Potential Falsifiable Predictions - juhameskanen/abstract GitHub Wiki

Predictions

** Ratio of Dark Matter and Visible Matter.** The most native and unified mechanics to explain dark matter and visible matter is recursive emergence pattern. Due to recursive nature, ratio of the total free entropy and the dark matter entropy, and the ratio of the dark matter and regular matter should correlate.

No Big Rip. Confirmed by the structure of $R(t)$. The Big Rip requires $\rho_\Lambda$ to grow with time, which in $\Lambda$CDM comes from phantom dark energy with equation of state $w < -1$. In the framework there is no dark energy term at all — the late acceleration is the fabric recovering as DM dissolves, and that recovery is bounded above by $S(t) \cdot 2^n$. $R(t)$ asymptotes smoothly to the De Sitter ceiling, never diverges. The rip is impossible by construction.

No Big Freeze in the standard sense either. Standard heat death assumes the universe expands forever into a cold, diffuse, maximally entropic state with structures persisting indefinitely. In the framework, maximum entropy dissolves all structures including the ones that standard heat death imagines persisting (black holes, cold white dwarfs, etc.). The end state isn't a cold sparse gas of remnants — it's structureless white noise, the thermal ground state of a $2^n$ configuration space. Qualitatively similar outcome, but the mechanism and the final state are different: no remnants, just noise.

Heat death is followed by spontaneous recurrence. This is the Poincaré recurrence. A finite configuration space of size $2^n$ visited by a random walk will return to any prior state, including the zero-entropy all-zeros configuration, with probability 1 given infinite time. The recurrence time is astronomically large — of order $2^{2^n}$ steps for $n=184$ — but in a timeless static universe "waiting" is not a physical act. The zero-entropy state will be revisited. (Note: there is no external bit flipper. In static universe the question is: observer emerged on ecalready (primary assumption). Once the configurations supporting observers existence have vanished with the lognormals, will the observer find themselves again in some low entropy configuration (which internally look like an universe with big bang). That is out of the scope o fthe framework. It did happen once, maybe it is inevitable. But as long as we can't calculate it, its beyond the scope of this framework)

The next Big Bang leaves no imprint on the previous cycle. This is where the framework diverges sharply from Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. Penrose requires a conformal rescaling to connect cycles and predicts that Hawking radiation from the previous cycle's black holes leaves concentric ring anomalies in the CMB — he and colleagues claim to have found candidates. The framework predicts the opposite: the return to zero entropy is complete, total, and structureless. The new cycle begins from an identical initial state with zero memory of the previous one. It is difficult to see how there could be any remnants from the previous observer emergence. If Penrose's rings are confirmed robustly, that may falsify the cyclic picture. If they aren't — and the current evidence is contested — the framework's prediction is the perhaps cleaner one. Again, something we can't compute.

The proton lifetime is finite but cosmologically long. Since $L_{\rm bar}$ follows a lognormal with a tail that decays as entropy saturates, baryons must eventually dissolve. The decay timescale corresponds to the tail of the $L_{\rm bar}$ lognormal, which in bit-flip time is far to the right of $t_{\rm today}=74$ — consistent with the current experimental lower bound of $\tau_p > 10^{34}$ years. But unlike the Standard Model (where proton stability is protected by exact baryon number conservation), the framework predicts proton decay as a thermodynamic inevitability, not a symmetry violation. The mechanism is not a GUT gauge boson exchange but simply the dissolution of the $L_{\rm bar}$ substrate as $L_{\rm DM}$ decays. This is a qualitatively different prediction about the nature of proton decay even if the timescale is similar.

Neutrinos decay before baryons. Since $L_\nu$ sits between $L_{\rm DM}$ and $L_{\rm bar}$ in the recursive hierarchy, its lognormal peaks earlier and its tail falls earlier than $L_{\rm bar}$'s. This predicts a specific ordering: dark matter abundance peaks first and declines, then neutrinos follow, then baryons last. The universe goes through a phase — in the deep future, well past $t_{\rm today}$ — where neutrinos have substantially dissolved but baryons are still present. Whether this ordering is consistent with or distinguishable from standard neutrino physics is worth checking.

The Hubble constant is not constant — it has a specific trajectory. $H(t) = \dot{R}/R$ in the framework traces a curve determined entirely by the DM lognormal tail. It should currently be small and positive (observed), will decrease monotonically as the DM tail falls further, and will asymptote to zero as $R(t)$ flattens toward the De Sitter ceiling. The shape of this trajectory — not just its current value — is a prediction. If the deceleration parameter $q = -\ddot{R}R/\dot{R}^2$ can be measured more precisely over the next decade (as DESI and Euclid are trying to do), the shape of $H(t)$ becomes a direct test of the DM lognormal's tail profile.

The CMB is the fossil of recombination, not of the Big Bang itself. In the framework, the CMB photons are compression residuals shed at the moment the $L_{\rm bar}$ level underwent its major formation event — the epoch when baryons condensed sufficiently that neutral atoms could form and the universe became transparent. The statistical properties of the CMB (near-perfect blackbody, tiny anisotropies) reflect the statistical properties of that condensation event, which in the framework was a lognormal-driven phase transition rather than the outcome of fine-tuned initial conditions. The near-Gaussianity of CMB fluctuations is then a direct consequence of the central limit theorem applied to the lognormal cascade — a natural prediction rather than a tuned input.