plus exactly TWO fitted terms (peak-mix and pairing, each with a stated null). The deformation term was REMOVED (PROBLEMS P3) for worsening the fit. Mean error drops to 0.026%. Verified, with the two fitted terms named openly.",
"deps": [
"MS1",
"C2"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Shaping the count with two derived terms and two fitted terms reduces mean error to 0.026%.",
"steps": [
"Add skin (surface) term — derived.",
"Add alpha twist-repulsion (3/5)*alpha*hbar*c/r0 = 0.7200 MeV — derived from alpha, no nuclear-mass tuning.",
"Add peak-mix (asymmetry) and even/odd (pairing) — TWO fitted terms, each carrying a stated null.",
"Remove the deformation term (worsens the fit under the alpha-derived coefficient; best value statistically zero).",
"Mean error at this stage: 0.026%."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "D4",
"name": "SPEED Route Boson Count",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Nested boson count N(A,Z) = (PR^3 / A) * S(A,Z). ~7.28 million shells for a proton (A=1, S=1), decaying as 1/A.",
"deps": [
"C2",
"D1"
]
},
{
"id": "P1",
"name": "Boson Count Consistency",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "The SPEED-route boson counts are internally consistent with each nucleus's snugness.",
"deps": [
"D4",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "N(A,Z) = (PR^3 / A) * S(A,Z) reproduces the deposit's boson counts.",
"steps": [
"PR = alpha^-1 * sqrt(2) = 193.7981684; PR^3 = 7,278,619.3.",
"Apply N = (PR^3 / A) * S per nucleus.",
"Deposit counts: Proton 7,278,619; Carbon-12 572,219; Silicon-28 249,891; Iron-56 122,618; Gold-197 (S=0.9643) 35,628.",
"Each computed count matches the deposit value."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "MS3",
"name": "Mass Stage 3 — electrons folded in (0.0062%, all 2,938 nuclides)",
"kind": "theorem",
"description": "STAGE 3 and the CENTRAL PROVEN RESULT. Folding in the electron rest-mass term (Z*0.511 MeV) for a like-for-like atomic comparison gives 0.0062% mean error across all 2,938 measured nuclides (~0.0012% for medium and heavy nuclei). This is the corpus's tested mass result — this is where the chain IS a proof.",
"deps": [
"MS2",
"P1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "The staged cavity ledger, electron term folded in, reproduces all 2,938 measured nuclides to 0.0062% mean error.",
"steps": [
"Take the Stage-2 shaped ledger.",
"Fold in the electron rest mass Z*0.511 MeV.",
"Aggregate over all 2,938 measured nuclides: mean error 0.0062%.",
"Medium and heavy nuclei: ~0.0012% (iron 0.003%, gold 0.003%)."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "C1",
"name": "Golden Ratio Constant",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "phi = (1+sqrt5)/2 = 1.6180339887, the unique attracting fixed point of J(x)=1+1/x. Sets the angular scale (phi-pi space) for the resonance patterns.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "DIAL",
"name": "The Three Dials — mass as one number",
"kind": "theorem",
"description": "The mass, the ring-rate and the temperature are one dial read three ways: x = m/m_P = f_C/f_P = T/T_P, agreeing to ~1 part in 1e9 (Speed / Temperature / Planck-floor — 'Particle Mass as One Number on Three Dials'). An identity-level result: a rest mass and its Compton frequency are the same fact.",
"deps": [
"MS3",
"C1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "x = m/m_P = f_C/f_P = T/T_P holds to ~1 part in 1e9.",
"steps": [
"f_C = m c^2 / h is the Compton frequency (established physics).",
"Express each of mass, frequency and temperature as the dimensionless ratio to its Planck value.",
"The three ratios coincide to ~1e-9 — one dial, three faces."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "NEST",
"name": "The Nest Level — NOT yet a proof (the boundary)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "THIS IS THE 'is it a proof yet?' NODE. Everything above is verified; this is where it stops. Getting one ball's 99% (the nest itself — QCD-scale binding) out of the nesting geometry alone has been attempted and did NOT come out: m = m_P * phi^-k gives k = 91.46 (non-integer); m = m_P * 2^-k gives k = 63.5 (not clean). NULL-FAIL, p = 0.50. It carries NO verified proof on purpose — this is the largest open door, stated up front, and the node to re-ask as work continues. It becomes a proof only if a first-principles derivation of the 99% appears that beats lattice QCD on its own ground.",
"deps": [
"MS3",
"DIAL"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "unverified",
"steps": [
"Formally represented as an open item / named frontier.",
"Not yet verified (v0.7.7 'unverified') — this is the boundary, by design."
]
}
},
{
"id": "NEST_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation of NEST",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal coherence check for the claim NEST: its dependency chain is complete, acyclic, and every proof-bearing ancestor is honestly labelled (derived/fitted/flag/null as in the deposit).",
"deps": [
"NEST"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm the dependency chain of NEST is complete and acyclic.",
"Confirm each ancestor's proof status matches the deposit's honesty tag.",
"Confirm no verified node in the chain rests on a withdrawn or retracted node."
]
}
},
{
"id": "NEST_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation of NEST",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check that all validation layers are present for the isolated claim NEST.",
"deps": [
"NEST_SELF",
"NEST"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta layers all present.",
"Verify structural coherence of the isolated chain.",
"Conclude meta-validation for NEST."
]
}
}
]
}
claim_P1_boson_count JSON
claim_P1_boson_count JSON
{
"title": "TDF — CLAIM: SPEED-Route Boson Count",
"version": "1.0-claim-2026-08",
"description": "Single-claim ADEC graph: the claim P1 with its full staged dependency chain, plus self- and meta-validation. Self-contained; validate this file alone to test just this claim.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "C2",
"name": "Packing Constant PR",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "PR = alpha^-1 * sqrt(2) = 193.7981684, alpha^-1 = 137.035999084 (CODATA). PR^3 = 7,278,619.3, the nested boson 'ball count' for a unit cavity.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "F1",
"name": "Cavity Geometry Foundation",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "Every particle is a manifestation of cavity geometry — a standing-wave resonance pattern in a single cavity — not a composite of constituent objects such as quarks or nucleons.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "D1",
"name": "Snugness S(A,Z)",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Snugness S(A,Z) is the geometric fit factor for how tightly a cavity pattern packs at mass number A and charge Z; empirically ~0.96 to 1.00 across the tested nuclei.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "D4",
"name": "SPEED Route Boson Count",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Nested boson count N(A,Z) = (PR^3 / A) * S(A,Z). ~7.28 million shells for a proton (A=1, S=1), decaying as 1/A.",
"deps": [
"C2",
"D1"
]
},
{
"id": "A1",
"name": "No Constituent Objects Axiom",
"kind": "axiom",
"description": "Quarks and nucleons are never treated as real, separate objects; what QFT calls quarks are read as antinodes of a single cavity pattern. Counts agree with the Standard Model to four decimals; only the interpretation differs.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "P1",
"name": "Boson Count Consistency",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "The SPEED-route boson counts are internally consistent with each nucleus's snugness.",
"deps": [
"D4",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "N(A,Z) = (PR^3 / A) * S(A,Z) reproduces the deposit's boson counts.",
"steps": [
"PR = alpha^-1 * sqrt(2) = 193.7981684; PR^3 = 7,278,619.3.",
"Apply N = (PR^3 / A) * S per nucleus.",
"Deposit counts: Proton 7,278,619; Carbon-12 572,219; Silicon-28 249,891; Iron-56 122,618; Gold-197 (S=0.9643) 35,628.",
"Each computed count matches the deposit value."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "P1_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation of P1",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal coherence check for the claim P1: its dependency chain is complete, acyclic, and every proof-bearing ancestor is honestly labelled (derived/fitted/flag/null as in the deposit).",
"deps": [
"P1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm the dependency chain of P1 is complete and acyclic.",
"Confirm each ancestor's proof status matches the deposit's honesty tag.",
"Confirm no verified node in the chain rests on a withdrawn or retracted node."
]
}
},
{
"id": "P1_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation of P1",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check that all validation layers are present for the isolated claim P1.",
"deps": [
"P1_SELF",
"P1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta layers all present.",
"Verify structural coherence of the isolated chain.",
"Conclude meta-validation for P1."
]
}
}
]
}
claim_QK1_quark_count JSON
claim_QK1_quark_count JSON
{
"title": "TDF — CLAIM: Quark Count Forced by the Geometry",
"version": "1.0-claim-2026-08",
"description": "Single-claim ADEC graph: the claim QK1 with its full staged dependency chain, plus self- and meta-validation. Self-contained; validate this file alone to test just this claim.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "F1",
"name": "Cavity Geometry Foundation",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "Every particle is a manifestation of cavity geometry — a standing-wave resonance pattern in a single cavity — not a composite of constituent objects such as quarks or nucleons.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "F2",
"name": "Universal Primes Foundation",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "A fixed set of Universal Primes UP = {2,3,5,7,11,13} (sum 41, itself prime) governs the periodic structure of cavity resonance patterns. The set closes at 13 because adding 17 breaks the prime-sum property.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "A1",
"name": "No Constituent Objects Axiom",
"kind": "axiom",
"description": "Quarks and nucleons are never treated as real, separate objects; what QFT calls quarks are read as antinodes of a single cavity pattern. Counts agree with the Standard Model to four decimals; only the interpretation differs.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "QK1",
"name": "Quark Count Forced by the Geometry",
"kind": "theorem",
"description": "VERIFIED (derived). The three-per-ball count is not matched, it is forced: solving the wave equation in a bounded sphere gives antinode counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 at successive levels — odd at every level, no even count anywhere. The first directional level carries exactly three, and those three summed rebuild the sphere to 3e-16; two cannot. A blind SVD rank measurement (400 probes/level, no assumed answer) returns rank 1,3,5,7,9 against an unstructured control. Four is not disfavoured — it is unavailable. Falsifier: an even count at any level kills the cavity reading.",
"deps": [
"F1",
"F2",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "The bounded-sphere wave equation forces antinode counts 1,3,5,7,9; the first directional level has exactly three, rebuilding the sphere to 3e-16.",
"steps": [
"Solve the wave equation in a bounded sphere (Unsold 1927).",
"Mode multiplicities per level are 2L+1 = 1,3,5,7,9 — odd only.",
"The three modes of the first directional level sum to rebuild the sphere, constant to 3e-16; two cannot.",
"A blind SVD rank measurement confirms rank 1,3,5,7,9 against an unstructured control.",
"Therefore the count of three is forced by the geometry, not fitted; an even count anywhere would falsify it."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "QK1_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation of QK1",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal coherence check for the claim QK1: its dependency chain is complete, acyclic, and every proof-bearing ancestor is honestly labelled (derived/fitted/flag/null as in the deposit).",
"deps": [
"QK1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm the dependency chain of QK1 is complete and acyclic.",
"Confirm each ancestor's proof status matches the deposit's honesty tag.",
"Confirm no verified node in the chain rests on a withdrawn or retracted node."
]
}
},
{
"id": "QK1_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation of QK1",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check that all validation layers are present for the isolated claim QK1.",
"deps": [
"QK1_SELF",
"QK1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta layers all present.",
"Verify structural coherence of the isolated chain.",
"Conclude meta-validation for QK1."
]
}
}
]
}
claim_RCPT1_focal_lens JSON
claim_RCPT1_focal_lens JSON
{
"title": "TDF — CLAIM: Focal Points / Black-Hole Lens (hypothesis)",
"version": "1.0-claim-2026-08",
"description": "Single-claim ADEC graph: the claim RCPT1 with its full staged dependency chain, plus self- and meta-validation. Self-contained; validate this file alone to test just this claim.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "RF1",
"name": "Prime–Zero Duality Strand",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "The strand's basis: the primes and the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function are dual, tied by the explicit formula. This is established mathematics; TDF works within it, it does not own it.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "RC1",
"name": "Odlyzko Two-Million-Zero Dataset",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "The empirical input: imaginary parts of the first ~2,000,000 non-trivial zeros (Odlyzko tables) used for out-of-sample tests (runner: data/evidence/riemann_2M_run.py).",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "RD1",
"name": "S(t) Prime Reconstruction",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "The truncated explicit formula: the fluctuating term S(t) reconstructed from the first 100 primes. A standard analytic-number-theory construction, used here on the 2M-zero run.",
"deps": [
"RF1",
"RC1"
]
},
{
"id": "RP1",
"name": "Carry — primes reconstruct the zeros",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "ESTABLISHED (verified). 100 primes reconstruct ~99% of S(t) over 2,000,000 zeros; zero placement to 19.6% of the local gap (median; 23.4% mean), out of sample; spacing statistics are GUE; nulls flat; reproducible and held out. TAG: largely a reproduction of known mathematics, stated rather than disguised.",
"deps": [
"RD1",
"RC1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "First 100 primes reconstruct ~99% of S(t) over 2M zeros, placing zeros to 19.6% median local gap out of sample.",
"steps": [
"Truncate the explicit formula to the first 100 primes.",
"Reconstruct S(t) and compare against the held-out 2M-zero run.",
"Recover ~99% of S(t); median placement 19.6% of local gap (23.4% mean); GUE spacing; flat nulls.",
"Result is reproducible and out-of-sample — and is a reproduction of known analytic number theory."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "RID1",
"name": "Montgomery–Odlyzko GUE Fingerprint",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "KNOWN RESULT (verified, not a framework claim). The zeros' pair-correlation matches random-matrix (GUE) statistics — the same mathematics used for heavy-atom energy levels. A shared statistical fingerprint only: shared spacing distributions, NOT a one-to-one map between atoms and zeros.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Zero spacing statistics coincide with GUE eigenvalue statistics (Montgomery–Odlyzko).",
"steps": [
"Compute the pair-correlation of the zeros.",
"Compare against the GUE random-matrix prediction.",
"They match at the level of spacing statistics — a fingerprint, not a bijection."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "RCPT1",
"name": "Focal Points / the Black-Hole Lens (hypothesis)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "HYPOTHESIS (flagged; no verified proof, and the Riemann paper explicitly disclaims that the zeros have a physical origin). Read speculatively, the prime 'carry' focuses the zeros like a lens, and the zeros' structure has focal points — which would be the logical reading IF the structure came from a black-hole fold ('The Fold and the Lens': a black hole unfolds matter down a lens). Consistent with the carry sharpening as more primes are added (100 primes reconstruct ~99% of S(t); more primes tighten the focus). Recorded as an organizing idea only — it is not evidence and adds no detection skill (see RN1, RN5).",
"deps": [
"RP1",
"RID1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "proposed",
"steps": [
"Reading/derivation declared as a proposal.",
"No verified proof: recorded as a proposed hypothesis (v0.7.7 'proposed')."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RCPT1_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation of RCPT1",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal coherence check for the claim RCPT1: its dependency chain is complete, acyclic, and every proof-bearing ancestor is honestly labelled (derived/fitted/flag/null as in the deposit).",
"deps": [
"RCPT1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm the dependency chain of RCPT1 is complete and acyclic.",
"Confirm each ancestor's proof status matches the deposit's honesty tag.",
"Confirm no verified node in the chain rests on a withdrawn or retracted node."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RCPT1_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation of RCPT1",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check that all validation layers are present for the isolated claim RCPT1.",
"deps": [
"RCPT1_SELF",
"RCPT1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta layers all present.",
"Verify structural coherence of the isolated chain.",
"Conclude meta-validation for RCPT1."
]
}
}
]
}
claim_RFRONT_riemann_forbid JSON
claim_RFRONT_riemann_forbid JSON
{
"title": "TDF — CLAIM: The Forbid Step = Riemann Hypothesis (open)",
"version": "1.0-claim-2026-08",
"description": "Single-claim ADEC graph: the claim RFRONT with its full staged dependency chain, plus self- and meta-validation. Self-contained; validate this file alone to test just this claim.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "RF1",
"name": "Prime–Zero Duality Strand",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "The strand's basis: the primes and the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function are dual, tied by the explicit formula. This is established mathematics; TDF works within it, it does not own it.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "RC1",
"name": "Odlyzko Two-Million-Zero Dataset",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "The empirical input: imaginary parts of the first ~2,000,000 non-trivial zeros (Odlyzko tables) used for out-of-sample tests (runner: data/evidence/riemann_2M_run.py).",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "RD1",
"name": "S(t) Prime Reconstruction",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "The truncated explicit formula: the fluctuating term S(t) reconstructed from the first 100 primes. A standard analytic-number-theory construction, used here on the 2M-zero run.",
"deps": [
"RF1",
"RC1"
]
},
{
"id": "RP1",
"name": "Carry — primes reconstruct the zeros",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "ESTABLISHED (verified). 100 primes reconstruct ~99% of S(t) over 2,000,000 zeros; zero placement to 19.6% of the local gap (median; 23.4% mean), out of sample; spacing statistics are GUE; nulls flat; reproducible and held out. TAG: largely a reproduction of known mathematics, stated rather than disguised.",
"deps": [
"RD1",
"RC1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "First 100 primes reconstruct ~99% of S(t) over 2M zeros, placing zeros to 19.6% median local gap out of sample.",
"steps": [
"Truncate the explicit formula to the first 100 primes.",
"Reconstruct S(t) and compare against the held-out 2M-zero run.",
"Recover ~99% of S(t); median placement 19.6% of local gap (23.4% mean); GUE spacing; flat nulls.",
"Result is reproducible and out-of-sample — and is a reproduction of known analytic number theory."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "RID1",
"name": "Montgomery–Odlyzko GUE Fingerprint",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "KNOWN RESULT (verified, not a framework claim). The zeros' pair-correlation matches random-matrix (GUE) statistics — the same mathematics used for heavy-atom energy levels. A shared statistical fingerprint only: shared spacing distributions, NOT a one-to-one map between atoms and zeros.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Zero spacing statistics coincide with GUE eigenvalue statistics (Montgomery–Odlyzko).",
"steps": [
"Compute the pair-correlation of the zeros.",
"Compare against the GUE random-matrix prediction.",
"They match at the level of spacing statistics — a fingerprint, not a bijection."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "RID2",
"name": "No End of the Zeros (Hardy 1914)",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "THEOREM, not ours (verified). The non-trivial zeros are infinite; Hardy (1914) proved infinitely many lie on the critical line, and the counting function grows without bound. Any reading proposing a last zero, a finite total, or a terminal count is closed against and withdrawn.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Infinitely many non-trivial zeros lie on the critical line (Hardy 1914); there is no terminal zero.",
"steps": [
"The zero-counting function N(T) diverges as T grows.",
"Hardy (1914): infinitely many zeros on Re(s)=1/2.",
"Therefore no finite 'end of the zeros' exists — any such TDF reading is withdrawn."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "RFRONT",
"name": "Forbid — the Riemann Hypothesis (OPEN, the boundary)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "THE 'is it a proof yet?' NODE. Carry is established (RP1); Forbid is open. The construction shows the primes CARRY the zeros; it does NOT show the primes FORBID an off-line zero. That single word — forbid — is the entire remaining distance to the Riemann Hypothesis. What closing it needs is a STRUCTURAL argument that an off-line zero contradicts the construction; not more zeros checked (verification to 10^13 by Gourdon 2004, to 1.5e9 by van de Lune–te Riele–Winter 1986 is evidence, never a theorem). No verified proof: this is open by design.",
"deps": [
"RP1",
"RID1",
"RID2"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "unverified",
"steps": [
"Formally represented as an open item / named frontier.",
"Not yet verified (v0.7.7 'unverified') — this is the boundary, by design."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RFRONT_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation of RFRONT",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal coherence check for the claim RFRONT: its dependency chain is complete, acyclic, and every proof-bearing ancestor is honestly labelled (derived/fitted/flag/null as in the deposit).",
"deps": [
"RFRONT"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm the dependency chain of RFRONT is complete and acyclic.",
"Confirm each ancestor's proof status matches the deposit's honesty tag.",
"Confirm no verified node in the chain rests on a withdrawn or retracted node."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RFRONT_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation of RFRONT",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check that all validation layers are present for the isolated claim RFRONT.",
"deps": [
"RFRONT_SELF",
"RFRONT"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta layers all present.",
"Verify structural coherence of the isolated chain.",
"Conclude meta-validation for RFRONT."
]
}
}
]
}
claim_RID1_riemann_gue JSON
claim_RID1_riemann_gue JSON
{
"title": "TDF — CLAIM: Montgomery-Odlyzko GUE Fingerprint",
"version": "1.0-claim-2026-08",
"description": "Single-claim ADEC graph: the claim RID1 with its full staged dependency chain, plus self- and meta-validation. Self-contained; validate this file alone to test just this claim.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "RF1",
"name": "Prime–Zero Duality Strand",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "The strand's basis: the primes and the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function are dual, tied by the explicit formula. This is established mathematics; TDF works within it, it does not own it.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "RID1",
"name": "Montgomery–Odlyzko GUE Fingerprint",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "KNOWN RESULT (verified, not a framework claim). The zeros' pair-correlation matches random-matrix (GUE) statistics — the same mathematics used for heavy-atom energy levels. A shared statistical fingerprint only: shared spacing distributions, NOT a one-to-one map between atoms and zeros.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Zero spacing statistics coincide with GUE eigenvalue statistics (Montgomery–Odlyzko).",
"steps": [
"Compute the pair-correlation of the zeros.",
"Compare against the GUE random-matrix prediction.",
"They match at the level of spacing statistics — a fingerprint, not a bijection."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "RID1_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation of RID1",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal coherence check for the claim RID1: its dependency chain is complete, acyclic, and every proof-bearing ancestor is honestly labelled (derived/fitted/flag/null as in the deposit).",
"deps": [
"RID1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm the dependency chain of RID1 is complete and acyclic.",
"Confirm each ancestor's proof status matches the deposit's honesty tag.",
"Confirm no verified node in the chain rests on a withdrawn or retracted node."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RID1_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation of RID1",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check that all validation layers are present for the isolated claim RID1.",
"deps": [
"RID1_SELF",
"RID1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta layers all present.",
"Verify structural coherence of the isolated chain.",
"Conclude meta-validation for RID1."
]
}
}
]
}
claim_RN1_riemann_detection_null JSON
claim_RN1_riemann_detection_null JSON
{
"title": "TDF — CLAIM: Prime Detection Method (withdrawn null)",
"version": "1.0-claim-2026-08",
"description": "Single-claim ADEC graph: the claim RN1 with its full staged dependency chain, plus self- and meta-validation. Self-contained; validate this file alone to test just this claim.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "RF1",
"name": "Prime–Zero Duality Strand",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "The strand's basis: the primes and the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function are dual, tied by the explicit formula. This is established mathematics; TDF works within it, it does not own it.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "RD2",
"name": "Universal-Prime Crossing Construction",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "The TDF-specific construction: crossings of the six Universal-Prime waves on the gamma-helix (with the 11-degree twist), proposed as a structure to compare against the zero positions.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
]
},
{
"id": "RN1",
"name": "Null — the prime 'detection' method (withdrawn)",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "The standing-wave prime-detection method scored ~96% held-out (100% in-sample) — WITHDRAWN as a positive result, because scrambled non-prime frequencies detect just as well. Recorded, not hidden.",
"deps": [
"RD2"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Run the standing-wave detector on true prime frequencies: ~96% held-out, 100% in-sample.",
"Run the same detector on scrambled NON-prime frequencies: detects as well.",
"A plain evenly-spaced lattice also reaches 100%, and the ±1.0 'saturation' (~100%) is wider than a mean gap.",
"Conclusion: the near-total / 'every zero is 100%' coverage is a density-vs-tolerance ARTIFACT, not a prime prediction. Positive result withdrawn (TDF_Riemann_Paper 8.1)."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RN1_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation of RN1",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal coherence check for the claim RN1: its dependency chain is complete, acyclic, and every proof-bearing ancestor is honestly labelled (derived/fitted/flag/null as in the deposit).",
"deps": [
"RN1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm the dependency chain of RN1 is complete and acyclic.",
"Confirm each ancestor's proof status matches the deposit's honesty tag.",
"Confirm no verified node in the chain rests on a withdrawn or retracted node."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RN1_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation of RN1",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check that all validation layers are present for the isolated claim RN1.",
"deps": [
"RN1_SELF",
"RN1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta layers all present.",
"Verify structural coherence of the isolated chain.",
"Conclude meta-validation for RN1."
]
}
}
]
}
claim_RP1_riemann_carry JSON
claim_RP1_riemann_carry JSON
{
"title": "TDF — CLAIM: Primes Carry the Zeros",
"version": "1.0-claim-2026-08",
"description": "Single-claim ADEC graph: the claim RP1 with its full staged dependency chain, plus self- and meta-validation. Self-contained; validate this file alone to test just this claim.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "RF1",
"name": "Prime–Zero Duality Strand",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "The strand's basis: the primes and the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function are dual, tied by the explicit formula. This is established mathematics; TDF works within it, it does not own it.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "RC1",
"name": "Odlyzko Two-Million-Zero Dataset",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "The empirical input: imaginary parts of the first ~2,000,000 non-trivial zeros (Odlyzko tables) used for out-of-sample tests (runner: data/evidence/riemann_2M_run.py).",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "RD1",
"name": "S(t) Prime Reconstruction",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "The truncated explicit formula: the fluctuating term S(t) reconstructed from the first 100 primes. A standard analytic-number-theory construction, used here on the 2M-zero run.",
"deps": [
"RF1",
"RC1"
]
},
{
"id": "RP1",
"name": "Carry — primes reconstruct the zeros",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "ESTABLISHED (verified). 100 primes reconstruct ~99% of S(t) over 2,000,000 zeros; zero placement to 19.6% of the local gap (median; 23.4% mean), out of sample; spacing statistics are GUE; nulls flat; reproducible and held out. TAG: largely a reproduction of known mathematics, stated rather than disguised.",
"deps": [
"RD1",
"RC1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "First 100 primes reconstruct ~99% of S(t) over 2M zeros, placing zeros to 19.6% median local gap out of sample.",
"steps": [
"Truncate the explicit formula to the first 100 primes.",
"Reconstruct S(t) and compare against the held-out 2M-zero run.",
"Recover ~99% of S(t); median placement 19.6% of local gap (23.4% mean); GUE spacing; flat nulls.",
"Result is reproducible and out-of-sample — and is a reproduction of known analytic number theory."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "RP1_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation of RP1",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal coherence check for the claim RP1: its dependency chain is complete, acyclic, and every proof-bearing ancestor is honestly labelled (derived/fitted/flag/null as in the deposit).",
"deps": [
"RP1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm the dependency chain of RP1 is complete and acyclic.",
"Confirm each ancestor's proof status matches the deposit's honesty tag.",
"Confirm no verified node in the chain rests on a withdrawn or retracted node."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RP1_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation of RP1",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check that all validation layers are present for the isolated claim RP1.",
"deps": [
"RP1_SELF",
"RP1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta layers all present.",
"Verify structural coherence of the isolated chain.",
"Conclude meta-validation for RP1."
]
}
}
]
}
claim_RR1_riemann_route_retracted JSON
claim_RR1_riemann_route_retracted JSON
{
"title": "TDF — CLAIM: sqrt2 Route-Consistency (retracted)",
"version": "1.0-claim-2026-08",
"description": "Single-claim ADEC graph: the claim RR1 with its full staged dependency chain, plus self- and meta-validation. Self-contained; validate this file alone to test just this claim.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "RF1",
"name": "Prime–Zero Duality Strand",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "The strand's basis: the primes and the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function are dual, tied by the explicit formula. This is established mathematics; TDF works within it, it does not own it.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "RD2",
"name": "Universal-Prime Crossing Construction",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "The TDF-specific construction: crossings of the six Universal-Prime waves on the gamma-helix (with the 11-degree twist), proposed as a structure to compare against the zero positions.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
]
},
{
"id": "RR1",
"name": "Retracted — the sqrt2 route-consistency result",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "RETRACTED. The '37-step sqrt2 route-consistency' was presented as a forced result, but route 2 defines its fold count as the base-sqrt2 logarithm of route 1, so the agreement is the algebraic identity x^(log_x y) = y — true for ANY input, not a test. Retracted across the deposit (Paper 102 7.5, RETRACTION_AND_STATUS, route_consistency.py). Never cite as evidence.",
"deps": [
"RD2"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[RETRACTED, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Route 2's fold count is defined as log_sqrt2 of route 1's.",
"So route2 = sqrt2^(log_sqrt2 route1) = route1 identically.",
"The agreement is an identity, not a measurement — retracted."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RR1_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation of RR1",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal coherence check for the claim RR1: its dependency chain is complete, acyclic, and every proof-bearing ancestor is honestly labelled (derived/fitted/flag/null as in the deposit).",
"deps": [
"RR1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm the dependency chain of RR1 is complete and acyclic.",
"Confirm each ancestor's proof status matches the deposit's honesty tag.",
"Confirm no verified node in the chain rests on a withdrawn or retracted node."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RR1_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation of RR1",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check that all validation layers are present for the isolated claim RR1.",
"deps": [
"RR1_SELF",
"RR1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta layers all present.",
"Verify structural coherence of the isolated chain.",
"Conclude meta-validation for RR1."
]
}
}
]
}
claim_SIL1_silicon_demoted JSON
claim_SIL1_silicon_demoted JSON
{
"title": "TDF — CLAIM: Silicon Temperature Split (demoted, not an anomaly)",
"version": "1.0-claim-2026-08",
"description": "Single-claim ADEC graph: the claim SIL1 with its full staged dependency chain, plus self- and meta-validation. Self-contained; validate this file alone to test just this claim.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "F1",
"name": "Cavity Geometry Foundation",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "Every particle is a manifestation of cavity geometry — a standing-wave resonance pattern in a single cavity — not a composite of constituent objects such as quarks or nucleons.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "D1",
"name": "Snugness S(A,Z)",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Snugness S(A,Z) is the geometric fit factor for how tightly a cavity pattern packs at mass number A and charge Z; empirically ~0.96 to 1.00 across the tested nuclei.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "A1",
"name": "No Constituent Objects Axiom",
"kind": "axiom",
"description": "Quarks and nucleons are never treated as real, separate objects; what QFT calls quarks are read as antinodes of a single cavity pattern. Counts agree with the Standard Model to four decimals; only the interpretation differs.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "MS1",
"name": "Mass Stage 1 — the bare ball count (0.84%)",
"kind": "lemma",
"description": "STAGE 1 of the mass proof. Counting the packed balls alone, with nothing shaped, reproduces measured atomic mass to a mean error of 0.84%. Verified — this is where the ladder starts.",
"deps": [
"D1",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Bare packed-ball count reproduces atomic mass to 0.84% mean error across the measured set.",
"steps": [
"Assign each nucleus its ball count from the cavity geometry.",
"Compare the bare count against measured atomic mass.",
"Mean error at this stage: 0.84%."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "C2",
"name": "Packing Constant PR",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "PR = alpha^-1 * sqrt(2) = 193.7981684, alpha^-1 = 137.035999084 (CODATA). PR^3 = 7,278,619.3, the nested boson 'ball count' for a unit cavity.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "MS2",
"name": "Mass Stage 2 — shaped per atom (0.026%)",
"kind": "lemma",
"description": "STAGE 2. Add the geometric shaping: skin (surface, derived), the alpha twist-repulsion (Coulomb, derived from alpha = 0.72 MeV), plus exactly TWO fitted terms (peak-mix and pairing, each with a stated null). The deformation term was REMOVED (PROBLEMS P3) for worsening the fit. Mean error drops to 0.026%. Verified, with the two fitted terms named openly.",
"deps": [
"MS1",
"C2"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Shaping the count with two derived terms and two fitted terms reduces mean error to 0.026%.",
"steps": [
"Add skin (surface) term — derived.",
"Add alpha twist-repulsion (3/5)*alpha*hbar*c/r0 = 0.7200 MeV — derived from alpha, no nuclear-mass tuning.",
"Add peak-mix (asymmetry) and even/odd (pairing) — TWO fitted terms, each carrying a stated null.",
"Remove the deformation term (worsens the fit under the alpha-derived coefficient; best value statistically zero).",
"Mean error at this stage: 0.026%."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "D4",
"name": "SPEED Route Boson Count",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Nested boson count N(A,Z) = (PR^3 / A) * S(A,Z). ~7.28 million shells for a proton (A=1, S=1), decaying as 1/A.",
"deps": [
"C2",
"D1"
]
},
{
"id": "P1",
"name": "Boson Count Consistency",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "The SPEED-route boson counts are internally consistent with each nucleus's snugness.",
"deps": [
"D4",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "N(A,Z) = (PR^3 / A) * S(A,Z) reproduces the deposit's boson counts.",
"steps": [
"PR = alpha^-1 * sqrt(2) = 193.7981684; PR^3 = 7,278,619.3.",
"Apply N = (PR^3 / A) * S per nucleus.",
"Deposit counts: Proton 7,278,619; Carbon-12 572,219; Silicon-28 249,891; Iron-56 122,618; Gold-197 (S=0.9643) 35,628.",
"Each computed count matches the deposit value."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "MS3",
"name": "Mass Stage 3 — electrons folded in (0.0062%, all 2,938 nuclides)",
"kind": "theorem",
"description": "STAGE 3 and the CENTRAL PROVEN RESULT. Folding in the electron rest-mass term (Z*0.511 MeV) for a like-for-like atomic comparison gives 0.0062% mean error across all 2,938 measured nuclides (~0.0012% for medium and heavy nuclei). This is the corpus's tested mass result — this is where the chain IS a proof.",
"deps": [
"MS2",
"P1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "The staged cavity ledger, electron term folded in, reproduces all 2,938 measured nuclides to 0.0062% mean error.",
"steps": [
"Take the Stage-2 shaped ledger.",
"Fold in the electron rest mass Z*0.511 MeV.",
"Aggregate over all 2,938 measured nuclides: mean error 0.0062%.",
"Medium and heavy nuclei: ~0.0012% (iron 0.003%, gold 0.003%)."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "C1",
"name": "Golden Ratio Constant",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "phi = (1+sqrt5)/2 = 1.6180339887, the unique attracting fixed point of J(x)=1+1/x. Sets the angular scale (phi-pi space) for the resonance patterns.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "DIAL",
"name": "The Three Dials — mass as one number",
"kind": "theorem",
"description": "The mass, the ring-rate and the temperature are one dial read three ways: x = m/m_P = f_C/f_P = T/T_P, agreeing to ~1 part in 1e9 (Speed / Temperature / Planck-floor — 'Particle Mass as One Number on Three Dials'). An identity-level result: a rest mass and its Compton frequency are the same fact.",
"deps": [
"MS3",
"C1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "x = m/m_P = f_C/f_P = T/T_P holds to ~1 part in 1e9.",
"steps": [
"f_C = m c^2 / h is the Compton frequency (established physics).",
"Express each of mass, frequency and temperature as the dimensionless ratio to its Planck value.",
"The three ratios coincide to ~1e-9 — one dial, three faces."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "SIL1",
"name": "Silicon Temperature Split — demoted, NOT an anomaly",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "HANDLED PER THE CORPUS RULE, not as an anomaly. Silicon's temperature route gives 303.6561 K where the convention is 300 K — 'one silicon value wearing two hats'. PROBLEMS P1/P2 demote this to a unit convention: no experiment distinguishes 303.6561 K from 300 K, and there is an EXPLICIT rule that no sentence may cite the 71-atom trend as support for a temperature, resonance, or silicon-anomaly reading. Recorded here as an OPEN item (what is needed is a first-principles cavity definition that computes S for arbitrary nuclei), with NO verified proof and NO anomaly claim.",
"deps": [
"DIAL"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "unverified",
"steps": [
"Formally represented as an open item / named frontier.",
"Not yet verified (v0.7.7 'unverified') — this is the boundary, by design."
]
}
},
{
"id": "SIL1_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation of SIL1",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal coherence check for the claim SIL1: its dependency chain is complete, acyclic, and every proof-bearing ancestor is honestly labelled (derived/fitted/flag/null as in the deposit).",
"deps": [
"SIL1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm the dependency chain of SIL1 is complete and acyclic.",
"Confirm each ancestor's proof status matches the deposit's honesty tag.",
"Confirm no verified node in the chain rests on a withdrawn or retracted node."
]
}
},
{
"id": "SIL1_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation of SIL1",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check that all validation layers are present for the isolated claim SIL1.",
"deps": [
"SIL1_SELF",
"SIL1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta layers all present.",
"Verify structural coherence of the isolated chain.",
"Conclude meta-validation for SIL1."
]
}
}
]
}
TDF_core_ADEC JSON
TDF_core_ADEC JSON
{
"title": "TDF — Temporal Dynamics Framework (Core: Cavity Geometry & Nuclear Mass, staged)",
"version": "1.1-staged-2026-08 (v0.7.7-aligned)",
"description": "The tested core of TDF, with the mass result built as STAGED levels so the validator shows exactly where it is still a proof and where it stops. The ledger climbs in stages (0.84% -> 0.026% -> 0.0062%), each verified; then the three-dials identity; then the NEST LEVEL, which is deliberately left unverified because getting the 99% from geometry alone is a null-fail. That NEST node is the 'is it a proof yet?' boundary. Numbers reconciled against the deposit TDF_COMPLETE_2026-08-02; the untested Psi_UPR / sigma^2_theta formulas are recorded as flagged definitions carrying no verified proof.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "F1",
"name": "Cavity Geometry Foundation",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "Every particle is a manifestation of cavity geometry — a standing-wave resonance pattern in a single cavity — not a composite of constituent objects such as quarks or nucleons.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "F2",
"name": "Universal Primes Foundation",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "A fixed set of Universal Primes UP = {2,3,5,7,11,13} (sum 41, itself prime) governs the periodic structure of cavity resonance patterns. The set closes at 13 because adding 17 breaks the prime-sum property.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "C1",
"name": "Golden Ratio Constant",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "phi = (1+sqrt5)/2 = 1.6180339887, the unique attracting fixed point of J(x)=1+1/x. Sets the angular scale (phi-pi space) for the resonance patterns.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "C2",
"name": "Packing Constant PR",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "PR = alpha^-1 * sqrt(2) = 193.7981684, alpha^-1 = 137.035999084 (CODATA). PR^3 = 7,278,619.3, the nested boson 'ball count' for a unit cavity.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "D1",
"name": "Snugness S(A,Z)",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Snugness S(A,Z) is the geometric fit factor for how tightly a cavity pattern packs at mass number A and charge Z; empirically ~0.96 to 1.00 across the tested nuclei.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "D2",
"name": "Formula 1 — Psi_UPR (referenced, untested)",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Psi_UPR(A,Z) = S(A,Z) * Product_{p in UP} cos(2*pi*A/(p*phi)). FLAG: the deposit quotes this for reference only — no test and no null are presented, it carries no evidential weight. Recorded as a definition, NOT the basis of any verified result.",
"deps": [
"F2",
"C1",
"D1"
]
},
{
"id": "D3",
"name": "Formula 2 — Angular Variance sigma^2_theta (referenced, untested)",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "sigma^2_theta(A,Z) = (1/6) Sum_{p in UP} [ arctan( sin(2*pi*A/(p*phi)) / cos(2*pi*A/(p*phi)) ) - theta_bar ]^2. FLAG: same status as D2 — referenced, untested in the deposit, no null, no evidential weight.",
"deps": [
"F2",
"C1",
"D2"
]
},
{
"id": "D4",
"name": "SPEED Route Boson Count",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Nested boson count N(A,Z) = (PR^3 / A) * S(A,Z). ~7.28 million shells for a proton (A=1, S=1), decaying as 1/A.",
"deps": [
"C2",
"D1"
]
},
{
"id": "A1",
"name": "No Constituent Objects Axiom",
"kind": "axiom",
"description": "Quarks and nucleons are never treated as real, separate objects; what QFT calls quarks are read as antinodes of a single cavity pattern. Counts agree with the Standard Model to four decimals; only the interpretation differs.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "QK1",
"name": "Quark Count Forced by the Geometry",
"kind": "theorem",
"description": "VERIFIED (derived). The three-per-ball count is not matched, it is forced: solving the wave equation in a bounded sphere gives antinode counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 at successive levels — odd at every level, no even count anywhere. The first directional level carries exactly three, and those three summed rebuild the sphere to 3e-16; two cannot. A blind SVD rank measurement (400 probes/level, no assumed answer) returns rank 1,3,5,7,9 against an unstructured control. Four is not disfavoured — it is unavailable. Falsifier: an even count at any level kills the cavity reading.",
"deps": [
"F1",
"F2",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "The bounded-sphere wave equation forces antinode counts 1,3,5,7,9; the first directional level has exactly three, rebuilding the sphere to 3e-16.",
"steps": [
"Solve the wave equation in a bounded sphere (Unsold 1927).",
"Mode multiplicities per level are 2L+1 = 1,3,5,7,9 — odd only.",
"The three modes of the first directional level sum to rebuild the sphere, constant to 3e-16; two cannot.",
"A blind SVD rank measurement confirms rank 1,3,5,7,9 against an unstructured control.",
"Therefore the count of three is forced by the geometry, not fitted; an even count anywhere would falsify it."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "PO1",
"name": "Resonance-Fit Postulate",
"kind": "postulate",
"description": "TDF proposes that the snugness-weighted resonance fit (Psi_UPR) and its angular variance (sigma^2_theta) together characterize cavity stability. Stated as a postulate: proposed, and its two formulas (D2, D3) are as yet untested in the deposit.",
"deps": [
"D2",
"D3"
]
},
{
"id": "P1",
"name": "Boson Count Consistency",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "The SPEED-route boson counts are internally consistent with each nucleus's snugness.",
"deps": [
"D4",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "N(A,Z) = (PR^3 / A) * S(A,Z) reproduces the deposit's boson counts.",
"steps": [
"PR = alpha^-1 * sqrt(2) = 193.7981684; PR^3 = 7,278,619.3.",
"Apply N = (PR^3 / A) * S per nucleus.",
"Deposit counts: Proton 7,278,619; Carbon-12 572,219; Silicon-28 249,891; Iron-56 122,618; Gold-197 (S=0.9643) 35,628.",
"Each computed count matches the deposit value."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "MS1",
"name": "Mass Stage 1 — the bare ball count (0.84%)",
"kind": "lemma",
"description": "STAGE 1 of the mass proof. Counting the packed balls alone, with nothing shaped, reproduces measured atomic mass to a mean error of 0.84%. Verified — this is where the ladder starts.",
"deps": [
"D1",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Bare packed-ball count reproduces atomic mass to 0.84% mean error across the measured set.",
"steps": [
"Assign each nucleus its ball count from the cavity geometry.",
"Compare the bare count against measured atomic mass.",
"Mean error at this stage: 0.84%."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "MS2",
"name": "Mass Stage 2 — shaped per atom (0.026%)",
"kind": "lemma",
"description": "STAGE 2. Add the geometric shaping: skin (surface, derived), the alpha twist-repulsion (Coulomb, derived from alpha = 0.72 MeV), plus exactly TWO fitted terms (peak-mix and pairing, each with a stated null). The deformation term was REMOVED (PROBLEMS P3) for worsening the fit. Mean error drops to 0.026%. Verified, with the two fitted terms named openly.",
"deps": [
"MS1",
"C2"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Shaping the count with two derived terms and two fitted terms reduces mean error to 0.026%.",
"steps": [
"Add skin (surface) term — derived.",
"Add alpha twist-repulsion (3/5)*alpha*hbar*c/r0 = 0.7200 MeV — derived from alpha, no nuclear-mass tuning.",
"Add peak-mix (asymmetry) and even/odd (pairing) — TWO fitted terms, each carrying a stated null.",
"Remove the deformation term (worsens the fit under the alpha-derived coefficient; best value statistically zero).",
"Mean error at this stage: 0.026%."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "CO1",
"name": "Alpha-Derived Coefficient Corollary",
"kind": "corollary",
"description": "The genuine zero-fitted structural result is scoped narrowly: the twist-repulsion (Coulomb) coefficient falls out of alpha with nothing tuned to a nuclear mass (precision inherited from the external r0 = 1.2 +/- 0.1 fm). It is NOT a claim that the whole mass prediction is unfitted.",
"deps": [
"MS2"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "(3/5)*alpha*hbar*c/r0 = 0.7200 MeV agrees with the textbook fitted 0.711 MeV to ~1.3% with zero nuclear-mass fitting.",
"steps": [
"Compute the Coulomb coefficient from alpha and r0 alone.",
"No nuclear mass is used to tune it.",
"The ~1.3% agreement is derived, not fitted — scoped to this coefficient only."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "MS3",
"name": "Mass Stage 3 — electrons folded in (0.0062%, all 2,938 nuclides)",
"kind": "theorem",
"description": "STAGE 3 and the CENTRAL PROVEN RESULT. Folding in the electron rest-mass term (Z*0.511 MeV) for a like-for-like atomic comparison gives 0.0062% mean error across all 2,938 measured nuclides (~0.0012% for medium and heavy nuclei). This is the corpus's tested mass result — this is where the chain IS a proof.",
"deps": [
"MS2",
"P1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "The staged cavity ledger, electron term folded in, reproduces all 2,938 measured nuclides to 0.0062% mean error.",
"steps": [
"Take the Stage-2 shaped ledger.",
"Fold in the electron rest mass Z*0.511 MeV.",
"Aggregate over all 2,938 measured nuclides: mean error 0.0062%.",
"Medium and heavy nuclei: ~0.0012% (iron 0.003%, gold 0.003%)."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "DIAL",
"name": "The Three Dials — mass as one number",
"kind": "theorem",
"description": "The mass, the ring-rate and the temperature are one dial read three ways: x = m/m_P = f_C/f_P = T/T_P, agreeing to ~1 part in 1e9 (Speed / Temperature / Planck-floor — 'Particle Mass as One Number on Three Dials'). An identity-level result: a rest mass and its Compton frequency are the same fact.",
"deps": [
"MS3",
"C1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "x = m/m_P = f_C/f_P = T/T_P holds to ~1 part in 1e9.",
"steps": [
"f_C = m c^2 / h is the Compton frequency (established physics).",
"Express each of mass, frequency and temperature as the dimensionless ratio to its Planck value.",
"The three ratios coincide to ~1e-9 — one dial, three faces."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "NEST",
"name": "The Nest Level — NOT yet a proof (the boundary)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "THIS IS THE 'is it a proof yet?' NODE. Everything above is verified; this is where it stops. Getting one ball's 99% (the nest itself — QCD-scale binding) out of the nesting geometry alone has been attempted and did NOT come out: m = m_P * phi^-k gives k = 91.46 (non-integer); m = m_P * 2^-k gives k = 63.5 (not clean). NULL-FAIL, p = 0.50. It carries NO verified proof on purpose — this is the largest open door, stated up front, and the node to re-ask as work continues. It becomes a proof only if a first-principles derivation of the 99% appears that beats lattice QCD on its own ground.",
"deps": [
"MS3",
"DIAL"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "unverified",
"steps": [
"Formally represented as an open item / named frontier.",
"Not yet verified (v0.7.7 'unverified') — this is the boundary, by design."
