Environment AI writing code for simulations to test new models of particles

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings

Fork 1

Star 8

Copy path

More file actions

More file actions

Latest commit

History

History

History

119 lines (84 loc) · 29.2 KB

Copy path

Raw

Copy raw file

Download raw file

Outline

OpenWave Models: the comparison table

Why multiple models

OpenWave's mission is to build a platform where multiple candidate field-theoretic models are evaluated numerically, side by side, in the same computational environment. No single alternative framework can map the space of possibilities on its own: when several independent models are run against the same observables with the same pass/fail criteria, the comparison triangulates what is actually out there.

This makes the platform an open arena for rigorous, side-by-side numerical verification of candidate models, including unconventional ones the mainstream overlooks, all judged on the same falsifiable criteria. Anyone with a model is invited to put it to the test.

Features that survive across frameworks are likely load-bearing physics; features that only work in one framework, or only with hand-tuning, reveal themselves as such. A null result in one model is ambiguous (model wrong, or engine wrong?); a positive result in any model certifies the engine for all of them.

Anybody can contribute to building these numerical validations. Every cell in the table below is backed by a runnable script or a research document in this repository, and every claim is reproducible, refutable, and extendable under Apache 2.0.

Main use case: emergent science feeding new technology

OpenWave serves as a repository of emergent science with concrete numerical validation status, so that applied researchers can build on what holds and route around what does not.

The goal of the OpenWave effort is to build working models on an open-source platform that anyone can use for applied research, with different models hosted in the same computational environment, supporting new tech development from emergent science.

Validation status legend

Icon Meaning

✅ validated in-platform (runnable reproduction exists)

⚠️ partial, or validated with documented caveats

❌ tested and failed, or honest negative on record

🔶 in progress

🚧 planned, not yet tested in-platform

A ❌ is a result, not an embarrassment: documented negatives (with the scripts that produced them) are part of the platform's value.

COVERAGE MATRIX (Phenomenological Coverage)

Models:

M5: LC (Liquid-Crystal topological defects, Jarek Duda, with Robert Close and Manfried Faber inputs);

M6: Ouroboros (chaoiton framework, Paul Werbos);

M3: EWT (Energy Wave Theory, Jeff Yee, built on Milo Wolff and Gabriel LaFreniere pioneer work).

Column order: models are sequenced by their validated + partial count (✅ + ⚠️ in the Summary count below): M5 (14), then M6 (9), then M3 (8). The order updates as validations land.

Every file reference is an active link to the file in this repository (under openwave/xperiments/). Rows are grouped by domain: particles, forces, waves + quantum emergence.

PARTICLES (full spectrum)

Criteria Liquid Crystal (M5) Ouroboros (M6) EWT (M3)

Charge quantization ✅ [validated in-platform] Topological winding number of the hedgehog defect (Gauss-Bonnet integer Q = ±1) m5_1_winding.py ⚠️ [partially validated] Mutual Chern-Simons linking number of A and J flux lines; elementary charge within 0.6% (author's claim + Lean 4 artifacts, not yet re-derived in-platform) 0d_canonical.md ❌ [honest negative] Charge sign imposed via cos(source_offset), not emergent from wave physics 0_STATUS.md → open issue: #203

Electron rest energy (mass) ✅ [validated in-platform] Hedgehog rest energy with Faber core regularization; mass pinned E ∝ 1/r₀, physical knob r₀ = 2.2132 fm → 0.511 MeV m5_6_3b_faber_on_M.py ✅ [validated in-platform] Electron calibration H/Q = 1.6969 reproduced to 0.090% at g = 1.0 (canonical benchmark) ouroboros_benchmark.py ⚠️ [partially validated] Wave-center standing-wave lock-in demonstrated; mass values come from EWT's analytic equations, not yet from in-sim dynamics 0_STATUS.md → open issue: #203

Lepton mass spectrum (μ, τ) 🚧 [not yet tested] Three leptons as the energy minima for elementary electric charge, natural in 3D; M5.9 target via the biaxial hierarchy 0 / directory with its own research/ folder; a new validation enters as a runnable script plus a research note documenting pass/fail against the shared criteria above. Negatives are as publishable here as positives. See CONTRIBUTING.md and SYS_ARCH.md for structure, and open an issue to propose a new column.