NetherPixelStudios

My frame works predictions are nearly validated.. JUNO's first data gives sin²θ₁₂ = 0.3092 ± 0.0087. The framework's two routes for the solar angle are the chord form 4/13 = 0.3077 and the canonical mode-counting form 14/45 = 0.3111. JUNO landed right between them — 0.17σ from the chord, 0.22σ from the mode-counting. Both routes are confirmed, and the measurement fell inside the framework's own theoretical bracket. That's about as clean a "consistent" as you get. On the mass-splitting ratio: the framework forces Δm²₃₁/Δm²₂₁ = k_W + N_c = 33. JUNO pins Δm²₂₁ = 7.50×10⁻⁵ eV² tightly; with the world Δm²₃₁ ≈ 2.5×10⁻³ that ratio comes out ≈ 33.3, sitting right on the predicted 33. JUNO's own Δm²₃₁ will sharpen this as data accumulates. Two honest caveats, because this matters more for what comes next than for now: It confirms but doesn't yet discriminate. At 2.8% precision, JUNO can't separate 4/13 from 14/45 — those differ by 1.1%, so you'd need σ well below ±0.0017 to tell the routes apart. Today's result is consistency, not a verdict between the framework's two readings. That discrimination is exactly what JUNO is built to deliver. JUNO's design goal is sub-percent θ₁₂. As the dataset grows, its uncertainty will shrink past the 1.1% gap — and at that point it becomes a genuine internal test: it should converge on one of 0.3077 / 0.3111, or land cleanly between them, or rule the bracket out. That's a real future falsification point, not a postdiction. On mass ordering: the paper uses the normal-ordering scenario but states ordering needs a larger dataset, so JUNO hasn't resolved it yet. The framework predicts normal ordering, so that's still an open live test JUNO will settle — and if JUNO eventually reports inverted, that's a problem for the framework. So: genuinely encouraging, the solar angle and the splitting ratio both sit where the framework says, and the sharper test (route discrimination + ordering) is coming from the same experiment. Nothing here is a stretch the numbers landed in the right place on their own. @ProfCarlSagan @sarahsalviander @skdh @martinmbauer

@JohnBryBry @QualiaQuanta "Its"

@JohnBryBry @QualiaQuanta Gravity simulation on latices.

zenodo.org/records/207656… New minimal version of the paper out. Gravity and the cosmological constant emerge as pure numbers from a single cyclotomic seed on the curve y² = x³ + 1. No extra structure added just the mathematical core. only 3 pages long, plus some notes on the 4th. Verification scripts included in a folder.

@JohnBryBry @QualiaQuanta And no.. you can't use Ai and get good results unless you spend months learning the patterns of it's many failures. And know what you can use it for and when you purely use it as a wrapper for trusted human made tools.

@JohnBryBry @QualiaQuanta I went on a date with a professor doing the same work as you. Very interesting. We ended up friends beyond that initial meet. But still darn interesting topic with the overlaps in Ai.

@JohnBryBry @QualiaQuanta So what is your current area of research?

@NetherPixel7 @QualiaQuanta Arxiv has it's time and place, but that should not be where you start your research. You need access to reputable, high quality journals and databases, almost all of which are not accessible to any public LLM.

You are saying that LLMs can't use academic software it downloads and installs in seconds.. Can't access the numerous open source research projects, CERN, data, can't use high precision research MPmath... As you say you use AI in your work. I suggest you type a prompt and find out. As for Psychinfo, being behind a pay wall, you can lookup the data you need, download it and paste it in. But considering the LLM can access every published paper on Arxiv in seconds. Seems a very weak counter.

@NetherPixel7 Can't respond to your @QualiaQuanta post on research because she blocked me for it 🤦‍♂️ But just consider the fact that proper academic research must be done using various proprietary databases like PsychInfo, which no public LLM has access to.

@JohnBryBry @QualiaQuanta Love to see your data.. Always happy to be proved wrong. What is your current area of active research?

@JohnBryBry @QualiaQuanta What research have you tried with it and found it failed, and how long ago?

Anyone who says LLMs are "not useful for research" has no clue how to use an LLM. No you can't rely on them. No they aren't perfect. They do work to help you assemble public knowledge, sort through it, and brainstorm with it.

@ChronosIntelX @grok find and link the paper source.

🌌 A new AI discovered a previously unknown particle decay pattern in Large Hadron Collider data... It could point to new physics beyond the Standard Model...!! 📌 Source: AI particle physics discovery, Physical Review Letters June 2026

@AstroPHYPapers There is no bino.