]
}
},
{
"id": "FR2",
"name": "Open Frontier — light atoms",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "NAMED NULL: the ledger is ~0.0012% on medium and heavy nuclei but ~0.164% on A <= 12 (two orders worse) — a few-body regime with too little bulk to pack. Recorded as a failure, not averaged away.",
"deps": [
"MS3"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "unverified",
"steps": [
"Formally represented as an open item / named frontier.",
"Not yet verified (v0.7.7 'unverified') — this is the boundary, by design."
]
}
},
{
"id": "SIL1",
"name": "Silicon Temperature Split — demoted, NOT an anomaly",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "HANDLED PER THE CORPUS RULE, not as an anomaly. Silicon's temperature route gives 303.6561 K where the convention is 300 K — 'one silicon value wearing two hats'. PROBLEMS P1/P2 demote this to a unit convention: no experiment distinguishes 303.6561 K from 300 K, and there is an EXPLICIT rule that no sentence may cite the 71-atom trend as support for a temperature, resonance, or silicon-anomaly reading. Recorded here as an OPEN item (what is needed is a first-principles cavity definition that computes S for arbitrary nuclei), with NO verified proof and NO anomaly claim.",
"deps": [
"DIAL"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "unverified",
"steps": [
"Formally represented as an open item / named frontier.",
"Not yet verified (v0.7.7 'unverified') — this is the boundary, by design."
]
}
},
{
"id": "CPT1",
"name": "Black Hole / Riemann Cavity Concept",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "HYPOTHESIS (per Jian Chang's guidance; not proven): the same cavity-geometry and Universal-Prime structure may extend to black-hole cavity states and to the Riemann zeta zeros. An organizing idea, no verified proof.",
"deps": [
"D1",
"MS3"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "proposed",
"steps": [
"Reading/derivation declared as a proposal.",
"No verified proof: recorded as a proposed hypothesis (v0.7.7 'proposed')."
]
}
},
{
"id": "E1",
"name": "2,938-Nuclide Validation Run",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "Computational run applying the staged mass ledger across all 2,938 measured nuclides to confirm the 0.0062% result (runner: data/evidence/staircase_2938.py).",
"deps": [
"MS3",
"P1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Load the 2,938 measured atomic masses.",
"Compute the ledger prediction per nuclide, electron term folded in.",
"Aggregate percentage error: mean 0.0062%."
]
}
},
{
"id": "E2",
"name": "Proof Runner — live recomputation (the maths link)",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "The maths behind the verified nodes is executable, not asserted: TDF_Proof_Runner_FULL.html and the runners (data/evidence/staircase_2938.py for the ledger; the SPEED-route boson counts) recompute every number in MS1–MS3 and P1 live. This is the link from each node to its actual computation.",
"deps": [
"MS3",
"P1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Open TDF_Proof_Runner_FULL.html or run staircase_2938.py.",
"Recompute the staged ledger (0.84% -> 0.026% -> 0.0062%) and the boson counts.",
"Confirm outputs match MS1, MS2, MS3, P1 — the proofs are reproducible."
]
}
},
{
"id": "EV1",
"name": "Visual evidence — nested cavity structure & atom pictures",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "Supporting (ILLUSTRATIVE) evidence, not a numerical proof. The nested antinode / boson-shell structure and the atom pictures are rendered directly from the same geometry (the s4 helical particle space, TDF_mass_machine.html, the filter demo, Missing Particles). They depict the cavity-inside-cavity nesting that A1 and D4 describe. Tagged illustrative — it shows the structure the verified nodes quantify; it does not by itself establish the mass result.",
"deps": [
"A1",
"D4"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-ILLUSTRATIVE",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[ILLUSTRATIVE, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Render the s4 helical particle space and the cavity antinode shells from the geometry.",
"Show the nested boson-shell count N=(PR^3/A)*S as concentric structure.",
"These pictures illustrate A1 and D4; the numerical proof remains MS1–MS3."
]
}
},
{
"id": "S1",
"name": "Self-Validation of the Staged Chain",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal check that the mass stages climb consistently (MS1 -> MS2 -> MS3 -> DIAL), that the verified boundary sits exactly at NEST, and that the untested formulas D2/D3 are load-bearing for nothing verified.",
"deps": [
"MS3"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm each stage depends only on the stage below it (no cycles).",
"Confirm MS1, MS2, CO1, MS3, DIAL carry verified proofs and NEST/FR2 carry none.",
"Confirm T-level results never depend on the flagged Psi_UPR (D2) or sigma^2_theta (D3).",
"Confirm the named nulls (NEST, FR2) are recorded, not suppressed."
]
}
},
{
"id": "S2",
"name": "Self-Validation of the Boundary",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Verification that the proof/hypothesis boundary is correctly placed: everything up to DIAL verified, NEST and beyond open.",
"deps": [
"S1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify S1 covered every stage from MS1 to DIAL.",
"Verify NEST is marked unproven and is the first open node in the chain."
]
}
},
{
"id": "M1",
"name": "Meta-Validation of TDF Core",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Meta-theoretic check that structural, semantic and formal layers are present and coherent, and that the staged proof exposes its own verified/unverified boundary honestly.",
"deps": [
"S2",
"MS3"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify all levels present (Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta).",
"Verify dependencies point backward only, single foundation set, no cycles.",
"Verify semantic coherence: TDF vocabulary only; quarks/nucleons not treated as real objects.",
"Verify formal coherence: verified nodes rest on derived/fitted terms honestly labelled; NEST left open; no verified node depends on D2/D3.",
"Conclude meta-validation."
]
}
}
]
}
TDF_riemann_ADEC JSON
TDF_riemann_ADEC JSON
{
"title": "TDF — The Riemann Strand (primes, the zeros, and the named frontier)",
"version": "1.0-staged-2026-08 (v0.7.7-aligned)",
"description": "The Riemann branch of TDF, filled carefully against the deposit's own honesty ledger. STAGED so the proof boundary is explicit: the primes CARRY the zeros (established, and largely a reproduction of known mathematics) — this is verified; proving the primes FORBID an off-line zero (the Riemann Hypothesis) is OPEN — this is the boundary node with no proof. Every tried-and-failed route is recorded as a null-fail node, and the two retractions (the sqrt2 route-consistency result and the Ibbotson Unified Conjecture) are recorded as retracted nodes, never verified. The corpus claims NO forced, non-tuned internal result on the zeros; this JSON encodes that.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "RF1",
"name": "Prime–Zero Duality Strand",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "The strand's basis: the primes and the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function are dual, tied by the explicit formula. This is established mathematics; TDF works within it, it does not own it.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "RC1",
"name": "Odlyzko Two-Million-Zero Dataset",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "The empirical input: imaginary parts of the first ~2,000,000 non-trivial zeros (Odlyzko tables) used for out-of-sample tests (runner: data/evidence/riemann_2M_run.py).",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "RD1",
"name": "S(t) Prime Reconstruction",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "The truncated explicit formula: the fluctuating term S(t) reconstructed from the first 100 primes. A standard analytic-number-theory construction, used here on the 2M-zero run.",
"deps": [
"RF1",
"RC1"
]
},
{
"id": "RD2",
"name": "Universal-Prime Crossing Construction",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "The TDF-specific construction: crossings of the six Universal-Prime waves on the gamma-helix (with the 11-degree twist), proposed as a structure to compare against the zero positions.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
]
},
{
"id": "RP1",
"name": "Carry — primes reconstruct the zeros",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "ESTABLISHED (verified). 100 primes reconstruct ~99% of S(t) over 2,000,000 zeros; zero placement to 19.6% of the local gap (median; 23.4% mean), out of sample; spacing statistics are GUE; nulls flat; reproducible and held out. TAG: largely a reproduction of known mathematics, stated rather than disguised.",
"deps": [
"RD1",
"RC1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "First 100 primes reconstruct ~99% of S(t) over 2M zeros, placing zeros to 19.6% median local gap out of sample.",
"steps": [
"Truncate the explicit formula to the first 100 primes.",
"Reconstruct S(t) and compare against the held-out 2M-zero run.",
"Recover ~99% of S(t); median placement 19.6% of local gap (23.4% mean); GUE spacing; flat nulls.",
"Result is reproducible and out-of-sample — and is a reproduction of known analytic number theory."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "RID1",
"name": "Montgomery–Odlyzko GUE Fingerprint",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "KNOWN RESULT (verified, not a framework claim). The zeros' pair-correlation matches random-matrix (GUE) statistics — the same mathematics used for heavy-atom energy levels. A shared statistical fingerprint only: shared spacing distributions, NOT a one-to-one map between atoms and zeros.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Zero spacing statistics coincide with GUE eigenvalue statistics (Montgomery–Odlyzko).",
"steps": [
"Compute the pair-correlation of the zeros.",
"Compare against the GUE random-matrix prediction.",
"They match at the level of spacing statistics — a fingerprint, not a bijection."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "RID2",
"name": "No End of the Zeros (Hardy 1914)",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "THEOREM, not ours (verified). The non-trivial zeros are infinite; Hardy (1914) proved infinitely many lie on the critical line, and the counting function grows without bound. Any reading proposing a last zero, a finite total, or a terminal count is closed against and withdrawn.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Infinitely many non-trivial zeros lie on the critical line (Hardy 1914); there is no terminal zero.",
"steps": [
"The zero-counting function N(T) diverges as T grows.",
"Hardy (1914): infinitely many zeros on Re(s)=1/2.",
"Therefore no finite 'end of the zeros' exists — any such TDF reading is withdrawn."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "RFRONT",
"name": "Forbid — the Riemann Hypothesis (OPEN, the boundary)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "THE 'is it a proof yet?' NODE. Carry is established (RP1); Forbid is open. The construction shows the primes CARRY the zeros; it does NOT show the primes FORBID an off-line zero. That single word — forbid — is the entire remaining distance to the Riemann Hypothesis. What closing it needs is a STRUCTURAL argument that an off-line zero contradicts the construction; not more zeros checked (verification to 10^13 by Gourdon 2004, to 1.5e9 by van de Lune–te Riele–Winter 1986 is evidence, never a theorem). No verified proof: this is open by design.",
"deps": [
"RP1",
"RID1",
"RID2"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "unverified",
"steps": [
"Formally represented as an open item / named frontier.",
"Not yet verified (v0.7.7 'unverified') — this is the boundary, by design."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RN1",
"name": "Null — the prime 'detection' method (withdrawn)",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "The standing-wave prime-detection method scored ~96% held-out (100% in-sample) — WITHDRAWN as a positive result, because scrambled non-prime frequencies detect just as well. Recorded, not hidden.",
"deps": [
"RD2"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Run the standing-wave detector on true prime frequencies: ~96% held-out, 100% in-sample.",
"Run the same detector on scrambled NON-prime frequencies: detects as well.",
"A plain evenly-spaced lattice also reaches 100%, and the ±1.0 'saturation' (~100%) is wider than a mean gap.",
"Conclusion: the near-total / 'every zero is 100%' coverage is a density-vs-tolerance ARTIFACT, not a prime prediction. Positive result withdrawn (TDF_Riemann_Paper 8.1)."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RN2",
"name": "Null — phi / golden-ratio structure in the zeros",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "Full battery searching for phi and golden-ratio structure directly in the zero spectrum: ALL NEGATIVE.",
"deps": [
"RP1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Test golden-ratio spacings/relations across the zero spectrum.",
"Full battery, all negative (TDF_Riemann_Paper 6)."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RN3",
"name": "Null — prime sines p=17…53 in the zero spectrum",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "Searching for prime-frequency sines (p = 17…53) in the zero spectrum: full battery, all negative.",
"deps": [
"RP1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Inject prime-frequency sine templates p=17…53.",
"Correlate against the zero spectrum.",
"All negative (TDF_Riemann_Paper 6)."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RN4",
"name": "Null — transfer to another L-function",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "Transferring the forecaster to L(s, chi_4): null-fail at N ~ 3,729 zeros, arm-resolved. The construction does not carry to another L-function.",
"deps": [
"RP1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Apply the S(t) forecaster to L(s, chi_4).",
"Measure arm-resolved performance.",
"Null-fail at N ~ 3,729 (TDF_Riemann_Paper 5.5)."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RN5",
"name": "Null — crossings are a spacing-density artifact",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "The Universal-Prime crossings tracking the zeros are beaten IN EVERY BLOCK by a uniform comb (evenly spaced, same count). It is a spacing-density effect, not a prime effect. Related: first-half-predicting-second-half (99% within 1.0) only matches the spacing baseline of 95.3% — the margin is not the framework's.",
"deps": [
"RD2"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Compare Universal-Prime crossings against the zeros.",
"Compare a uniform comb (same count) against the zeros.",
"The comb wins in every block — spacing density, not primes (Paper_53 8)."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RN6",
"name": "Null — deterministic size/flip → specific-zero map",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "Searched for a deterministic map from a mass-nesting size or flip to a specific zero: no such formula exists in this work, and none is claimed anywhere.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Search for any deterministic size-or-flip to specific-zero mapping.",
"None found; none claimed (TDF_Riemann_Paper 6.1)."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RN7",
"name": "Null — flip-count = number of zeros = the end",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "The idea that a flip-count equals the number of zeros and marks an end: closed on logic as well as measurement — a finite count cannot equal an infinite set (Hardy 1914).",
"deps": [
"RID2"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"A flip-count is finite.",
"The zeros are infinite (RID2).",
"A finite count cannot equal an infinite set — closed."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RR1",
"name": "Retracted — the sqrt2 route-consistency result",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "RETRACTED. The '37-step sqrt2 route-consistency' was presented as a forced result, but route 2 defines its fold count as the base-sqrt2 logarithm of route 1, so the agreement is the algebraic identity x^(log_x y) = y — true for ANY input, not a test. Retracted across the deposit (Paper 102 7.5, RETRACTION_AND_STATUS, route_consistency.py). Never cite as evidence.",
"deps": [
"RD2"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[RETRACTED, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Route 2's fold count is defined as log_sqrt2 of route 1's.",
"So route2 = sqrt2^(log_sqrt2 route1) = route1 identically.",
"The agreement is an identity, not a measurement — retracted."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RR2",
"name": "Retracted — the Ibbotson Unified Conjecture",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "RETRACTED and never to be cited: the 'Ibbotson Unified Conjecture' (a single geometric field theory claimed to connect Riemann zeros, nuclear stability and quantum coherence) is withdrawn. It carries no status in this framework.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
]
},
{
"id": "RR3",
"name": "Retracted-grade — ball count vs Riemann-to-Planck",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "NUMEROLOGY, ungraded, NO match: the ball count PR^3 = 7,278,619 does not line up with the number of Riemann zeros up to the Planck scale (~10^20) by any square root, power or multiple — they are ~13 orders of magnitude apart, and any bridge needs an unforced exponent (~PR^8.7). Recorded so it is never mistaken for a result.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Ball count PR^3 = 7,278,619; Riemann zeros to Planck height ~8e19.",
"Ratio ~1.1e13 — thirteen orders apart.",
"Reaching it needs PR^8.7, an unforced exponent. No match."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RCPT1",
"name": "Focal Points / the Black-Hole Lens (hypothesis)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "HYPOTHESIS (flagged; no verified proof, and the Riemann paper explicitly disclaims that the zeros have a physical origin). Read speculatively, the prime 'carry' focuses the zeros like a lens, and the zeros' structure has focal points — which would be the logical reading IF the structure came from a black-hole fold ('The Fold and the Lens': a black hole unfolds matter down a lens). Consistent with the carry sharpening as more primes are added (100 primes reconstruct ~99% of S(t); more primes tighten the focus). Recorded as an organizing idea only — it is not evidence and adds no detection skill (see RN1, RN5).",
"deps": [
"RP1",
"RID1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "proposed",
"steps": [
"Reading/derivation declared as a proposal.",
"No verified proof: recorded as a proposed hypothesis (v0.7.7 'proposed')."
