V1. 1 DESCRIPTION: Version 1. 1 of Paper 34, resolving the April 2026 note indicating inconsistency between the reported Mₘax = 2. 330 M☉ and verification with denser EOS tables yielding ~4. 0–4. 3 M☉. This version provides complete numerical TOV integration via DOP853 with full inclusion of the geometric pressure term, confirming Mₘax = 4. 26 M☉ robustly across three equations of state (APR4, SLy, MPA1). Results in excellent agreement with NICER observations (R (1. 4) = 9. 74 km vs 10. 3 ± 1. 0 km observed) and provide unambiguous falsification thresholds for NICER 2029 and Einstein Telescope 2035+ tests. The parameter ρc = 7. 4 ρₙuc derived from QCD-scale physics (P43) is unchanged. Mₘax RESULT: v1. 0: 2. 330 M☉ v1. 1: 4. 26 M☉ Factor: 1. 83× R (1. 4 M☉): v1. 0: 12. 63 km (outside NICER 1σ) v1. 1: 9. 74 km (inside NICER 0. 5σ) ✓ WHAT CHANGED: ✓ Complete numerical integration (DOP853, rtol=1e-7, atol=1e-13) ✓ Geometric pressure term fully included (not approximated) ✓ Tested across 3 EOS (APR4, SLy, MPA1): 4. 24 ± 0. 04 M☉ mean ✓ Better observational agreement with NICER ✓ Resolves April 2026 note on inconsistency ================================================================================ ZENODO LINKING (IMPORTANT) ================================================================================ IN v1. 1 RECORD (10. 5281/zenodo. 19398765): Add Related Identifier: DOI: 10. 5281/zenodo. 19334714 Relation type: IsVersionOf (or HasPreviousVersion) Description: "Previous version v1. 0" V1. 0. 0 First numerical verification of the maximum neutron star mass predicted by the CCEGA framework. TOV equations with Gₑff (ρ) = GN·exp (−ρ/ρc) and APR4 EOS yield Mₘax = 2. 330 M☉ and R (1. 4 M☉) = 12. 63 km, consistent with PSR J0952-0607 and NICER. The exponential functional form is uniquely selected among power-law alternatives. ρc = 7. 4 ρₙuc derived independently from QCD transition physics (P18) — not fitted to stellar data. CCEGA Program Paper 34.
Marc López Sánchez (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: