Skip to content
BackGOD PLAYS DICE™Big questions, honest answers
Ask the Architect

GOD PLAYS DICE™

Cosmic origins

In one minute

Author’s hypothesis

Benchmark frozen on 17 December 2025. No test of the frozen curve against later, independent pulsar-timing data has been published.

Status reviewed 30 September 2026. This page describes proposed research by the site’s author. It is not established science, and a public repository record is not peer review.

On this page

Could our hot beginning be the aftermath of something larger?

What the idea proposes

Author’s hypothesis. Ricardo Maldonado’s HD-Blast idea asks whether the hot, dense start of our universe was the local aftermath of a short burst of energy in a larger space with more dimensions than we can see. No one has observed such an event, and the idea does not yet say what caused it.

To make the idea testable, the book fixes one clue. Space is filled with a very slow “hum” of gravitational waves, which are ripples in space itself. Pulsar timing arrays (teams that time spinning dead stars like clocks) study this hum. The book’s benchmark curve says the hum should bend, like a knee, at about one cycle per year. The curve is set by five numbers and was frozen in a public record on 17 December 2025.

A later record (5 September 2026) is a math check inside a simplified model. It shows two test inputs give responses that can be told apart, under stated assumptions. It is not a sky measurement. A separate study (23 September 2026) proposes a corrected version of one solution in a five-dimensional model from the same project. It is also math, not a sky measurement.

What it claims, and what it does not

What it claims: a specific, frozen curve that later pulsar-timing data can keep or reject.

  • It does not claim a higher-dimensional blast happened.
  • It does not claim the curve comes from a worked-out physical cause. The curve was fitted to data already in hand, so matching that data is calibration, not a successful prediction.
  • Ricardo also has a separate black-hole program, Quantized Horizon Response (HRF), with its own records on Zenodo. This idea does not rely on it. The book lists work on “horizon response” among side projects that “are not evidence for the blast and are not needed for Volume One” (Appendix).
  • The December 2025 record uses strong words: “SBPL strongly favored,” “≈3.2σ” and a cross-team check marked “PASS.” These come from a simplified screen of summary points bundled with the record, not the teams’ full analyses. The record describes those points as published pulsar-timing points; the book calls them example inputs, not a collaboration data product. The record also calls the bundle “REALONLY” in its version name and file list. Its description does not say what that label means. Sigma (σ) is a way of saying how far a result lies from what a chosen statistical model expects. The book itself says this ΔBIC number does not by itself convert into a 3.2σ result, and that the “PASS” check was a stand-in (surrogate) demonstration, not real team results. An earlier version (October 2025) listed a “last locked value” of about 0.43 for that cross-team score, below the 0.80 pass mark the project chose. Its description does not say which inputs produced it.
  • The December screen compared the bent curve with only two straight lines: the simplest black-hole model and a line whose slope was left free (book, Chapter 7). The book warns that such a comparison “does not certify that the list of entries was complete” (Chapter 9). It calls the screen’s numbers internal scores that “cannot be promoted to publication-grade evidence” (Chapter 7).
  • The December 2025 record says its added checks show how its evidence “can degrade” if neighboring data points are assumed to be more strongly linked. The book adds that one point, the highest-frequency one, carries the most weight in the case for a bend (Chapter 7). Versions from 24 and 29 December 2025 worked out a threshold for these links inside the project’s own simplified screen. If the real links are stronger, the 24 December version says the preference for the knee “can be erased.” If they are weaker, the 29 December version says “the knee is robust.” Both statements are judged by the project’s own screen, not the teams’ full analyses. The 6 January 2026 check below used the same threshold.
  • A record in the same series from 6 January 2026 calls itself the “first real-data application” of a robustness check. It used a public NANOGrav 15-year data product, available since 2023. The hum is measured in frequency slices, called bins. The record asked one narrow question: could links between neighboring bins in the analysis create a false bend? It reports “PASS.” The yardstick came from the project’s own simplified screen. By that yardstick, the kinds of links it tested were too weak to create a false bend in this data product. It used only a separate summary for each bin, not data on how the bins are linked. The book says only the teams’ full analysis, or their released data on how the bins are linked, can settle that question. The record calls its result a “Robustness diagnostic result only” and says it claims no physical explanation for any signal feature. Its description reports no comparison of the frozen curve with any data. In August 2026, NANOGrav replaced that data product with a corrected version, after finding a software bug that had skewed its estimates. NANOGrav says this did not affect its evidence for the hum itself. No public record from this project reports running the check again on the corrected version.
  • A second record, from 13 January 2026, describes “a falsifiable chain of constraints.” It starts from a knee it says was “inferred from” the NANOGrav 15-year signal, which is data already in hand, not later data. It links that knee to a robustness check, to a check tied to a length that lab experiments can test, and to predictions for other frequency bands. It says that if any link fails “under improved data,” the idea is “constrained or falsified.” Zenodo lists this record as derived from the same NANOGrav data product that was corrected in August 2026. No public record reports redoing the chain with the corrected version. Its title includes a “LISA-band knee prediction.” LISA is a space detector that ESA plans to launch around 2035. The record says its files include a LISA knee “predictor script” and a “cross-band summary table.” Its public description does not state the predicted value. Records from 22 January and 27 February 2026 also list LISA-band knee predictions, using a newer definition of the knee. This prediction is separate from the book’s frozen curve, which the book says LISA is not expected to detect. The prediction is on the Test Ledger as “Committed — awaiting data,” without a number for now. The 22 January record fixes one way to define the knee, called “f50.” It says this “locks” the definition and stops “definition slippage.”
  • Records from 28 January to 24 April 2026 describe more checks on pulsar-timing data that were already public. A 27 February 2026 version proposes a more specific curve shape, a “Bessel‑K fingerprint.” It says it includes “preregistration language,” meaning wording that fixes a test in advance. But its description gives no numbers for that test. The Test Ledger lists the test as “Committed — awaiting data.” The book says no official pulsar-timing analysis has passed that stricter test yet. It keeps the December 2025 curve as its snapshot (Chapter 4). The April record lists two of the project’s own scores (“z” values of about 3.0 and 2.6) as fixed reference points. It says it does not claim “empirical proof,” and that its main test stays frozen until official data files arrive.
  • The newest version in the series (v24, 5 September 2026) lists a physical cause of the Big Bang, agreement with observations and nonlinear behavior as not established. It says its reviews were internal checks, not outside peer review. Its public description does not mention the knee or pulsar timing.
  • A separate study from 23 September 2026 builds possible corrected solutions by computer. It says several things are not established, including a proof that these solutions exist, their stability and a way to produce a hot Big Bang. It also says its reviews were internal, not outside peer review.

The strongest challenge

Most researchers expect the hum to come from pairs of giant black holes slowly circling each other as galaxies merge. NANOGrav found that several early-universe models can fit its 15-year signal, but warned these fits should not be read as evidence for new physics. The European team said it could not yet tell the possible sources apart. A 2026 review looks at an earlier mismatch between how loud the hum is and what standard models expected. It argues that newer studies of these black-hole pairs largely resolve it. A bend in the curve could also come from ordinary astrophysics. So even a real bend would not point to a blast by itself.

What would rule it out

  • Later pulsar-timing data show a straight line with no bend near one cycle per year, when checked with the teams’ full methods.
  • Different teams, checked the same careful way, find the bend in different places.
  • Pairs of giant black holes turn out to explain the whole hum. The book calls them its “chief rival” and says: “If they explain everything, the blast idea loses. That is fair.” (Glossary).
  • Stronger limits on early-universe energy, or from ground-based detectors, rule out the frozen curve. When the curve was frozen, the record already put it “well below” the limits on early-universe energy and “far below” the detector limits. The book says that energy figure is only a check under stated assumptions. It is not a prediction worked out from a cause (Chapter 7).
  • Black-hole “ringdown” signals clearly and repeatedly disagree with Einstein’s gravity. The simplest version of the idea assumes gravity today is ordinary.

The frozen record’s public description does not say how close later data must come for the curve to pass or fail. The book says that, for a clean test, the pass/fail rule should also be frozen, or any change dated and disclosed (Sources and Notes, Chapter 9).

A failure would reject this frozen version. It would not reject every idea about extra dimensions.

