USR-2026-0015 · CMB

Polarization does not settle the missing power

TE polarization does not decide the missing-power question: S_1/2^TE has p = 0.203, leaning low but not decisive.

PROVISIONAL p = 0.203 — not decisive re-run & confirmed 2026-07-09 (R0 — David Thompson's CI; independence pending)

The polarization cross-check that could have confirmed or refuted the temperature anomaly does neither. It leans the same (low) way but at p = 0.20 — recorded as inconclusive.

Falsify-box — how to kill this claim

UNTESTED The claim asserts three things: p = 0.203, a low lean, and 'not decisive'. Re-measure S_1/2^TE with a science-grade low-l TE likelihood - Planck PR4/NPIPE low-l, or LiteBIRD when it flies - using a noise-inclusive null and a real mask, replacing run_boundary_polarization.py's full-sky unmasked cosmic-variance-only null on the public inpainted SMICA I/Q/U (field=(5,6,7), line 82). The claim is DEAD if the resulting p < 0.05 (TE decisively confirms the temperature deficit) or p > 0.95 (TE decisively refutes it) - either outcome destroys 'does not decide'. The 'leaning low' half is separately DEAD if p > 0.5. Because temperature is cosmic-variance limited, LiteBIRD-class low-l E-mode polarization is the named new observable that makes this test possible; no further cut of the existing temperature sky can do it.

Verification record — every quoted number, re-run 2026-07-09

quantitymeasuredverdict
S_1/2^TE p-value p = 0.203 MATCH
direction of lean leans low MATCH
polarization verdict not decisive MATCH

Provenance

script: boundary_seam/run_boundary_polarization.py
script status: PRESENT
datasets: Planck low-ℓ TE · claim-scripts (downloadable from /data — run it yourself)
re-run: 2026-07-09

Status, honestly

R0 pass 2026-07-09 | kill test added by the 2026-07-26 sweep. This status was assigned by hand from the public re-run audit above — it is a judgement made from that evidence, not a number this site computed for itself. What cannot move it is authority: no vote, endorsement, or say-so, from anyone including the maintainer. Independent reproduction would move it; nothing else will.

§ Figures 2 from boundary_seam/run_boundary_polarization.py

What this claim's own script draws. These are David Thompson's committed outputs — the same plots the script regenerates on any machine that runs it.

pol_shalf.png 57.5 KB download
pol_te_correlation.png 96.8 KB download
Share this claim X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN Email