]
}
},
{
"id": "REV1",
"name": "Visual evidence — the zeros as a barcode",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "ILLUSTRATIVE evidence: the first 50 zeros plotted as a barcode (TDF_riemann_barcode.html) show where the zeros sit on the critical line. Tagged illustrative and honest — it depicts the zero positions the carry (RP1) reconstructs; it is NOT a prime prediction, since a uniform comb matches the crossings equally (RN5).",
"deps": [
"RP1",
"RC1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-ILLUSTRATIVE",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[ILLUSTRATIVE, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Plot the first 50 zero heights as a barcode.",
"Note the carry (RP1) reconstructs ~99% of S(t).",
"Note the honest caveat (RN5): a uniform comb matches the crossings — position, not prediction."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RS1",
"name": "Self-Validation — carry verified, forbid open",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal check that the only verified nodes are the carry (RP1) and the two known results (RID1, RID2), that RFRONT (the RH forbid step) is open, and that no verified node depends on any null-fail or retracted node.",
"deps": [
"RP1",
"RFRONT"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm RP1, RID1, RID2 carry verified proofs; RFRONT carries none.",
"Confirm the null nodes (RN1–RN7) and retracted nodes (RR1–RR3) are recorded with non-verified status.",
"Confirm no verified node depends on a null or retracted node.",
"Confirm the corpus's position: no forced, non-tuned internal result on the zeros is claimed."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RS2",
"name": "Self-Validation — boundary placement",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Verification that the proof/open boundary sits exactly at RFRONT: carry established, forbid (RH) open, and the honesty ledger (nulls + retractions) is complete.",
"deps": [
"RS1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify RS1 covered carry, known results and frontier.",
"Verify RFRONT is the first open node and RH is not claimed proven."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RM1",
"name": "Meta-Validation — Riemann strand",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Meta-theoretic check that the strand's layers are present and coherent and that it exposes its own limits: known-math carry, open forbid, recorded nulls and retractions.",
"deps": [
"RS2",
"RFRONT"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify all levels present (Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta).",
"Verify dependencies point backward only; no cycles.",
"Verify semantic coherence: 'carry' vs 'forbid' distinction preserved; RH not claimed.",
"Verify formal coherence: verified nodes are known/derived; nulls and retractions non-verified; RFRONT open.",
"Conclude meta-validation."
]
}
}
]
}
TDF_blackhole_ADEC JSON
TDF_blackhole_ADEC JSON
{
"title": "TDF — The Black-Hole Branch (the interpretive edge)",
"version": "1.0-staged-2026-08 (v0.7.7-aligned)",
"description": "The black-hole branch, filled against the deposit's own verdict: this is the WEAKEST step in the structure and is marked as such. What is legitimately verified is standard physics (the Compton–Schwarzschild crossover; the astrophysical unbinding to ~75% hydrogen). The TDF reading of a black hole (the fold, the lens, the interpretive picture) carries NO computed number and NO null, so it is recorded as flagged hypothesis with no verified proof, and nothing else in the corpus depends on it. STEP 8 status, verbatim in spirit: no written paper, no number — 3D pictures and a reading.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "BF1",
"name": "Settling-Well / Fold Reading",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "The interpretive framing: a black hole read as the cleanest settling well and as a fold in a loop (the turn where matter unfolds), rather than a hole that keeps. This is a reading, not a computation.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "BID1",
"name": "Compton–Schwarzschild Crossover",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "VERIFIED, but STANDARD PHYSICS, not this framework's discovery. The Compton wavelength falls with mass while the Schwarzschild radius r_s = 2GM/c^2 rises with it; they cross at the Planck scale. Real and self-standing.",
"deps": [
"BF1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "lambda_C(m) = h/(mc) decreases and r_s(m) = 2GM/c^2 increases with m, crossing at the Planck scale.",
"steps": [
"Compton wavelength lambda_C = h/(mc) falls as m rises.",
"Schwarzschild radius r_s = 2GM/c^2 rises as m rises.",
"The two coincide at the Planck mass/length — standard, textbook."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "BID2",
"name": "Unbinding to ~75% Hydrogen",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "VERIFIED, established physics (not ours): any atom -> (neutron beta decay) -> hydrogen, and the earliest matter came out about 75% hydrogen by mass; the stability bounds and the downhill-to-iron ordering are measured facts. Tagged identity throughout The Fold and the Lens.",
"deps": [
"BF1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Beta decay and the stability valley give ~75% hydrogen as the first element — established physics.",
"steps": [
"Neutron beta decay converts nucleons toward hydrogen.",
"Big-bang nucleosynthesis yields ~75% hydrogen by mass (measured).",
"Binding runs downhill to iron (measured) — an ordering, standard physics."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "BFOLD",
"name": "The Fold and the Lens — a black hole gives matter back (proposal)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "HYPOTHESIS (flagged, no verified proof). Running the binding curve backwards, a black hole returns some matter — unfolding it down a lens — grounded in real accreting/jet systems (4U 1630-47, SS 433), NOT a freestanding singularity claim. Tagged [flag] in the deposit.",
"deps": [
"BID2"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "proposed",
"steps": [
"Reading/derivation declared as a proposal.",
"No verified proof: recorded as a proposed hypothesis (v0.7.7 'proposed')."
]
}
},
{
"id": "BLENS",
"name": "Focal Points / the Prime Lens (cross-branch hypothesis)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "HYPOTHESIS (flagged). The same lens/fold reading, extended: the primes focus the zeros like a lens with focal points, which would be the logical reading IF the structure came from a black-hole fold. More primes sharpen the focus. Recorded as an organizing idea only; it adds no detection skill and the Riemann paper disclaims a physical origin for the zeros.",
"deps": [
"BFOLD"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "proposed",
"steps": [
"Reading/derivation declared as a proposal.",
"No verified proof: recorded as a proposed hypothesis (v0.7.7 'proposed')."
]
}
},
{
"id": "BINT",
"name": "The Interpretive Edge — no paper, no number (the boundary)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "THE BOUNDARY, and the deposit is blunt about it: this is the WEAKEST step. There is no written paper behind it and no number attached — it exists as 3D picture files and a reading. What is NOT here: no black-hole entropy, no information-paradox result, no mechanism connecting the resonance picture to horizon thermodynamics with a number. It carries the argument NO weight, and the steps either side of it do not depend on it. No verified proof, by design.",
"deps": [
"BF1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "unverified",
"steps": [
"Formally represented as an open item / named frontier.",
"Not yet verified (v0.7.7 'unverified') — this is the boundary, by design."
]
}
},
{
"id": "BFRONT",
"name": "Frontier — what would make it a result",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "OPEN. What closing this needs is ONE computed quantity — an entropy, a temperature, or an emission rate — that the resonance reading produces and that can be checked against the standard result. Until then the black-hole reading stays interpretive.",
"deps": [
"BINT"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "unverified",
"steps": [
"Formally represented as an open item / named frontier.",
"Not yet verified (v0.7.7 'unverified') — this is the boundary, by design."
]
}
},
{
"id": "BS1",
"name": "Self-Validation — standard verified, TDF reading unweighted",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal check that only the standard-physics propositions (BID1, BID2) are verified, that the TDF black-hole reading (BINT, BFOLD, BLENS) carries no verified proof, and that no other branch depends on the interpretive edge.",
"deps": [
"BID1",
"BINT"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm BID1 and BID2 carry verified proofs and are labelled standard physics.",
"Confirm BFOLD, BLENS, BINT, BFRONT carry no verified proof.",
"Confirm the interpretive edge (BINT) is load-bearing for nothing outside this branch."
]
}
},
{
"id": "BM1",
"name": "Meta-Validation — Black-Hole Branch",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Meta-theoretic check that the branch exposes its own weakness honestly: standard physics verified, TDF reading flagged and unweighted, frontier named.",
"deps": [
"BS1",
"BINT"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify all levels present (Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta).",
"Verify dependencies point backward only; no cycles.",
"Verify semantic coherence: standard-physics vs interpretive-reading distinction preserved.",
"Verify formal coherence: only standard identities verified; the black-hole reading flagged, not claimed.",
"Conclude meta-validation."
]
}
}
]
}
TDF_FULL_all_branches JSON
TDF_FULL_all_branches JSON
{
"title": "TDF — Temporal Dynamics Framework (FULL corpus, all branches)",
"version": "1.0-full-2026-08",
"description": "The full corpus: nuclear-mass core, Riemann strand, and black-hole branch merged into one ADEC graph, with a bridge node and a global self/meta. Honesty preserved: verified = proven; concept/flag = hypothesis; null/retracted recorded as such. Numbers reconciled against TDF_COMPLETE_2026-08-02.",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "F1",
"name": "Cavity Geometry Foundation",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "Every particle is a manifestation of cavity geometry — a standing-wave resonance pattern in a single cavity — not a composite of constituent objects such as quarks or nucleons.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "F2",
"name": "Universal Primes Foundation",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "A fixed set of Universal Primes UP = {2,3,5,7,11,13} (sum 41, itself prime) governs the periodic structure of cavity resonance patterns. The set closes at 13 because adding 17 breaks the prime-sum property.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "C1",
"name": "Golden Ratio Constant",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "phi = (1+sqrt5)/2 = 1.6180339887, the unique attracting fixed point of J(x)=1+1/x. Sets the angular scale (phi-pi space) for the resonance patterns.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "C2",
"name": "Packing Constant PR",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "PR = alpha^-1 * sqrt(2) = 193.7981684, alpha^-1 = 137.035999084 (CODATA). PR^3 = 7,278,619.3, the nested boson 'ball count' for a unit cavity.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "D1",
"name": "Snugness S(A,Z)",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Snugness S(A,Z) is the geometric fit factor for how tightly a cavity pattern packs at mass number A and charge Z; empirically ~0.96 to 1.00 across the tested nuclei.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "D2",
"name": "Formula 1 — Psi_UPR (referenced, untested)",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Psi_UPR(A,Z) = S(A,Z) * Product_{p in UP} cos(2*pi*A/(p*phi)). FLAG: the deposit quotes this for reference only — no test and no null are presented, it carries no evidential weight. Recorded as a definition, NOT the basis of any verified result.",
"deps": [
"F2",
"C1",
"D1"
]
},
{
"id": "D3",
"name": "Formula 2 — Angular Variance sigma^2_theta (referenced, untested)",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "sigma^2_theta(A,Z) = (1/6) Sum_{p in UP} [ arctan( sin(2*pi*A/(p*phi)) / cos(2*pi*A/(p*phi)) ) - theta_bar ]^2. FLAG: same status as D2 — referenced, untested in the deposit, no null, no evidential weight.",
"deps": [
"F2",
"C1",
"D2"
]
},
{
"id": "D4",
"name": "SPEED Route Boson Count",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "Nested boson count N(A,Z) = (PR^3 / A) * S(A,Z). ~7.28 million shells for a proton (A=1, S=1), decaying as 1/A.",
"deps": [
"C2",
"D1"
]
},
{
"id": "A1",
"name": "No Constituent Objects Axiom",
"kind": "axiom",
"description": "Quarks and nucleons are never treated as real, separate objects; what QFT calls quarks are read as antinodes of a single cavity pattern. Counts agree with the Standard Model to four decimals; only the interpretation differs.",
"deps": [
"F1"
]
},
{
"id": "QK1",
"name": "Quark Count Forced by the Geometry",
"kind": "theorem",
"description": "VERIFIED (derived). The three-per-ball count is not matched, it is forced: solving the wave equation in a bounded sphere gives antinode counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 at successive levels — odd at every level, no even count anywhere. The first directional level carries exactly three, and those three summed rebuild the sphere to 3e-16; two cannot. A blind SVD rank measurement (400 probes/level, no assumed answer) returns rank 1,3,5,7,9 against an unstructured control. Four is not disfavoured — it is unavailable. Falsifier: an even count at any level kills the cavity reading.",
"deps": [
"F1",
"F2",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "The bounded-sphere wave equation forces antinode counts 1,3,5,7,9; the first directional level has exactly three, rebuilding the sphere to 3e-16.",
"steps": [
"Solve the wave equation in a bounded sphere (Unsold 1927).",
"Mode multiplicities per level are 2L+1 = 1,3,5,7,9 — odd only.",
"The three modes of the first directional level sum to rebuild the sphere, constant to 3e-16; two cannot.",
"A blind SVD rank measurement confirms rank 1,3,5,7,9 against an unstructured control.",
"Therefore the count of three is forced by the geometry, not fitted; an even count anywhere would falsify it."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "PO1",
"name": "Resonance-Fit Postulate",
"kind": "postulate",
"description": "TDF proposes that the snugness-weighted resonance fit (Psi_UPR) and its angular variance (sigma^2_theta) together characterize cavity stability. Stated as a postulate: proposed, and its two formulas (D2, D3) are as yet untested in the deposit.",
"deps": [
"D2",
"D3"
]
},
{
"id": "P1",
"name": "Boson Count Consistency",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "The SPEED-route boson counts are internally consistent with each nucleus's snugness.",
"deps": [
"D4",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "N(A,Z) = (PR^3 / A) * S(A,Z) reproduces the deposit's boson counts.",
"steps": [
"PR = alpha^-1 * sqrt(2) = 193.7981684; PR^3 = 7,278,619.3.",
"Apply N = (PR^3 / A) * S per nucleus.",
"Deposit counts: Proton 7,278,619; Carbon-12 572,219; Silicon-28 249,891; Iron-56 122,618; Gold-197 (S=0.9643) 35,628.",
"Each computed count matches the deposit value."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "MS1",
"name": "Mass Stage 1 — the bare ball count (0.84%)",
"kind": "lemma",
"description": "STAGE 1 of the mass proof. Counting the packed balls alone, with nothing shaped, reproduces measured atomic mass to a mean error of 0.84%. Verified — this is where the ladder starts.",
"deps": [
"D1",
"A1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Bare packed-ball count reproduces atomic mass to 0.84% mean error across the measured set.",
"steps": [
"Assign each nucleus its ball count from the cavity geometry.",
"Compare the bare count against measured atomic mass.",
"Mean error at this stage: 0.84%."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "MS2",
"name": "Mass Stage 2 — shaped per atom (0.026%)",
"kind": "lemma",
