Request for independent verification of PQG pipeline results: ruling out technical or software‑related artifacts behind a 25‑sigma signal

Data Analysis
1

What the PQG pipeline does (high‑level physical description)

The pipeline implements the core PQG prediction that gravitational interactions arise from a projected‑geometric structure on a quantum background manifold. In practical terms, the model yields a modified propagation equation for gravitational degrees of freedom.

The central object is a PQG‑specific curvature functional:

\mathcal{C}_{PQG}=\mathbb{P}(R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \Gamma^{\mu\nu}\Gamma^{\rho\sigma}),

where \mathbb{P} denotes the projection operator characteristic of the PQG framework. This leads to a modified dispersion relation for gravitational perturbations:

\omega^2=k^2+\Delta_{PQG}(k),

with \Delta_{PQG}(k) being a small but non‑negligible correction term derived analytically.

The pipeline performs the following steps:

  1. Analytical derivation
    The PQG correction term \Delta_{PQG}(k) is obtained in closed form from the projected curvature functional.

  2. Numerical evaluation
    The correction is evaluated over a physically relevant parameter space.
    The numerical routines include:

    • high‑precision integration

    • stability checks

    • consistency tests across multiple discretizations

  3. Statistical significance estimation
    The deviation from the GR baseline is quantified using a Monte‑Carlo‑based estimator:

Z=\frac{\mu_{PQG}−\mu_{GR}}{\sigma_{GR}}.

Across all tested configurations, the result remains near Z≈25.

  1. Cross‑validation
    Independent implementations (different languages, different numerical libraries) were used to reduce the chance of trivial coding errors.

Why I am asking for community review

A 25σ result is far beyond what I would consider trustworthy without external scrutiny. Before drawing any physical conclusions, I would like experts in GW data analysis to:

  • attempt to reproduce the pipeline

  • inspect the assumptions

  • apply “stress tests” or adversarial tests

  • try to break the model

  • check for hidden correlations or numerical pathologies

  • evaluate whether the significance could arise from technical artifacts

If the result survives such scrutiny, it could have far‑reaching implications. If it does not, I welcome any feedback that helps identify the source of the discrepancy.

Availability of materials

I have made the full pipeline, plots, and documentation available in the file Projnowean Quantum Gravity.pdf, which includes:

  • the complete derivation

  • the numerical workflow

  • all plots

  • reproducibility notes

I am happy to provide additional details, code snippets, or clarifications upon request.

Thank you for your time, and I appreciate any effort the community can contribute to independently evaluating these findings.

zscore_growth
zscore_growth1400×800 46.2 KB