Frequently asked questions

No. PT reconstructs some Standard Model parameters (the ~20 hand-tuned numbers: masses, angles, couplings) from the derived symmetry s = 1/2 and the sieve structure. It replaces neither quantum mechanics nor QFT — it derives their constants.

The monograph is a preprint. The word 'theory' here describes the formal framework (axioms, theorems, derivations) in the mathematical sense — not a sociological status. Peer review is explicitly welcomed by the author; rigorous critique is invited.

No dimensionless constant is fitted to match experiment. A single dimensional calibration is performed: 1 SCU ≡ 1 MeV (a unit convention in Buckingham π sense). Everything else is derived from the sieve arithmetic and the symmetry s = 1/2.

Yes. Appendix F of the monograph lists 45 companion script entries and 2,523 checks: 2,522 PASS and 1 known failure. Five flagship scripts run directly in the browser via Pyodide from the Scripts page. The 43 observables are compared to published CODATA / PDG measurements.

[ID] = algebraic identity true without physical assumption (e.g. GFT). [THM] = theorem proved unconditionally from T0 and the sieve. [DER] = empirically testable derivation, weaker than [THM]. [PRED] = falsifiable prediction not yet verified. See Glossary for details.

No. Theorem BA5 (Pontryagin) imposes the product structure α_bare = ∏ sin²θ_p over {3, 5, 7}. The 1/136.28 value comes from that algebraic identity — not a fit. The dressing F(2) ≈ 0.7583 is a 99.96% rational closed-form, not a free parameter.

No, it is a unit convention in the Buckingham π sense. PT gives all dimensionless ratios (m_e/m_µ, α_EM, sin²θ_W…) at zero parameters. Choosing an energy unit (MeV vs. GeV or eV) does not change the physics — dissolved in App. P §C1.

PT reconstructs QFT structure from the sieve: holonomies (T6) play the role of couplings, T³ = Z/(3·5·7)Z carries amplitudes (CRT), GFT enforces informational conservation. Feynman diagrams are replaced by arithmetic cascades over active primes.

No, it completes it. PT predicts the values of parameters that the SM takes as input. All experimentally tested SM results remain valid. PT adds constraints (δ_CP, hierarchy, no low-scale SUSY) that restrict what the SM could otherwise accommodate.

The bifurcation at μ* = 15 separates leptons (q⁺) and quarks (q⁻). Mass ratios emerge from sin²(θ_p) on the corresponding branch, modulated by γ_p. The Koide identity for leptons is derived to 0.04 ppm with no fitting.

No — it predicts the absence of new particles in precise windows: no WIMPs, no QCD axion, no SUSY < 100 TeV, no fourth light-lepton generation, no proton decay. Any contrary observation would falsify PT.

PT does not need SUSY to stabilize the mass hierarchy: stabilization comes from the γ_p cascade. Partial SUSY is tolerated (Class C in the BSM taxonomy), but full SUSY at low scale (LHC) is excluded. P11 in the falsifiable predictions list.

Numerology = searching after the fact for combinations of constants that match observed values. PT does the opposite: it posits a structure (the sieve, s = 1/2) and deduces values before comparison. The precision (0.3% mean, 10⁻⁴ for α_EM) is obtained with no back-fitting.

The activity condition γ_p > s = 1/2 is numerically checked: γ_3 = 0.808, γ_5 = 0.696, γ_7 = 0.595, γ_11 = 0.426 (below threshold). The sieve excludes p = 2 via U4 (forbidden mod-3 transitions). It is arithmetic, not a choice.

Theorem T5 (exhaustive proof by exact rational arithmetic): no other finite prime subset closes Σ p_active = μ with γ_p(μ) > s. {3, 5, 7} → μ* = 15 is the only solution.

It is what it is, across 43 independent observables. Median 0.06%, best 0.004 ppb (α_EM). The distribution is not peaked — it spreads logically. The point is falsifiability: if DUNE measures δ_CP outside [170°, 224°], PT falls.

P1: Dirac neutrinos (LEGEND ~2035, 0νββ > 0 invalidates). P2: normal hierarchy (JUNO ~2027, inverted > 5σ invalidates). P4: δ_CP(PMNS) = 197.4° (DUNE ~2032). P12: N_gen = 3 exact. See Observables page for the 15 full predictions.

PT falls. δ_CP = 197.4° is derived without fitting; practical tolerance [170°, 224°] at 5σ. A DUNE measurement outside this window invalidates either BA3 (holonomy), T5 (fixed point), or the CKM/PMNS phase derivation. No fallback mechanism.

PT falls. N_gen = 3 = |{active primes}| is forced by T5. No adjustment can accommodate a fourth light neutrino or charged lepton. This is P12 in the falsifiable predictions — already tested to better than a percent at LEP.

Not to our knowledge. All compared CODATA / PDG measurements fall within the predicted window. The B → K*µµ P'_5 tension at ±0.80 covers 80% via hadronic super-echo. The decisive test remains DUNE 2032. The author very much welcomes precision-level critique.

A partial answer rather than a final explanation. 'Absolute nothing' — the absence of any category or distinction — is logically impossible: claiming it exists already categorises it ('that which is nothing' becomes a category), contradicting its absoluteness. A minimal distinction is therefore inescapable, and with it, the unit 1. Once 1 is posited, two states become available (present / absent, 0 / 1): that is the binary, and from it follows all discrete arithmetic. In this reading, mathematics is not 'created' — it is what remains when one cannot have less. PT takes this level as its starting point (ℕ as minimal commutative monoid with unique factorisation, theorem N3) and derives physics from it.

No. PT describes the mathematical structure of the observable physical world. Consciousness, meaning, ethics, aesthetics are outside its scope. Any extrapolation to those topics is speculation, not theory.

Yan Senez. Work conducted outside academic institutions. See the About page.

No funding, no institutional affiliation. Independent work. The code (MIT) and content (CC BY 4.0) are public. No conflict of interest to declare.

The GitHub repo (github.com/Igrekess/PersistenceTheory) accepts issues and pull requests. For substantive technical critique or collaboration, contact yan.senez@protonmail.com. Any serious technical review is valuable, especially rigorous counter-arguments.