"description": "STAGE 2. Add the geometric shaping: skin (surface, derived), the alpha twist-repulsion (Coulomb, derived from alpha = 0.72 MeV), plus exactly TWO fitted terms (peak-mix and pairing, each with a stated null). The deformation term was REMOVED (PROBLEMS P3) for worsening the fit. Mean error drops to 0.026%. Verified, with the two fitted terms named openly.",
"deps": [
"MS1",
"C2"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Shaping the count with two derived terms and two fitted terms reduces mean error to 0.026%.",
"steps": [
"Add skin (surface) term — derived.",
"Add alpha twist-repulsion (3/5)*alpha*hbar*c/r0 = 0.7200 MeV — derived from alpha, no nuclear-mass tuning.",
"Add peak-mix (asymmetry) and even/odd (pairing) — TWO fitted terms, each carrying a stated null.",
"Remove the deformation term (worsens the fit under the alpha-derived coefficient; best value statistically zero).",
"Mean error at this stage: 0.026%."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "CO1",
"name": "Alpha-Derived Coefficient Corollary",
"kind": "corollary",
"description": "The genuine zero-fitted structural result is scoped narrowly: the twist-repulsion (Coulomb) coefficient falls out of alpha with nothing tuned to a nuclear mass (precision inherited from the external r0 = 1.2 +/- 0.1 fm). It is NOT a claim that the whole mass prediction is unfitted.",
"deps": [
"MS2"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "(3/5)*alpha*hbar*c/r0 = 0.7200 MeV agrees with the textbook fitted 0.711 MeV to ~1.3% with zero nuclear-mass fitting.",
"steps": [
"Compute the Coulomb coefficient from alpha and r0 alone.",
"No nuclear mass is used to tune it.",
"The ~1.3% agreement is derived, not fitted — scoped to this coefficient only."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "MS3",
"name": "Mass Stage 3 — electrons folded in (0.0062%, all 2,938 nuclides)",
"kind": "theorem",
"description": "STAGE 3 and the CENTRAL PROVEN RESULT. Folding in the electron rest-mass term (Z*0.511 MeV) for a like-for-like atomic comparison gives 0.0062% mean error across all 2,938 measured nuclides (~0.0012% for medium and heavy nuclei). This is the corpus's tested mass result — this is where the chain IS a proof.",
"deps": [
"MS2",
"P1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "The staged cavity ledger, electron term folded in, reproduces all 2,938 measured nuclides to 0.0062% mean error.",
"steps": [
"Take the Stage-2 shaped ledger.",
"Fold in the electron rest mass Z*0.511 MeV.",
"Aggregate over all 2,938 measured nuclides: mean error 0.0062%.",
"Medium and heavy nuclei: ~0.0012% (iron 0.003%, gold 0.003%)."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "DIAL",
"name": "The Three Dials — mass as one number",
"kind": "theorem",
"description": "The mass, the ring-rate and the temperature are one dial read three ways: x = m/m_P = f_C/f_P = T/T_P, agreeing to ~1 part in 1e9 (Speed / Temperature / Planck-floor — 'Particle Mass as One Number on Three Dials'). An identity-level result: a rest mass and its Compton frequency are the same fact.",
"deps": [
"MS3",
"C1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "x = m/m_P = f_C/f_P = T/T_P holds to ~1 part in 1e9.",
"steps": [
"f_C = m c^2 / h is the Compton frequency (established physics).",
"Express each of mass, frequency and temperature as the dimensionless ratio to its Planck value.",
"The three ratios coincide to ~1e-9 — one dial, three faces."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "NEST",
"name": "The Nest Level — NOT yet a proof (the boundary)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "THIS IS THE 'is it a proof yet?' NODE. Everything above is verified; this is where it stops. Getting one ball's 99% (the nest itself — QCD-scale binding) out of the nesting geometry alone has been attempted and did NOT come out: m = m_P * phi^-k gives k = 91.46 (non-integer); m = m_P * 2^-k gives k = 63.5 (not clean). NULL-FAIL, p = 0.50. It carries NO verified proof on purpose — this is the largest open door, stated up front, and the node to re-ask as work continues. It becomes a proof only if a first-principles derivation of the 99% appears that beats lattice QCD on its own ground.",
"deps": [
"MS3",
"DIAL"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "unverified",
"steps": [
"Formally represented as an open item / named frontier.",
"Not yet verified (v0.7.7 'unverified') — this is the boundary, by design."
]
}
},
{
"id": "FR2",
"name": "Open Frontier — light atoms",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "NAMED NULL: the ledger is ~0.0012% on medium and heavy nuclei but ~0.164% on A <= 12 (two orders worse) — a few-body regime with too little bulk to pack. Recorded as a failure, not averaged away.",
"deps": [
"MS3"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "unverified",
"steps": [
"Formally represented as an open item / named frontier.",
"Not yet verified (v0.7.7 'unverified') — this is the boundary, by design."
]
}
},
{
"id": "SIL1",
"name": "Silicon Temperature Split — demoted, NOT an anomaly",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "HANDLED PER THE CORPUS RULE, not as an anomaly. Silicon's temperature route gives 303.6561 K where the convention is 300 K — 'one silicon value wearing two hats'. PROBLEMS P1/P2 demote this to a unit convention: no experiment distinguishes 303.6561 K from 300 K, and there is an EXPLICIT rule that no sentence may cite the 71-atom trend as support for a temperature, resonance, or silicon-anomaly reading. Recorded here as an OPEN item (what is needed is a first-principles cavity definition that computes S for arbitrary nuclei), with NO verified proof and NO anomaly claim.",
"deps": [
"DIAL"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "unverified",
"steps": [
"Formally represented as an open item / named frontier.",
"Not yet verified (v0.7.7 'unverified') — this is the boundary, by design."
]
}
},
{
"id": "CPT1",
"name": "Black Hole / Riemann Cavity Concept",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "HYPOTHESIS (per Jian Chang's guidance; not proven): the same cavity-geometry and Universal-Prime structure may extend to black-hole cavity states and to the Riemann zeta zeros. An organizing idea, no verified proof.",
"deps": [
"D1",
"MS3"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "proposed",
"steps": [
"Reading/derivation declared as a proposal.",
"No verified proof: recorded as a proposed hypothesis (v0.7.7 'proposed')."
]
}
},
{
"id": "E1",
"name": "2,938-Nuclide Validation Run",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "Computational run applying the staged mass ledger across all 2,938 measured nuclides to confirm the 0.0062% result (runner: data/evidence/staircase_2938.py).",
"deps": [
"MS3",
"P1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Load the 2,938 measured atomic masses.",
"Compute the ledger prediction per nuclide, electron term folded in.",
"Aggregate percentage error: mean 0.0062%."
]
}
},
{
"id": "E2",
"name": "Proof Runner — live recomputation (the maths link)",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "The maths behind the verified nodes is executable, not asserted: TDF_Proof_Runner_FULL.html and the runners (data/evidence/staircase_2938.py for the ledger; the SPEED-route boson counts) recompute every number in MS1–MS3 and P1 live. This is the link from each node to its actual computation.",
"deps": [
"MS3",
"P1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Open TDF_Proof_Runner_FULL.html or run staircase_2938.py.",
"Recompute the staged ledger (0.84% -> 0.026% -> 0.0062%) and the boson counts.",
"Confirm outputs match MS1, MS2, MS3, P1 — the proofs are reproducible."
]
}
},
{
"id": "EV1",
"name": "Visual evidence — nested cavity structure & atom pictures",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "Supporting (ILLUSTRATIVE) evidence, not a numerical proof. The nested antinode / boson-shell structure and the atom pictures are rendered directly from the same geometry (the s4 helical particle space, TDF_mass_machine.html, the filter demo, Missing Particles). They depict the cavity-inside-cavity nesting that A1 and D4 describe. Tagged illustrative — it shows the structure the verified nodes quantify; it does not by itself establish the mass result.",
"deps": [
"A1",
"D4"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-ILLUSTRATIVE",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[ILLUSTRATIVE, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Render the s4 helical particle space and the cavity antinode shells from the geometry.",
"Show the nested boson-shell count N=(PR^3/A)*S as concentric structure.",
"These pictures illustrate A1 and D4; the numerical proof remains MS1–MS3."
]
}
},
{
"id": "S1",
"name": "Self-Validation of the Staged Chain",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal check that the mass stages climb consistently (MS1 -> MS2 -> MS3 -> DIAL), that the verified boundary sits exactly at NEST, and that the untested formulas D2/D3 are load-bearing for nothing verified.",
"deps": [
"MS3"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm each stage depends only on the stage below it (no cycles).",
"Confirm MS1, MS2, CO1, MS3, DIAL carry verified proofs and NEST/FR2 carry none.",
"Confirm T-level results never depend on the flagged Psi_UPR (D2) or sigma^2_theta (D3).",
"Confirm the named nulls (NEST, FR2) are recorded, not suppressed."
]
}
},
{
"id": "S2",
"name": "Self-Validation of the Boundary",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Verification that the proof/hypothesis boundary is correctly placed: everything up to DIAL verified, NEST and beyond open.",
"deps": [
"S1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify S1 covered every stage from MS1 to DIAL.",
"Verify NEST is marked unproven and is the first open node in the chain."
]
}
},
{
"id": "M1",
"name": "Meta-Validation of TDF Core",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Meta-theoretic check that structural, semantic and formal layers are present and coherent, and that the staged proof exposes its own verified/unverified boundary honestly.",
"deps": [
"S2",
"MS3"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify all levels present (Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta).",
"Verify dependencies point backward only, single foundation set, no cycles.",
"Verify semantic coherence: TDF vocabulary only; quarks/nucleons not treated as real objects.",
"Verify formal coherence: verified nodes rest on derived/fitted terms honestly labelled; NEST left open; no verified node depends on D2/D3.",
"Conclude meta-validation."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RF1",
"name": "Prime–Zero Duality Strand",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "The strand's basis: the primes and the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function are dual, tied by the explicit formula. This is established mathematics; TDF works within it, it does not own it.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "RC1",
"name": "Odlyzko Two-Million-Zero Dataset",
"kind": "constant",
"description": "The empirical input: imaginary parts of the first ~2,000,000 non-trivial zeros (Odlyzko tables) used for out-of-sample tests (runner: data/evidence/riemann_2M_run.py).",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "RD1",
"name": "S(t) Prime Reconstruction",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "The truncated explicit formula: the fluctuating term S(t) reconstructed from the first 100 primes. A standard analytic-number-theory construction, used here on the 2M-zero run.",
"deps": [
"RF1",
"RC1"
]
},
{
"id": "RD2",
"name": "Universal-Prime Crossing Construction",
"kind": "definition",
"description": "The TDF-specific construction: crossings of the six Universal-Prime waves on the gamma-helix (with the 11-degree twist), proposed as a structure to compare against the zero positions.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
]
},
{
"id": "RP1",
"name": "Carry — primes reconstruct the zeros",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "ESTABLISHED (verified). 100 primes reconstruct ~99% of S(t) over 2,000,000 zeros; zero placement to 19.6% of the local gap (median; 23.4% mean), out of sample; spacing statistics are GUE; nulls flat; reproducible and held out. TAG: largely a reproduction of known mathematics, stated rather than disguised.",
"deps": [
"RD1",
"RC1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "First 100 primes reconstruct ~99% of S(t) over 2M zeros, placing zeros to 19.6% median local gap out of sample.",
"steps": [
"Truncate the explicit formula to the first 100 primes.",
"Reconstruct S(t) and compare against the held-out 2M-zero run.",
"Recover ~99% of S(t); median placement 19.6% of local gap (23.4% mean); GUE spacing; flat nulls.",
"Result is reproducible and out-of-sample — and is a reproduction of known analytic number theory."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "RID1",
"name": "Montgomery–Odlyzko GUE Fingerprint",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "KNOWN RESULT (verified, not a framework claim). The zeros' pair-correlation matches random-matrix (GUE) statistics — the same mathematics used for heavy-atom energy levels. A shared statistical fingerprint only: shared spacing distributions, NOT a one-to-one map between atoms and zeros.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Zero spacing statistics coincide with GUE eigenvalue statistics (Montgomery–Odlyzko).",
"steps": [
"Compute the pair-correlation of the zeros.",
"Compare against the GUE random-matrix prediction.",
"They match at the level of spacing statistics — a fingerprint, not a bijection."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "RID2",
"name": "No End of the Zeros (Hardy 1914)",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "THEOREM, not ours (verified). The non-trivial zeros are infinite; Hardy (1914) proved infinitely many lie on the critical line, and the counting function grows without bound. Any reading proposing a last zero, a finite total, or a terminal count is closed against and withdrawn.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Infinitely many non-trivial zeros lie on the critical line (Hardy 1914); there is no terminal zero.",
"steps": [
"The zero-counting function N(T) diverges as T grows.",
"Hardy (1914): infinitely many zeros on Re(s)=1/2.",
"Therefore no finite 'end of the zeros' exists — any such TDF reading is withdrawn."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "RFRONT",
"name": "Forbid — the Riemann Hypothesis (OPEN, the boundary)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "THE 'is it a proof yet?' NODE. Carry is established (RP1); Forbid is open. The construction shows the primes CARRY the zeros; it does NOT show the primes FORBID an off-line zero. That single word — forbid — is the entire remaining distance to the Riemann Hypothesis. What closing it needs is a STRUCTURAL argument that an off-line zero contradicts the construction; not more zeros checked (verification to 10^13 by Gourdon 2004, to 1.5e9 by van de Lune–te Riele–Winter 1986 is evidence, never a theorem). No verified proof: this is open by design.",
"deps": [
"RP1",
"RID1",
"RID2"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "unverified",
"steps": [
"Formally represented as an open item / named frontier.",
"Not yet verified (v0.7.7 'unverified') — this is the boundary, by design."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RN1",
"name": "Null — the prime 'detection' method (withdrawn)",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "The standing-wave prime-detection method scored ~96% held-out (100% in-sample) — WITHDRAWN as a positive result, because scrambled non-prime frequencies detect just as well. Recorded, not hidden.",
"deps": [
"RD2"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Run the standing-wave detector on true prime frequencies: ~96% held-out, 100% in-sample.",
"Run the same detector on scrambled NON-prime frequencies: detects as well.",
"A plain evenly-spaced lattice also reaches 100%, and the ±1.0 'saturation' (~100%) is wider than a mean gap.",
"Conclusion: the near-total / 'every zero is 100%' coverage is a density-vs-tolerance ARTIFACT, not a prime prediction. Positive result withdrawn (TDF_Riemann_Paper 8.1)."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RN2",
"name": "Null — phi / golden-ratio structure in the zeros",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "Full battery searching for phi and golden-ratio structure directly in the zero spectrum: ALL NEGATIVE.",
