This work develops a framework connecting trace-free gravity and valuation closure, suggesting diagnostic tools via DESI BAO metrics.
This work develops a unified invariant sieve connecting local trace-free gravity, global horizon capacity, and finite valuation closure on compact S³/B⁴ geometry. Beginning with the trace-free field equation R_μν − ¼Rg_μν = 8πG(T_μν − ¼Tg_μν), stress–energy conservation and the Bianchi identity recover the Einstein system with an integration constant Λ_int. Rather than inserting a bare cosmological constant freely, the framework subjects this mode to the global capacity condition Λ_cap = 3π/(N_∂ℓ_P²), where N_∂ = Cap(H_∂; A_grav, Q_DM, P_val) is a logarithmic entropy-capacity eigenvalue—not dim H_∂. The manuscript carefully separates the integration, boundary-capacity, valuation, and cosmological ledgers, thereby turning their mutual compatibility into a set of exact residual tests, including R_Λ = Λ_obs − 3π/(N_∂ℓ_P²) and R_DM = ∇μJ_DM^μ. The microscopic derivation of N∂ is not assumed; instead, the theory identifies the precise boundary quantity that must ultimately be computed. For the S³/B⁴ sector, the valuation density obeys P_val(D)ρ_val = 0, with P_val(z) = (z − 1)z(z + 1)(z + 2)(z + 3), restricting the admissible scaling powers to {1, 0, −1, −2, −3}. After quotienting the vacuum, curvature, and dust directions, the sieve isolates a unique nonstandard boundary contribution ρ_X ∝ a⁻¹, corresponding to w = −2/3 and distinguished specifically in three spatial dimensions. The resulting closure is finite and falsifiable, with the nonlinear identity B₅ + 5B₄ + 5B₃ − 5B₂ − 6B₁ = 0 providing one of its exact signatures. An audit against the published DESI DR2 BAO Table 4 vector yields Ω_X = 0.146840, Ω_m = 0.293136, and χ² = 9.5299 for the positive a⁻¹ branch. This represents consistency-level improvement, not a detection: the positive a⁺¹ branch is driven toward Ω_P ≃ 0, while w₀wₐ remains preferred by BAO-only AIC. The DESI analysis therefore functions as a diagnostic sieve rather than a discovery claim—and, at the present level of testing, the invariant framework is not falsified.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Batenin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: