THE QUESTION LIBRARY HD-BLAST RESEARCH
Strong evidence would need specific physical predictions checked against measurements, with independent review and replication. The September 2026 record supplies test design and software checks, with physical results still pending.
Short answer. Strong evidence would need specific physical predictions checked against measurements, with independent review and replication. Ricardo Maldonado's 5 September 2026 dark-sector record describes test design and checking software. It contains no completed predictions for helium, deuterium or the early universe's effective neutrino count, and reports no detection.
Author’s hypothesis. His DMDE proposal explores whether dark matter and dark energy could be connected through a hidden sector of particles. This is a separate research direction from the HD-Blast idea in God Plays Dice, Volume One. Progress in one program does not establish the others.
The September record calls for full physical calculations, review of the physics and comparisons between independent implementations. A public test also needs predictions and pass/fail rules stated before its result. Passing a software check alone cannot establish that the calculation contains all the required physics.
The record descriptions reviewed on 30 September 2026 do not supply a fully specified public test of DMDE as a whole. A result that rules out one particular version would need to be distinguished from a result ruling out the entire idea.
The September record reports that an earlier checker passed a made-up result that omitted two important reactions. It reports repairing that false pass. The failure concerned checking software; it supplies no observed dark-sector result. It shows why a checker needs to be challenged before a passing output is treated as trustworthy.
The 14 May 2026 record separately describes an earlier proposal involving one force-carrying particle. It says that picture faced pressure from consistency checks and was narrowed and rebuilt. Pressure and revision are different from a documented physical rejection of the whole hypothesis. Neither establishes that a replacement works.
The 6 January 2026 version proposed a pattern of possible particle masses using a number taken from muon and tau measurements. Separate unification work uses that starting number too. Reusing an input does not independently establish a physical connection. The September record also does not establish whether its two test scenarios still use that January pattern.
For the dated details, read the Dark-Sector Research Notebook. You can also explore the question library or the free book preview.
How did the author check whether his matter-antimatter number match was just a coincidence?
In his February 4, 2026 preprint, Ricardo compared his proposed matter–antimatter number match with thousands of other formulas built from quark-coupling…
God Plays Dice answers big questions in plain words, with sources and one of six honest labels.
See a mistake? Report a problem. Corrections are made openly.
The Architect AI companion · All Access
Labels describe the evidence for a claim, not the people who hold it.
Match my phone uses your device’s light or dark setting.