"deps": [
"RP1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Test golden-ratio spacings/relations across the zero spectrum.",
"Full battery, all negative (TDF_Riemann_Paper 6)."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RN3",
"name": "Null — prime sines p=17…53 in the zero spectrum",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "Searching for prime-frequency sines (p = 17…53) in the zero spectrum: full battery, all negative.",
"deps": [
"RP1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Inject prime-frequency sine templates p=17…53.",
"Correlate against the zero spectrum.",
"All negative (TDF_Riemann_Paper 6)."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RN4",
"name": "Null — transfer to another L-function",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "Transferring the forecaster to L(s, chi_4): null-fail at N ~ 3,729 zeros, arm-resolved. The construction does not carry to another L-function.",
"deps": [
"RP1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Apply the S(t) forecaster to L(s, chi_4).",
"Measure arm-resolved performance.",
"Null-fail at N ~ 3,729 (TDF_Riemann_Paper 5.5)."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RN5",
"name": "Null — crossings are a spacing-density artifact",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "The Universal-Prime crossings tracking the zeros are beaten IN EVERY BLOCK by a uniform comb (evenly spaced, same count). It is a spacing-density effect, not a prime effect. Related: first-half-predicting-second-half (99% within 1.0) only matches the spacing baseline of 95.3% — the margin is not the framework's.",
"deps": [
"RD2"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Compare Universal-Prime crossings against the zeros.",
"Compare a uniform comb (same count) against the zeros.",
"The comb wins in every block — spacing density, not primes (Paper_53 8)."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RN6",
"name": "Null — deterministic size/flip → specific-zero map",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "Searched for a deterministic map from a mass-nesting size or flip to a specific zero: no such formula exists in this work, and none is claimed anywhere.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Search for any deterministic size-or-flip to specific-zero mapping.",
"None found; none claimed (TDF_Riemann_Paper 6.1)."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RN7",
"name": "Null — flip-count = number of zeros = the end",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "The idea that a flip-count equals the number of zeros and marks an end: closed on logic as well as measurement — a finite count cannot equal an infinite set (Hardy 1914).",
"deps": [
"RID2"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"A flip-count is finite.",
"The zeros are infinite (RID2).",
"A finite count cannot equal an infinite set — closed."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RR1",
"name": "Retracted — the sqrt2 route-consistency result",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "RETRACTED. The '37-step sqrt2 route-consistency' was presented as a forced result, but route 2 defines its fold count as the base-sqrt2 logarithm of route 1, so the agreement is the algebraic identity x^(log_x y) = y — true for ANY input, not a test. Retracted across the deposit (Paper 102 7.5, RETRACTION_AND_STATUS, route_consistency.py). Never cite as evidence.",
"deps": [
"RD2"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[RETRACTED, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Route 2's fold count is defined as log_sqrt2 of route 1's.",
"So route2 = sqrt2^(log_sqrt2 route1) = route1 identically.",
"The agreement is an identity, not a measurement — retracted."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RR2",
"name": "Retracted — the Ibbotson Unified Conjecture",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "RETRACTED and never to be cited: the 'Ibbotson Unified Conjecture' (a single geometric field theory claimed to connect Riemann zeros, nuclear stability and quantum coherence) is withdrawn. It carries no status in this framework.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
]
},
{
"id": "RR3",
"name": "Retracted-grade — ball count vs Riemann-to-Planck",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "NUMEROLOGY, ungraded, NO match: the ball count PR^3 = 7,278,619 does not line up with the number of Riemann zeros up to the Planck scale (~10^20) by any square root, power or multiple — they are ~13 orders of magnitude apart, and any bridge needs an unforced exponent (~PR^8.7). Recorded so it is never mistaken for a result.",
"deps": [
"RF1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[NULL-FAIL, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Ball count PR^3 = 7,278,619; Riemann zeros to Planck height ~8e19.",
"Ratio ~1.1e13 — thirteen orders apart.",
"Reaching it needs PR^8.7, an unforced exponent. No match."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RCPT1",
"name": "Focal Points / the Black-Hole Lens (hypothesis)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "HYPOTHESIS (flagged; no verified proof, and the Riemann paper explicitly disclaims that the zeros have a physical origin). Read speculatively, the prime 'carry' focuses the zeros like a lens, and the zeros' structure has focal points — which would be the logical reading IF the structure came from a black-hole fold ('The Fold and the Lens': a black hole unfolds matter down a lens). Consistent with the carry sharpening as more primes are added (100 primes reconstruct ~99% of S(t); more primes tighten the focus). Recorded as an organizing idea only — it is not evidence and adds no detection skill (see RN1, RN5).",
"deps": [
"RP1",
"RID1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "proposed",
"steps": [
"Reading/derivation declared as a proposal.",
"No verified proof: recorded as a proposed hypothesis (v0.7.7 'proposed')."
]
}
},
{
"id": "REV1",
"name": "Visual evidence — the zeros as a barcode",
"kind": "experiment",
"description": "ILLUSTRATIVE evidence: the first 50 zeros plotted as a barcode (TDF_riemann_barcode.html) show where the zeros sit on the critical line. Tagged illustrative and honest — it depicts the zero positions the carry (RP1) reconstructs; it is NOT a prime prediction, since a uniform comb matches the crossings equally (RN5).",
"deps": [
"RP1",
"RC1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-ILLUSTRATIVE",
"status": "declared",
"steps": [
"[ILLUSTRATIVE, declared result — not a verified proof]",
"Plot the first 50 zero heights as a barcode.",
"Note the carry (RP1) reconstructs ~99% of S(t).",
"Note the honest caveat (RN5): a uniform comb matches the crossings — position, not prediction."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RS1",
"name": "Self-Validation — carry verified, forbid open",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal check that the only verified nodes are the carry (RP1) and the two known results (RID1, RID2), that RFRONT (the RH forbid step) is open, and that no verified node depends on any null-fail or retracted node.",
"deps": [
"RP1",
"RFRONT"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm RP1, RID1, RID2 carry verified proofs; RFRONT carries none.",
"Confirm the null nodes (RN1–RN7) and retracted nodes (RR1–RR3) are recorded with non-verified status.",
"Confirm no verified node depends on a null or retracted node.",
"Confirm the corpus's position: no forced, non-tuned internal result on the zeros is claimed."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RS2",
"name": "Self-Validation — boundary placement",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Verification that the proof/open boundary sits exactly at RFRONT: carry established, forbid (RH) open, and the honesty ledger (nulls + retractions) is complete.",
"deps": [
"RS1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify RS1 covered carry, known results and frontier.",
"Verify RFRONT is the first open node and RH is not claimed proven."
]
}
},
{
"id": "RM1",
"name": "Meta-Validation — Riemann strand",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Meta-theoretic check that the strand's layers are present and coherent and that it exposes its own limits: known-math carry, open forbid, recorded nulls and retractions.",
"deps": [
"RS2",
"RFRONT"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify all levels present (Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta).",
"Verify dependencies point backward only; no cycles.",
"Verify semantic coherence: 'carry' vs 'forbid' distinction preserved; RH not claimed.",
"Verify formal coherence: verified nodes are known/derived; nulls and retractions non-verified; RFRONT open.",
"Conclude meta-validation."
]
}
},
{
"id": "BF1",
"name": "Settling-Well / Fold Reading",
"kind": "foundation",
"description": "The interpretive framing: a black hole read as the cleanest settling well and as a fold in a loop (the turn where matter unfolds), rather than a hole that keeps. This is a reading, not a computation.",
"deps": []
},
{
"id": "BID1",
"name": "Compton–Schwarzschild Crossover",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "VERIFIED, but STANDARD PHYSICS, not this framework's discovery. The Compton wavelength falls with mass while the Schwarzschild radius r_s = 2GM/c^2 rises with it; they cross at the Planck scale. Real and self-standing.",
"deps": [
"BF1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "lambda_C(m) = h/(mc) decreases and r_s(m) = 2GM/c^2 increases with m, crossing at the Planck scale.",
"steps": [
"Compton wavelength lambda_C = h/(mc) falls as m rises.",
"Schwarzschild radius r_s = 2GM/c^2 rises as m rises.",
"The two coincide at the Planck mass/length — standard, textbook."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "BID2",
"name": "Unbinding to ~75% Hydrogen",
"kind": "proposition",
"description": "VERIFIED, established physics (not ours): any atom -> (neutron beta decay) -> hydrogen, and the earliest matter came out about 75% hydrogen by mass; the stability bounds and the downhill-to-iron ordering are measured facts. Tagged identity throughout The Fold and the Lens.",
"deps": [
"BF1"
],
"proof": {
"system": "ADEC-FORMAL",
"statement": "Beta decay and the stability valley give ~75% hydrogen as the first element — established physics.",
"steps": [
"Neutron beta decay converts nucleons toward hydrogen.",
"Big-bang nucleosynthesis yields ~75% hydrogen by mass (measured).",
"Binding runs downhill to iron (measured) — an ordering, standard physics."
],
"verified": true
}
},
{
"id": "BFOLD",
"name": "The Fold and the Lens — a black hole gives matter back (proposal)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "HYPOTHESIS (flagged, no verified proof). Running the binding curve backwards, a black hole returns some matter — unfolding it down a lens — grounded in real accreting/jet systems (4U 1630-47, SS 433), NOT a freestanding singularity claim. Tagged [flag] in the deposit.",
"deps": [
"BID2"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "proposed",
"steps": [
"Reading/derivation declared as a proposal.",
"No verified proof: recorded as a proposed hypothesis (v0.7.7 'proposed')."
]
}
},
{
"id": "BLENS",
"name": "Focal Points / the Prime Lens (cross-branch hypothesis)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "HYPOTHESIS (flagged). The same lens/fold reading, extended: the primes focus the zeros like a lens with focal points, which would be the logical reading IF the structure came from a black-hole fold. More primes sharpen the focus. Recorded as an organizing idea only; it adds no detection skill and the Riemann paper disclaims a physical origin for the zeros.",
"deps": [
"BFOLD"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "proposed",
"steps": [
"Reading/derivation declared as a proposal.",
"No verified proof: recorded as a proposed hypothesis (v0.7.7 'proposed')."
]
}
},
{
"id": "BINT",
"name": "The Interpretive Edge — no paper, no number (the boundary)",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "THE BOUNDARY, and the deposit is blunt about it: this is the WEAKEST step. There is no written paper behind it and no number attached — it exists as 3D picture files and a reading. What is NOT here: no black-hole entropy, no information-paradox result, no mechanism connecting the resonance picture to horizon thermodynamics with a number. It carries the argument NO weight, and the steps either side of it do not depend on it. No verified proof, by design.",
"deps": [
"BF1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "unverified",
"steps": [
"Formally represented as an open item / named frontier.",
"Not yet verified (v0.7.7 'unverified') — this is the boundary, by design."
]
}
},
{
"id": "BFRONT",
"name": "Frontier — what would make it a result",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "OPEN. What closing this needs is ONE computed quantity — an entropy, a temperature, or an emission rate — that the resonance reading produces and that can be checked against the standard result. Until then the black-hole reading stays interpretive.",
"deps": [
"BINT"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-DECLARATION",
"status": "unverified",
"steps": [
"Formally represented as an open item / named frontier.",
"Not yet verified (v0.7.7 'unverified') — this is the boundary, by design."
]
}
},
{
"id": "BS1",
"name": "Self-Validation — standard verified, TDF reading unweighted",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal check that only the standard-physics propositions (BID1, BID2) are verified, that the TDF black-hole reading (BINT, BFOLD, BLENS) carries no verified proof, and that no other branch depends on the interpretive edge.",
"deps": [
"BID1",
"BINT"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm BID1 and BID2 carry verified proofs and are labelled standard physics.",
"Confirm BFOLD, BLENS, BINT, BFRONT carry no verified proof.",
"Confirm the interpretive edge (BINT) is load-bearing for nothing outside this branch."
]
}
},
{
"id": "BM1",
"name": "Meta-Validation — Black-Hole Branch",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Meta-theoretic check that the branch exposes its own weakness honestly: standard physics verified, TDF reading flagged and unweighted, frontier named.",
"deps": [
"BS1",
"BINT"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify all levels present (Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta).",
"Verify dependencies point backward only; no cycles.",
"Verify semantic coherence: standard-physics vs interpretive-reading distinction preserved.",
"Verify formal coherence: only standard identities verified; the black-hole reading flagged, not claimed.",
"Conclude meta-validation."
]
}
},
{
"id": "TDF_BRIDGE",
"name": "TDF Corpus Bridge",
"kind": "concept",
"description": "Organizing bridge across the three branches: the same cavity-geometry / Universal-Prime structure underlies the nuclear-mass core, is read into the Riemann strand (carry established, forbid open), and is taken to its interpretive edge in the black-hole branch. A framing node only; the branches remain independently validated.",
"deps": [
"MS3",
"RP1",
"BINT"
]
},
{
"id": "TDF_SELF",
"name": "Self-Validation — full corpus",
"kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Full-corpus coherence: each branch validates on its own; verified nodes never depend on withdrawn/retracted/flagged nodes; every open frontier (NEST, RFRONT, BINT) is named, not hidden.",
"deps": [
"TDF_BRIDGE",
"M1",
"RM1",
"BM1"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Confirm each branch's meta-validation (M1, RM1, BM1) passed.",
"Confirm no verified node depends on a null/retracted/flagged node across branches.",
"Confirm the three frontiers (NEST, RFRONT, BINT) are recorded as open."
]
}
},
{
"id": "TDF_META",
"name": "Meta-Validation — full corpus",
"kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Metatheoretic check over the whole corpus graph.",
"deps": [
"TDF_SELF",
"TDF_BRIDGE"
],
"proof": {
"method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION",
"status": "verified",
"steps": [
"Verify all layers present across all branches.",
"Verify the merged graph is acyclic and single-rooted per branch.",
"Conclude full-corpus meta-validation."
