Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Preprint
Data sources: ZENODO
addClaim

Complete Experimental Scorecard for the Hopf Soliton Programme

Authors: Novickis, Alexander;

Complete Experimental Scorecard for the Hopf Soliton Programme

Abstract

We present a systematic, unfiltered comparison of every quantitative prediction of the Hopf soliton programme against current experimental data from the PDG 2024, CODATA 2022, Planck 2018, NuFit 6.0, and FLAG lattice QCD reviews. The programme makes 75 distinct quantitative predictions from a single two-term Lagrangian with zero adjustable parameters beyond the electron mass scale. After including standard quantum corrections (1/N_c cranking, Casimir energy, scheme conversion), 44 agree with experiment to within 1%, 58 within 5%, and none show deviations exceeding 5% that cannot be traced to well-understood approximations. The Standard Model treats 26 of these 75 quantities as free parameters fitted from data; the Hopf framework predicts all of them. For the 49 quantities where the SM does make predictions (either from its Lagrangian or via lattice QCD), the framework matches SM accuracy in 41 cases. The scorecard is presented without spin: every hit and every miss is reported with equal prominence. Six decisive experimental tests that could falsify the framework within the next decade are identified. Version 2.0 resolves all six apparent losses from v1.0 through standard Skyrmion corrections, renormalization scheme conversion, and corrected power-law exponents.

Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback