THE QUESTION LIBRARY HD-BLAST RESEARCH
How Ricardo tested his matter–antimatter number match with restricted formula scans, and why those checks do not give a probability of coincidence.
In his February 4, 2026 preprint, Ricardo compared his proposed matter–antimatter number match with thousands of other formulas built from quark-coupling ratios. The saved output reports a unique match in one restricted band, repeated input and normalization checks, and some failed multiscale tests. These were comparison and robustness checks. They did not calculate the probability of a chance match or establish a mechanism that produces the cosmic matter surplus.
WHAT WE DON’T KNOW YET
The inspected comparisons do not determine a chance probability corrected for the complete search history, establish a causal physical mechanism or independently validate the numerical relation. Later research status is outside this historical answer.
WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS ANSWER
A specified chance model that accounts for selection, genuinely preregistered predictions tested on data not used to choose the relation, and an independently assessed physical mechanism would support stronger, separately stated claims.
A close number match can be worth investigating without being a discovery. The important questions are how the formula was chosen, what alternatives were compared, and whether the same relation survives checks that were not used to select it.
This answer describes Ricardo Maldonado's February 4, 2026 v0.45 preprint and its saved run log. The original files match the checksums on that public Zenodo record. We inspected the manuscript, inputs, code as text and stored output; we did not run the research program or independently validate its physics.
The proposed match connects the cosmic baryon yield—a measure of the matter surplus relative to entropy—with a product of three quark-coupling ratios. A coupling describes how strongly particles interact. The candidate multiplies the down, strange and bottom quark couplings, each divided by the top quark coupling.
To ask whether many similarly constructed expressions also fit, the author compared products made from five quark-coupling ratios. He allowed nonnegative whole-number powers, with their sum no larger than 15, and excluded the constant. That defines a finite list of 15,503 formulas. It does not include every possible formula, arbitrary fitted coefficients or every choice made during the research.
At the stated electroweak reference scale, the stored output reports one candidate inside its narrower matching band: the proposed determinant ratio. Four candidates, including that one, meet the wider band. The reported counts are the same with the tabulated 2022 and 2024 input sets. A repeat with an alternative, basis-invariant normalization also reports those counts.
The package compares simpler products and records an approximate uncertainty calculation. Those are useful checks of the selected relation. The uncertainty estimate assumes independent errors; it is not a complete analysis of correlations among all inputs.
The code compares the size of the logarithmic distance between a candidate and the target. Its band called “10%” accepts a candidate-to-target ratio from 1/1.1 to 1.1; the “20%” band runs from 1/1.2 to 1.2. These are multiplicative bands, not symmetric plus-or-minus percentage intervals. Naming the rule matters when reporting which candidates pass.
No. In the narrower down-sector scan, the same candidate survives the 10% criterion at both the reference scale and 1 TeV. Requiring agreement across the reference scale, 1 TeV and 3 TeV leaves no candidate in the 10% band; the determinant survives only after widening that three-scale band to 15%. The reference-scale-to-100-TeV comparison has no survivor even in the 20% multiplicative band.
The energy scale here is the scale at which the tabulated particle couplings are evaluated, not a new detector measurement. These failures show why staying roughly the same size is a weaker claim than passing a particular tolerance at every scale.
No. The candidates are deliberately constructed formulas, not 15,503 independent random experiments. Counting nearby alternatives does not specify how often a comparable match would arise by chance, especially when earlier choices of formulas, coefficients and targets are not all included.
The inspected checks do not supply that probability or a global correction for the research's full selection history. The preprint lists preregistered predictions tested against additional data as future work. It also calls for a physical model that supplies the actual matter-producing mechanism.
The defensible conclusion is that the author performed restricted comparison and robustness checks, with successes and failures recorded. They support investigating the numerical relation; they do not establish that coincidence has been ruled out or that the matter–antimatter problem is solved. See how scientists assess a possible signal and why the cosmic matter surplus remains unexplained.
THREE THINGS TO REMEMBER
What can a computer simulation of a five-dimensional universe show, and what can’t it show?
Ricardo's saved September 5, 2026 HD-Blast package reports error-controlled calculations in a specified higher-dimensional model.
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.