]
}
}
]
}
EMF_ELF_RFR_ADEC JSON
EMF_ELF_RFR_ADEC JSON
{
"title": "EMF — ELF/RFR Synergy and Health (honest hypothesis graph)",
"version": "1.0-hypothesis-2026-08",
"description": "An ADEC formalisation of the ELF/RFR-synergy EMF framework, built HONESTLY. The established exposure physics and regulatory/scientific status are marked verified; every health-effect claim is marked as the author's hypothesis (proposed) or as unverified/single-observer, because at guideline-compliant everyday exposure levels those effects are NOT established. A clean ADEC pass on this file would confirm only that the framework is coherently and honestly represented AS A HYPOTHESIS SET — it would NOT mean the health claims are proven. That distinction is the point. Author: James Norman Ibbotson.",
"nodes": [
{ "id": "EF1", "name": "Non-Ionising EM Exposure Framework", "kind": "foundation",
"description": "The domain: extremely-low-frequency (ELF, ~50/60 Hz mains) and radiofrequency (RF/RFR, e.g. phones, Wi-Fi, masts) non-ionising electromagnetic fields, and the open question of their biological effects on people.",
"deps": [] },
{ "id": "ED1", "name": "ELF fields", "kind": "definition",
"description": "Extremely-low-frequency fields, principally mains-frequency (50 Hz UK) magnetic and electric fields from wiring, appliances and power infrastructure. Non-ionising.",
"deps": ["EF1"] },
{ "id": "ED2", "name": "RF / RFR fields", "kind": "definition",
"description": "Radiofrequency fields from phones, Wi-Fi, smart meters, masts and consumer electronics. Non-ionising.",
"deps": ["EF1"] },
{ "id": "ED3", "name": "SAR — Specific Absorption Rate", "kind": "definition",
"description": "The regulatory metric for RF energy absorbed by body tissue (W/kg); the basis of legal phone limits (EU localised limit 2 W/kg over 10 g).",
"deps": ["ED2"] },
{ "id": "EC1", "name": "ICNIRP Exposure Guidelines", "kind": "constant",
"description": "The international exposure limits (ICNIRP), adopted in the UK, that set the legal reference levels for ELF and RF exposure. The regulatory yardstick everything below is measured against.",
"deps": ["ED1", "ED2", "ED3"] },
{ "id": "EP1", "name": "Exposure falls with distance and shielding", "kind": "proposition",
"description": "ESTABLISHED PHYSICS (verified). Field intensity decreases with distance from the source (inverse-square in the far field) and can be reduced by distance, shielding and hard-wiring. This is standard and not in dispute.",
"deps": ["ED1", "ED2"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-ESTABLISHED", "status": "verified",
"steps": ["RF power density falls with distance (inverse-square, far field).",
"Distance, shielding and wired connections reduce measured exposure.",
"Standard electromagnetics — not contested."] } },
{ "id": "EP2", "name": "IARC Group 2B classification", "kind": "proposition",
"description": "ESTABLISHED FACT (verified). IARC classifies ELF magnetic fields (2002) and RF electromagnetic fields (2011) as Group 2B, 'possibly carcinogenic to humans', on the basis of LIMITED epidemiological evidence (notably childhood leukaemia for ELF). 2B means a hypothesis worth taking seriously, not a demonstrated cause.",
"deps": ["ED1", "ED2"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-ESTABLISHED", "status": "verified",
"steps": ["IARC 2002: ELF magnetic fields -> Group 2B.",
"IARC 2011: RF fields -> Group 2B.",
"Basis: limited evidence; classification denotes possibility, not established causation."] } },
{ "id": "EP3", "name": "No established harm below guideline limits", "kind": "proposition",
"description": "ESTABLISHED POSITION (verified). WHO and the mainstream reviewing bodies conclude that, at exposures below the international guideline limits, adverse health effects are NOT established, while noting research continues. This is the honest current scientific status, and it is the ceiling every claim below sits under.",
"deps": ["EC1", "EP2"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-ESTABLISHED", "status": "verified",
"steps": ["WHO/ICNIRP: no adverse health effects established below guideline limits.",
"The 2B classification coexists with 'not established' — limited evidence, not proof.",
"Research is ongoing; the question is open, not closed either way."] } },
{ "id": "EH1", "name": "ELF–RFR Synergy Hypothesis", "kind": "concept",
"description": "THE AUTHOR'S CENTRAL HYPOTHESIS (proposed, not established). That combined ELF and RF exposure produces a greater biological effect than either alone — a synergy not captured by single-field guideline limits. Plausible to test, but not demonstrated in controlled study; marked proposed.",
"deps": ["EP2", "EP3"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-DECLARATION", "status": "proposed",
"steps": ["Combined-exposure effect proposed as greater than the sum of parts.",
"Not established in controlled, replicated studies — recorded as a proposal."] } },
{ "id": "EH2", "name": "Fatigue / CFS / long-Covid overlap hypothesis", "kind": "concept",
"description": "HYPOTHESIS (proposed). That sustained ELF/RFR exposure contributes to fatigue-type symptoms overlapping with CFS and long-Covid. Based on self-report and practitioner observation; not established causally.",
"deps": ["EH1"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-DECLARATION", "status": "proposed",
"steps": ["Symptom overlap noted between exposure settings and fatigue syndromes.",
"Observational only; causation unproven — proposed."] } },
{ "id": "EH3", "name": "EMF + chemical-load synergy (IEI/MCS) hypothesis", "kind": "concept",
"description": "HYPOTHESIS (proposed). That EMF exposure combined with chemical load contributes to Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance / Multiple Chemical Sensitivity presentations. Proposed; not established.",
"deps": ["EH1"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-DECLARATION", "status": "proposed",
"steps": ["Combined EMF + chemical exposure proposed as a driver of IEI/MCS.",
"No established causal mechanism — proposed."] } },
{ "id": "EH4", "name": "Mould-growth observation (single-observer)", "kind": "experiment",
"description": "UNVERIFIED, SINGLE-OBSERVER. The author reports up to ~600-fold increased mould growth near a Wi-Fi router in a home plant experiment. Uncontrolled, unblinded, not replicated by others. Recorded honestly as an anecdotal observation to be tested, not as evidence.",
"deps": ["EH1"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL", "status": "unverified",
"steps": ["Home observation of increased mould near an active router.",
"No controls, no blinding, single observer, not replicated.",
"Status: unverified — a claim to be tested, not a result."] } },
{ "id": "EH5", "name": "Dietary-additive SAR hypothesis", "kind": "concept",
"description": "HYPOTHESIS (proposed, speculative). That dietary additives (e.g. folic acid, calcium carbonate) raise the body's RF absorption (SAR) and contribute to events such as athlete collapse. Speculative; no established mechanism linking these additives to tissue SAR or to collapse. Marked proposed and flagged speculative.",
"deps": ["ED3", "EH1"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-DECLARATION", "status": "proposed",
"steps": ["Proposed that certain additives increase whole-body RF absorption.",
"No established physiological mechanism; speculative — proposed."] } },
{ "id": "EH6", "name": "Reduced-exposure ('electric diet') improvement", "kind": "concept",
"description": "HYPOTHESIS (proposed). That reducing EMF exposure improves symptoms across fatigue and related complaints, as reported by the author and some practitioners. Uncontrolled, unblinded observation; not established, and open to placebo and other confounds. Proposed.",
"deps": ["EH1"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-DECLARATION", "status": "proposed",
"steps": ["Symptom improvement reported after exposure reduction.",
"Uncontrolled/unblinded; confounds not excluded — proposed."] } },
{ "id": "EH7", "name": "Care-home combined-exposure reading", "kind": "concept",
"description": "THE AUTHOR'S INTERPRETATION (proposed). That a typical UK care/rest home combines ELF, RFR, chemical and mould exposure in a way that may harm vulnerable residents, and that hard-wiring (removing wireless) would reduce it. A precautionary interpretation resting on the hypotheses above; not an established finding.",
"deps": ["EH1", "EH3"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-DECLARATION", "status": "proposed",
"steps": ["Care setting framed as combined ELF/RFR/chemical/mould exposure.",
"Rests on the unestablished hypotheses above — proposed, precautionary."] } },
{ "id": "EH8", "name": "EMF-detection method (patent, filed)", "kind": "concept",
"description": "DECLARED (patent filed). The author's chip-timing EMF-detection method (the HTA / STROBE work) is a filed patent — a real, declared instrument for measuring EMF effects on hardware. NOTE: a detection instrument is a separate matter from proof of human-health harm; the health inference lives in the hypotheses above, not here.",
"deps": ["ED2", "EP1"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-DECLARATION", "status": "declared",
"steps": ["A chip-timing EMF-detection method is filed as a patent (declared).",
"The instrument measures hardware effects; human-health harm is NOT inferred from it here."] } },
{ "id": "EFR", "name": "Frontier — what would move these to established", "kind": "concept",
"description": "OPEN. Moving the health-effect hypotheses from proposed to established needs replicated, controlled, blinded studies showing effects at guideline-compliant exposures. Honest current state: blinded provocation studies of electromagnetic hypersensitivity have generally NOT found that participants can detect fields, nor that symptoms track real versus sham exposure. That is the evidence the hypotheses have to overcome — named, not hidden.",
"deps": ["EH1", "EP3"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-DECLARATION", "status": "unverified",
"steps": ["Needed: replicated, controlled, blinded studies at guideline-compliant levels.",
"Current controlled evidence (blinded provocation) has largely been null for EHS.",
"The frontier is open; the hypotheses are not yet established."] } },
{ "id": "EH9", "name": "Large primary-study literature (cited, contested)", "kind": "concept",
"description": "CITED SUPPORT, contested (proposed). A large body of primary studies reports biological effects of ELF/RFR, catalogued in databases such as EMF-Portal and ORSAA and compilations like the BioInitiative Report (thousands of papers). HONEST STATUS: that many studies report AN effect is real and is the strongest ground the hypothesis has — but it is NOT equivalent to establishing health harm at everyday, guideline-compliant exposures, and the major reviews (WHO, ICNIRP, SCENIHR) weigh the same literature as not establishing harm. Recorded as cited support, contested in interpretation — not as proof. (The 'tens of thousands of studies' figure counts papers reporting effects, not papers proving harm.)",
"deps": ["EH1", "EP3"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-DECLARATION", "status": "proposed",
"steps": ["A large primary literature reporting biological effects exists and is catalogued.",
"Reporting an effect is not the same as establishing health harm at guideline levels.",
"Interpretation is contested; recorded as cited support, not proof."] } },
{ "id": "EH10", "name": "Dirty-electricity / stray-voltage line (contested)", "kind": "concept",
"description": "CITED SUPPORT, contested (proposed). The 'dirty electricity' work (Stetzer, Milham) and agricultural stray-voltage cases (dairy cattle) are cited as supporting ELF harm. Stray-voltage effects on livestock behaviour/production are a recognised agricultural issue; extrapolating that to human cancer or disease is contested and not established. Recorded as contested supporting evidence.",
"deps": ["ED1", "EH1"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-DECLARATION", "status": "proposed",
"steps": ["Dirty-electricity/stray-voltage effects on livestock are documented in agriculture.",
"Extrapolation to human health harm is contested and unestablished.",
"Recorded as contested support."] } },
{ "id": "EH11", "name": "DARPA 'Iceman' aircrew interpretation (author's reading, unverified)", "kind": "concept",
"description": "CITED SUPPORT, unverified. The author cites DARPA 'Iceman' aircrew material as indicating that reduced cosmic-ray exposure alongside raised ELF/RFR tracks adverse outcomes. This is the author's secondary interpretation of a source; it is not independently verified here and is not an established finding.",
"deps": ["EH1"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-EMPIRICAL", "status": "unverified",
"steps": ["Author's secondary reading of DARPA aircrew material.",
"Not independently verified; not an established finding — unverified."] } },
{ "id": "ES1", "name": "Self-Validation — physics verified, health claims proposed", "kind": "self_validation",
"description": "Internal check that only the exposure physics and regulatory/scientific status (EP1, EP2, EP3) are verified, that every health-effect claim (EH1–EH7) is proposed or unverified, and that no verified node depends on any unproven one.",
"deps": ["EP3", "EH1"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-SELF-VALIDATION", "status": "verified",
"steps": ["Confirm EP1–EP3 carry verified proofs (established physics/regulatory facts).",
"Confirm EH1–EH7 are proposed/unverified and EH4 is single-observer.",
"Confirm no verified node rests on a proposed/unverified node.",
"Confirm the framework is represented as a HYPOTHESIS set, not established science."] } },
{ "id": "EM1", "name": "Meta-Validation — EMF framework", "kind": "meta_validation",
"description": "Meta-theoretic check that the framework exposes its own status honestly: exposure physics and regulatory facts verified; all health-effect claims flagged as open hypotheses; the frontier and the null provocation evidence named.",
"deps": ["ES1", "EFR"],
"proof": { "method": "ADEC-META-VALIDATION", "status": "verified",
"steps": ["Verify all levels present (Structural, Semantic, Formal, Self, Meta).",
"Verify dependencies point backward only; no cycles.",
"Verify semantic coherence: established facts vs proposed hypotheses kept distinct.",
"Verify formal coherence: verified nodes are established; health claims proposed/unverified.",
"Conclude: validates as an honestly-represented hypothesis set, NOT as proven health science."] } }
]
}
Riemann Primes and Zeros
Riemann Primes and Zeros
This visualization, created by James Norman Ibbotson, explores the relationship between the distribution of primes and that of the nontrivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function.
The connection between primes and Riemann zeros is a fundamental topic in analytic number theory. Ibbotson's work proposes a computational interpretation of this relationship, specifically studying how much of the oscillatory component associated with the zeros can be reconstructed from primes.
The graph below represents the first 50 nontrivial zeros on the critical line. It is important to emphasize that this visualization is not a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis: the author himself distinguishes between the role of primes in describing the position of the zeros and the still-unresolved question of why all zeros must be on the critical line.
Electromagnetic Field-Induced Amplification of Proton Tunneling and Tautomeric Shifts in DNA: A Quantum Mechanism for Accelerated Genetic Mutations
Electromagnetic Field-Induced Amplification of Proton Tunneling and Tautomeric Shifts in DNA: A Quantum Mechanism for Accelerated Genetic Mutations
This research investigates the influence of external electromagnetic fields on proton tunneling and tautomeric shifts in DNA nitrogenous base pairs, focus- ing on the potential amplification of these quantum effects and their impact on genetic fidelity and mutation rates. Proton tunneling, a quantum mechanical phenomenon, allows for spontaneous shifts between canonical and tautomeric forms of base pairs, which can result in replication errors and mutations. Us- ing a combination of theoretical modeling and experimental design, along with Python-based data analysis, we demonstrate how an applied EMF modifies the potential energy landscape of DNA hydrogen bonds, increasing the probability of proton tunneling and enhancing the frequency of tautomeric shifts. Data related to the effects of EMF on these processes were fetched and processed us- ing Python, allowing for precise quantification of tunneling probabilities under varying conditions. The mathematical formulation employs the WKB approxi- mation to calculate tunneling probabilities both with and without EMF, showing that the presence of the field lowers the energy barrier for tunneling. Kinetic analysis reveals that this leads to a higher rate of tautomerization, which can be correlated with increased replication errors.
Deciphering the Quantum Code of Life: The Crystal Electron Cloud Hypothesis.
Deciphering the Quantum Code of Life: The Crystal Electron Cloud Hypothesis.
The Crystal Electron Cloud Hypothesis proposes that crystals and living things both have an electronic wave function of electrons around them, which can interact with each other in various ways. This interaction could have implications for a variety of biological processes, including consciousness, perception, and healing. The hypothesis is based on the idea that crystals and living things both have organized structures, but in different ways. Crystalline solids have a highly ordered internal lattice structure with geometric symmetry and repetition of base units, while cellular organisms have an internal lattice-like structure of cells adhering to each other, but this cellular lattice is more variable and irregular without the strict symmetry and repetition of a crystal. The organisation in organisms is more flexible and dynamic - cells move, grow, differentiate, die, and the overall organism morphology changes over time while maintaining an ordered arrangement suited to function.
Deciphering the Quantum Code of Life: The Crystal Electron Cloud Hypothesis.
This page is intended to present the author's work and research ideas, allowing the reader to delve deeper into the methods, results, and conclusions.
Google Sites
Report abuse