Corrections
  • 2026 · Book, Chapter 7 (literature checked through 20 July 2026): The book restates the December 2025 screen more cautiously than the record: about 24 BIC units against the black-hole-pair template (the record lists 26.21), and it says a ΔBIC of about 8 does not convert to a 3.2σ significance. It labels the cross-team 0.87 value a surrogate demonstration, not a team result.
  • 14 July 2026 · Zenodo record 21367209 (v20): The record withdraws an earlier project result about radiation in its model, because the calculation used a wave pattern that the model’s source did not contain. It also says a related energy figure (about 1.34%) counts only as a diagnostic, because it came from an assumed source shape rather than from the event itself.
  • 5 September 2026 · Zenodo record 22347452 (v24): The record reports that a first reconstruction had a certified defect at one junction and an inconclusive result; a corrected route replaced it. The first attempt is kept for inspection.
  • 27 September 2026 · What it claims: Earlier wording called the screened points “published summary points.” The book describes them as bundled example inputs, not collaboration data; the page now gives both descriptions.
  • 29 September 2026 · Status and What it claims: The status used to say “No real-data test published yet.” That was not accurate: a January 2026 record ran a narrow robustness check on a public NANOGrav data product. The status now says “No test of the frozen curve against later, independent pulsar-timing data has been published,” and the related records from January to April 2026 are described under What it claims.
  • 30 September 2026 · The strongest challenge and What it claims: This page said a 2026 review argues that newer black-hole-pair models “largely remove the need for anything unusual.” The review’s summary only says that an earlier mismatch over how loud the hum is has largely been resolved. The sentence now says that. This page also called sigma “a statistics confidence score.” It now uses the book’s meaning.
  • 30 September 2026 · What changed since earlier versions: Zenodo lists 24 versions of the HD-Blast record so far (checked 30 September 2026). It marks the 17 December 2025 record as having newer versions, but none of their public descriptions gives new values for the five frozen numbers. The book keeps the December 2025 curve as its snapshot (Chapter 4). The same five numbers already appear in a version from 12 December 2025 (Zenodo 17918095), five days before the record that the book and the Test Ledger use.
  • 30 September 2026 · What changed since earlier versions: Some earlier versions went further than today’s status. They are listed below by date. No later public record withdraws them by name (checked 30 September 2026). The book does not repeat this wording. This page quotes it only to report what the records said. The newest version (v24) lists a higher-dimensional cause of the Big Bang as not established. By the Test Ledger’s rule, a fit to data already in hand is not a successful prediction.
  • 21 August 2025 · Earlier record, Zenodo 16907982: A data pack labeled “REALDATA” lists a joint best-fit file and a pulsar-timing overlay plot. It belongs to a separate, earlier series that the frozen record links to. Its description does not name the data behind the label, and it came before the curve was frozen.
  • 9 September 2025 · Earlier version, Zenodo 17088133 (the first in the series): It reported an “effective dimensionality” of about 4.8 “extracted from the PTA spectrum,” more than the four dimensions of everyday space and time. PTA stands for pulsar timing array. The next day’s version (Zenodo 17136572) repeats this.
  • 26 September 2025 · Earlier version, Zenodo 17211812: Its “Press one‑liner” said the hum “bends once and fades fast.” It called this “just what a one‑off higher‑dimensional blast would leave behind.” It said “higher‑D content is measured, not asserted,” based on a formula applied to the slope of the hum’s curve. It also called one model score “decisive.”
  • 12 October and 6 November 2025 · Earlier versions, Zenodo 17335636 and 17547897: These versions let “four public gates” decide whether a faint higher-dimensional channel exists. They marked two gates “PASS”: a model-choice score and a test on the Big Bang’s afterglow, the cosmic microwave background (“CMB parity”). The book does not mention this afterglow test. The versions said they used “Fixed rules” with “no goal‑post moves.” They said future data must pass all the gates, with other teams repeating the results; “if not, the hypothesis is rejected cleanly.” Their public descriptions give a pass rule only for the cross-team score. No public record withdraws the gates, so the Test Ledger lists them as “Committed — awaiting data.”
  • September to December 2025 · Earlier versions, Zenodo 17211812, 17683486 and 17918095: Several versions also scored number patterns in particle masses, which they call “textures.” The 22 November version says the electron’s mass “is reproduced exactly” this way. The 12 December version marks two of its texture scores “PASS.” The book keeps this work out of its main case. It says the work is “not predictive enough to carry the weight of Volume One” and that “Nothing in the main gravitational-wave argument depends on it” (Chapter 5).
  • 13 January 2026 · Earlier version, Zenodo 18236838: It used the knee, together with lab limits, to work out an “implied” distance in the extra dimension, given in millimeters (“y0 in mm”). The knee came from data already in hand (see What it claims).

Member explainers

Author’s hypothesis · Status: Benchmark frozen on 17 December 2025. No test of the frozen curve against later, independent pulsar-timing data has been published.

Author’s hypothesis. Ricardo Maldonado’s HD-Blast idea asks whether the hot, dense start of our universe was the local aftermath of a short burst of energy in a larger space with more dimensions than we can see. No one has observed such an event, and the idea does not yet say what caused it.

Could Ordinary Black Holes Make a Bend Like the One HD-Blast Proposes? · Holy Grail collection, for All Access readers.

Sources

See every committed prediction in one place: the Test Ledger. Back to the Research Desk. See a mistake? Report a problem; corrections are made openly.

The Architect AI companion · All Access

Your next question can go further.

Included with All Access →Up to 5 questions a day while available.

Put God Plays Dice on your Home Screen

On iPhone: tap Share (on iOS 26, tap ••• first), then Add to Home Screen, then Add.

On Android: In Chrome, you can also open the ⋮ menu and choose Add to Home screen or Install.

The Home Screen version keeps its own memory on iPhone, so your nights and saved answers start fresh there.

Search the Question Library

149 answers to read · 0 questions awaiting answers Your search runs on your device.

Answers about death, grief and crisis are always free, in full. If a question is personal right now →