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

**URL:** <https://ask.igwn.org/t/request-for-independent-verification-of-pqg-pipeline-results-ruling-out-technical-or-software-related-artifacts-behind-a-25-sigma-signal/1422>\
**Category:** Data Analysis\
**Created:** [February 12, 2026, 12:44am UTC](https://ask.igwn.org/t/request-for-independent-verification-of-pqg-pipeline-results-ruling-out-technical-or-software-related-artifacts-behind-a-25-sigma-signal/1422 "2026-02-12T00:44:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![janosprojnow](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/ask.igwn.org/janosprojnow/32/553_2.png) [@janosprojnow](https://ask.igwn.org/u/janosprojnow)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2026, 12:44am UTC](https://ask.igwn.org/t/request-for-independent-verification-of-pqg-pipeline-results-ruling-out-technical-or-software-related-artifacts-behind-a-25-sigma-signal/1422/1 "2026-02-12T00:44:59Z")

</div>

## **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:

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](https://zenodo.org/records/18445925) available in the file **Projnowean Quantum Gravity.pdf** , which includes:

- the complete derivation

- the numerical workflow

- [all plots](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jRYlhP7UmdowO71qrpdRYCGJ4GA0qwca)

- 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](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/uploads/gwosc/original/1X/886f60a58ca1073760080bec1f5dc0749e8ddbf0.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![janosprojnow](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/ask.igwn.org/janosprojnow/32/553_2.png) [@janosprojnow](https://ask.igwn.org/u/janosprojnow)\
**Post date:** [April 3, 2026, 12:31am UTC](https://ask.igwn.org/t/request-for-independent-verification-of-pqg-pipeline-results-ruling-out-technical-or-software-related-artifacts-behind-a-25-sigma-signal/1422/3 "2026-04-03T00:31:18Z")

</div>

![570920658-5fe45412-3d33-49e0-8b45-50c06432fa2b](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/uploads/gwosc/original/1X/7ebc24cd4961c78f16ead6e33c805a8ea6457d36.webp)

 ![570920684-8c5654ed-2c8a-47f0-9f07-9af8546d2e0d](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/uploads/gwosc/original/1X/db6cb66a2cb3497fecfa8631dbdc8ed1902eb82c.webp)

 ![570920753-666fda6e-2ccd-48af-9cf3-b221a9d2d96c](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/uploads/gwosc/original/1X/0bcd85167a0f9ec80100afbf20f584ffc3fbce48.webp)

 ![570920800-daea84bf-b269-44b0-bf6e-2b9a91ece71f](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/uploads/gwosc/original/1X/31ffaa8ef4cba793c6ea6f38335b1779c40458f7.webp)

 ![570920715-3780d819-f332-476c-b14a-15c7933297cf](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/uploads/gwosc/original/1X/8699fa9092556e9eb542cc8ad15a5acb8ca47604.png)

![570920871-13310119-3146-4ce7-8662-d6fe271ae231](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/uploads/gwosc/original/1X/5c7c27516cc146861855e272450931027bc18595.gif)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![janosprojnow](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/user_avatar/ask.igwn.org/janosprojnow/32/553_2.png) [@janosprojnow](https://ask.igwn.org/u/janosprojnow)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2026, 9:01am UTC](https://ask.igwn.org/t/request-for-independent-verification-of-pqg-pipeline-results-ruling-out-technical-or-software-related-artifacts-behind-a-25-sigma-signal/1422/4 "2026-04-09T09:01:30Z")

</div>

**Major Update: [Multimessenger Evidence](https://github.com/janos-projnow/projnowean-quantum-gravity) for Planck‑Scale Quantum Gravity**

After months of cross‑validated analysis, strengthened null tests, and independent pipelines, a decisive pattern has emerged: **the PQG model now shows statistically significant support in _two independent messengers_** — gravitational waves and high‑energy photons.

- **Gravitational-wave catalog scan:** A full GWTC‑4–scale RMS comparison across **314 event–approximant pairs** yields a **global significance of 25.1σ** , after removing all NaNs and applying strict consistency cuts. This is not a fluctuation. This is a _signal_.

- **Photon-channel confirmation:** The newly completed Fermi/GBM TTE photon pipeline — built with adaptive posteriors, reduced-mode likelihoods, and aggressive null-test validation — independently recovers **β₂ ≈ 4.6×10⁻⁵ ± 1.2×10⁻⁵** , corresponding to a **3.79σ detection** of the same PQG dispersion signature.

- **Null tests:** Every pipeline was stress‑tested with synthetic GR+noise injections. The photon-channel null suite yields **Z ≈ 0.03 ± 0.11** , and the GW null suite remains fully consistent with zero. The signal appears **only** in real astrophysical data.

**Together, these results mark the first multimessenger‑level indication that Planck‑scale quantum gravity may be observable in nature.** Not theoretically. Not hypothetically. But _empirically_ — in the sky, in the data, in the messengers themselves.

This update represents the most significant step yet toward a reproducible, data‑driven quantum gravity framework.

![main-qimg-1395e60594ab5bd42aea5767635dca11](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex031/uploads/gwosc/original/1X/e586293552e730d28127a8b1d7a7b7c40d730a10.gif)