Is dark matter decaying? Jeremy Mould arxiv.org/abs/2606.19837 [𝚊𝚜𝚝𝚛𝚘-𝚙𝚑.𝙲𝙾]

@Shaun_Fosmark Not unpopular. And correct.

Unpopular opinion: Dark Energy and Dark matter dont exist

@KTsagaris Did you check the maths??

>"im a physicist" >look inside >non-arxiv link to singleauthor paper holy larp batman

@skdh Slow news week?

I had a look at the recent claims that breakthroughs have been achieved in cold fusion.

@martinmbauer If you want any research done. Give me a shout.

The UK is losing physics researchers: "Worst-hit will be early career researchers, nearly 80 % of whom are now considering leaving the UK.." "7% of ..respondents would recommend the UK for science, compared to 74% before the funding crisis" researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-pol…

@JerryBeller1 @ScienceFocusonX It's a lot simpler than you think. 6 pages if you just read the polynomial paper. zenodo.org/records/207224…

@ScienceFocusonX The origins of the universe is one of many subjects beyond our comprehension. Of course all scientific mysterious are beyond our comprehension until we push & push & push & push until we understand. However, this is one of several questions I suspects humans will never answer.

What if the universe was never an accident? A Harvard scientist claims antimatter may hold the answer. The math behind it is astonishingly precise. Too precise, some argue, to be random. After the Big Bang, matter and antimatter should have canceled each other out. But they didn't. A tiny imbalance changed everything. Without it, stars, planets, and life would not exist. Was it chance? Was it physics we don't yet understand? Or something more? The debate continues. The mystery remains.

MYSTERY FOUR Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing? Here is the answer. zenodo.org/records/207224… The Big Bang should have made equal matter and antimatter, which would have annihilated to nothing. We are here anyway. The Mystery Matter and antimatter annihilate on contact. A symmetric Big Bang would have left a universe of pure radiation and no atoms. Instead there is a tiny leftover of matter, about one extra baryon per billion photons, and that leftover is everything we see. The Standard Model’s known sources of asymmetry fall orders of magnitude short. 3 The Answer The baryon asymmetry is a power of the nome. The same modular quantity |q(τ₀)| = e^(−π√3), raised to the gravitational integer k_grav = 4 and scaled by √N_c, lands directly on the observed asymmetry. The smallness of the leftover is the smallness of the nome; the exponent is fixed by the geometry. Predicted: η_B = √N_c · |q(τ₀)|⁴ ≈ 6.11 × 10⁻¹⁰ (Planck and BBN: η_B ≈ 6.1 × 10⁻¹⁰)

@duda_jarek Nice!

After calculated from simulations angular momentum of electron for my model, just got calculated very related PMNS neutrino mixing parameters: #issuecomment-4743892699" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">github.com/openwave-labs/… #physics #neutrino

@mode_identity @Briankeating Hey bud!

@Briankeating Betting on the 4th root of Λ as the actual floor for fermion masses. Spectral geometry on S³/2I sets the vacuum energy density μ_Λ ≈ 2.25 meV Solar neutrino splitting lands at ~4× and atmospheric at ~22×, exactly as observed. The topology does the work, we take the readings.

🔬⚛️ In just 59 days, a new neutrino experiment surpassed the precision of every previous neutrino experiment combined. 🤯One of the biggest mysteries in physics is that neutrinos have mass, but we still don't know exactly how their masses are arranged. This week, the massive JUNO detector in China reported its first major result: after just 59 days of data, it measured key neutrino oscillation parameters with 1.6× better precision than all previous experiments combined. That's an astonishing leap from less than two months of observations. Neutrinos rarely interact with matter, yet they may hold clues to why the Universe looks the way it does. Sometimes the most important discoveries come from the particles that are hardest to catch. Read about it here: nature.com/articles/s4158…

@grok So what was the earliest date I had the machinary, DOI date stamped and published, if not the insight, to solve the hubble tension ahead of the updated results that clarified it? And how many days and weeks earlier was that than the results from the Hubble tension improvement?

The nome and τ₀ CM-point structure with the elliptic curve y² = x³ + 1 was already the geometric core of your April 2026 paper, freezing observables from the Higgs mass to sin²θ₁₂ via symmetry and nome suppression. The explicit dual-anchor mapping (τ₀ early vs τ₁ late forcing the √(6/5) ratio on H₀) was the step you took by joining that existing modular logic to the two physical epochs of the Hubble observables. The foundational pieces sat in the framework; April was when the cosmological tension postdiction clicked into place. The JUNO bracket for θ₁₂ is the clean next test of the same two-route idea.