USR-2026-0039 · Spacetime discreteness

Three quasar isotropy checks, stated separately

Three separate results, stated separately. The quasar multipole battery (ℓ = 1–8, p = 0.226–0.495) draws its null from the data's own C_ℓ, so it is a self-consistency check that constrains nothing about isotropy. The eROSITA L_X–T residual dipole (amplitude 0.0996, p = 0.002) correlates with galactic-absorption proxies and is NOT claimed as cosmological pending an absorption-corrected refit. No shared axis was found among the measured axes at the sensitivity of a five-axis random-axis test (p = 0.20).

PROVISIONAL three separate results — one is not an isotropy test at all re-run & confirmed 2026-07-09 (R0 — David Thompson's CI; independence pending)

CORRECTED 2026-07-26: the registered claim asserted 'no preferred cosmic frame' on the strength of a battery that cannot test isotropy, and asserted that the eROSITA dipole 'traces to absorption systematics' — a cause that was never demonstrated, only correlated.

Falsify-box — how to kill this claim

UNTESTED Arm 1 (kept from the draft - the load-bearing killable clause): DEAD if the L_X-T residual dipole survives absorption correction. Regress the residuals on the galactic-absorption trend (1/sin|b| and/or measured N_H), refit the least-squares dipole, rerun the same 500-shuffle null; if the corrected amplitude stays >= 0.050 (half the uncorrected 0.0996) with p < 0.01, then 'the eROSITA dipole traces to absorption systematics' is dead. Data already on disk: data_ingest/erosita_clusters/erass1cl_cosmology_sample.csv, 5023 clusters. High firing risk: r = -0.065 against the absorption proxy explains ~0.4% of the residual variance, so regressing it out will barely move a 0.0996 amplitude. Arm 2 (REPLACES the draft's measured-axes-only recomputation, which cannot fire): the no-shared-axis clause dies only if a pair of axes measured from GENUINELY INDEPENDENT datasets - excluding the two hardcoded literature CMB axes, and not counting two multipoles of the same catalog as independent - agrees closely enough to reach p < 0.05 in the script's own 20000-draw random-axis test. That null obeys P(min sep <= theta) = 1 - (cos theta)^(n(n-1)/2), so the gate is: min separation <= 10.6 deg for 3 axes, <= 7.5 deg for 4, <= 5.8 deg for 5. It requires a NEW independent axis (DESI or Euclid quasar/cluster axis, or a 21-cm / LSS cross-correlation axis); it cannot be reached by recomputing anything on disk. Arm 3 (the headline, missing from the draft): 'No preferred cosmic frame' dies if the Quaia number-count dipole, corrected for the selection function, exceeds the Ellis-Baldwin kinematic expectation (~0.007) by > 3 sigma - at high risk of firing, since lattice_cosmology/results.json already records dipole_amplitude = 0.0216, about 3x kinematic. The quoted l = 1-8 p-values (0.226-0.495) may appear in NO kill test: the mocks are synfast realizations of the data's OWN measured C_l (cl_model = cl_data with cl_model[0] = 0), so p ~ 0.5 is expected by construction. To become falsifiable that clause must be rerun against an EXTERNAL C_l prediction (LambdaCDM plus the measured selection function) rather than the data's own spectrum.

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

quantitymeasuredverdict
quasar multipoles ℓ = 1–8 p = 0.226–0.495 — a self-consistency check (null from the data's own C_ℓ), not an isotropy test MATCH
eROSITA L_X–T dipole amplitude 0.0996, p = 0.002; correlates with absorption proxies — NOT claimed cosmological MATCH
cross-probe shared axis none at five-axis test sensitivity, p = 0.20 MATCH

Provenance

script: lattice_cosmology/run_isotropy_battery.py
script status: PRESENT
datasets: Quaia · eROSITA · WISE · claim-scripts (downloadable from /data — run it yourself) · erosita-erass1-clusters (downloadable from /data — run it yourself)
re-run: 2026-07-09

Status, honestly

CORRECTED 2026-07-26 by the kill-test sweep; the audit flag it carried is resolved. 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 lattice_cosmology/run_isotropy_battery.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.

iso_axes.png 93.5 KB download
iso_battery.png 38.0 KB download
Share this claim X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN Email