Questions readers ask
Brief answers, each routed to the record that carries the full treatment.
Questions readers ask
Each answer states the position in brief and links to the panel, claim record or page where the full treatment lives. The claim register remains the wording source of truth.
The logic runs in the reverse order from a numerical search: the extraction theorem restricts which matter quantity can appear before any number is computed; the proton endpoint is selected by three physical criteria that make no reference to the observed value; and no parameter is fitted to that value once the declared choices are imposed. The provenance section examines every choice on exactly those terms.
Both appear in the literature because the convention differs: dividing Λ by the square of the unreduced Planck mass gives the 10⁻¹²² form used here, while reduced-mass and energy-density conventions shift the exponent by one to two. The site declares its conventions exactly, with the PDG inputs, so converting to any other convention is a one-line multiplication.
Vacuum phenomena are real and physical, and the construction keeps them: the Casimir force measures the difference between two configurations, and the construction preserves every such difference. The claim concerns only the absolute homogeneous offset, which on the compact sphere is the same operator as the cosmological counterterm.
The formula’s hierarchy factor runs from the Planck mass down to one QCD mass scale, the endpoint. The endpoint rule selects the proton by three stated criteria: an observable physical mass, a colour-neutral bound state, and stability in the full Standard Model, so it is the state still present at late times. The criteria are fixed before the candidates are scored, and the scored table shows that numerical closeness alone selects nothing.
It is the classical action of the round four-sphere at the declared Planck boundary: once that boundary unit is set, geometry fixes the number, and the same quantity equals the de Sitter horizon entropy of the sphere. Nothing is tuned: a different boundary convention gives a very different exponent and defines a different model, which is why the boundary is a declared choice with its own tests.
The paper states the comparison as a plain ratio: 0.4% equals about 0.18 times the quoted observational standard deviation, a comparison with the error bar only. The construction’s own theoretical uncertainty is not yet calculated, and the open gravitational calculations will settle the status of the match.
The papers are author-released preprints, archived on Zenodo with version-specific DOIs; journal peer review has not yet taken place. Open review is what the site is built for: the argument is published as inspectable records rather than prose alone, criticism can be addressed to an exact equation or claim record, and corrections enter the versioned public record with their reasons.
Synthesis, mathematical exploration, consistency checks, literature mapping and rapid iteration across alternative formulations. Human judgement set the research direction, selected the assumptions and interpretations, and remains responsible for every published claim; the published claims stand on their stated derivations, inputs and sources.
The downloadable calculation record lists the inputs, the formula and the expected output, so the arithmetic can be re-run independently of the site; the claim register states every claim with its status, dependencies and falsifiers; and the released papers carry the full derivations. Re-running the arithmetic verifies the numerical chain rather than the physical selection of the channel, and that distinction is stated wherever the number appears.
The falsifiers are stated before the outcomes are known. Persistent, systematics-robust evidence for evolving dark energy, with the equation-of-state parameter w departing from −1 across flexible parametric and non-parametric reconstructions, would falsify the proposed equation that maps the computed response to curvature, or the identification of that curvature with the observed acceleration; the open gravitational calculations settle the 0.4% match; and the formula cannot be re-fitted to their outcome.
Anthropic reasoning explains why observers occupy a vacuum with a small cosmological constant within a distribution of possibilities. This framework attempts a single-channel calculation of the central value, and a landscape could be the environment in which the channel occurs, so the two address different questions.