Test 18 — CP-Violation Sufficiency Test — A Framework for a Theory of Everything

Test 18 — CP-Violation Sufficiency Test

Open (for all of cosmology) consistent with standard cosmology

Does any proposed matter-antimatter selection mechanism carry enough CP violation and departure from equilibrium to produce the observed baryon asymmetry — and does this framework supply a dynamical calculation of that asymmetry, or only a qualitative "actualization selected matter" story?

Read this before the numbers below: this test checks a general requirement of any baryogenesis mechanism (the Sakharov conditions, made quantitative), not a distinctive prediction. The Standard Model's own CP violation and its own electroweak phase transition are known, textbook-level results, independently of this program. This program does not currently supply its own dynamical CP-source-and-washout calculation, so it inherits the open problem rather than resolving it. A qualitative match to "there was CP violation and a departure from equilibrium" is not proof of anything — see the guardrails in the blind prediction method.

What we're checking

Observable: Can the CP violation we've actually measured build the matter/antimatter imbalance we see? The imbalance: η_B = (6.12 ± 0.04) × 10⁻¹⁰.
Standard cosmology: Known CP violation (Jarlskog J ≈ 3.0 × 10⁻⁵) can make at most η_B ≲ 10⁻²⁰ — about ten orders of magnitude too little. New physics is required.
Granularity (consistency reading): Agrees on where and why the books must balance, but supplies no new CP source of its own — it inherits the same open shortfall.
Measured: η_B = (6.12 ± 0.04) × 10⁻¹⁰ (Planck 2018), cross-checked by BBN. Observed matter clearly exists — the shortfall is in the explanation, not the data.
The epoch: The electroweak era, roughly 10⁻¹¹ s after the Big Bang (this is when the story would have to play out — not the quantity being compared).
Verdict: Open (for all of cosmology) — no known mechanism, in this framework or any other, yet closes the gap.

Look around. Every star, every planet, you and I — all of it is matter. In the first instant, matter and antimatter should have been made in almost perfectly equal amounts and then annihilated each other into pure light, leaving a universe of nothing but radiation. Instead a tiny surplus survived: about six particles of matter for every ten billion. That whisper of an imbalance is the reason there is a universe to stand in at all — and this test asks the oldest question in the room: where did it come from?

To make that surplus, nature needs a genuine handedness — a preference for matter over antimatter, called CP violation. We have measured that preference in the lab. The trouble is the size of it. Feed the measured number through the arithmetic and the most it can produce is roughly one part in 10²⁰ — about ten orders of magnitude shy of the surplus we actually inherited. The known ingredients are real, but they are nowhere near enough.

Here honesty is the whole story. This framework lands on the electroweak stage at the same moment, agrees on why the ledger has to balance, and then says the true thing plainly: it has not produced a new source of CP violation of its own. It inherits the shortfall rather than curing it. That is exactly the wall the entire field runs into — the standard reason physicists are certain something beyond the known particles is still waiting to be found. So we don't dress this one in a match it hasn't earned. We mark it open, and leave the door standing open for everyone.

1. Verdict

The number, both ways

Number we’re testing: Whether the measured CP violation can build the observed baryon asymmetry η_B
Standard cosmology: Known CP violation (Jarlskog J ≈ 3.0 × 10^-5) can make at most η_B ≲ 10^-20 — about ten orders of magnitude too little; new physics is required
This framework (granularity): Agrees on where and why the books must balance, but supplies no new CP source of its own — inherits the same open shortfall
Measured: η_B = (6.12 ± 0.04) × 10^-10 (Planck 2018, via Ω_b h² = 0.02237 ± 0.00015), cross-checked by BBN (η_10 = 6.09 +0.42/−0.39)
Agreement: SM-CKM ceiling ~10 orders of magnitude below the observed η_B, and the required first-order phase transition is excluded by m_H = 125.25 GeV — no mechanism in any framework closes the gap

Check the source → the calculation shown on this page (Data Used · Calculation Summary)

Open (for all of cosmology) — the route (some baryogenesis mechanism supplies the observed asymmetry via CP violation + departure from equilibrium + baryon-number violation) is physically plausible and required by the data, but this program has not supplied its own dynamical CP-source and washout calculation. Secondary note: if this program's only content here turns out to be "actualization selected the matter branch" with no dynamics behind it, that specific claim would route to DEAD-END (Actualization — one of the program's interpretive-layer terminal anchors; an interpretive label, not a physics result) rather than counting as a physics closure.

2. Tested Claim

The claim under test: any mechanism this framework proposes for the matter–antimatter asymmetry must (a) satisfy the three Sakharov (1967) conditions — baryon-number violation, C and CP violation, and departure from thermal equilibrium — and (b) when the CP-violating source terms are propagated through the relevant Boltzmann / density-matrix evolution including inverse (washout) processes, must reproduce the observed baryon-to-photon ratio \( \eta_B \equiv n_B/n_\gamma \) to within the precision of the data, with parameters that are independently defensible (not tuned solely to match \(\eta_B\)).

3. Data Used

Quantity	Value	Source
Observed baryon asymmetry, \(\eta_B = n_B/n_\gamma\)	\( (6.12 \pm 0.04)\times10^{-10} \)	Planck 2018 (Planck Collaboration VI, A&A 641, A6, 2020), \(\Omega_b h^2 = 0.02237\pm0.00015\) converted via standard \(\eta_B \approx 273.9\times10^{-10}\,\Omega_b h^2\)
Baryon density from BBN (independent cross-check)	\(\eta_{10} = 6.09^{+0.42}_{-0.39}\) (D/H-inferred)	Particle Data Group, Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis review, 2024 edition
CKM CP-violating (Jarlskog) invariant	\(J \approx 3.0\times10^{-5}\)	Particle Data Group, CKM Quark-Mixing Matrix review, 2024 edition
SM-CKM baryon asymmetry ceiling from CP violation alone	\(\eta_B^{\rm SM,CKM} \lesssim 10^{-20}\) (dimensional/Jarlskog-suppressed estimate)	Gavela, Hernandez, Orloff, Pene, Quimbay, Mod. Phys. Lett. A9 (1994); Huet & Sather, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) — standard result, textbook-cited (e.g. Kolb & Turner; Cline TASI lectures)
Electroweak phase-transition order at measured Higgs mass	\(m_H = 125.25\pm0.17\) GeV → crossover, not first-order, for \(m_H \gtrsim 70{-}80\) GeV	Particle Data Group 2024 (Higgs mass); Kajantie, Laine, Rummukainen, Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996), lattice result establishing the SM EWPT endpoint
Sakharov conditions (framework requirement, not a measurement)	B-violation + C/CP-violation + non-equilibrium	Sakharov, JETP Lett. 5 (1967)

4. Calculation Summary

Step 1 — window. \(W\) = {GUT epoch through electroweak epoch, \(T \sim 10^{16}\,\text{GeV}\) down to \(T\sim 160\,\text{GeV}\); expansion-dominated, weak sphalerons active for \(T \gtrsim 130\)–\(160\) GeV}.

Step 2 — identify CP-violating parameters. This program has not specified a UV completion (GUT multiplet content, right-handed neutrino spectrum for leptogenesis, or a new CP-violating scalar sector) with computed phases. The only CP violation currently on the table anywhere in the Standard Model + this framework's inherited low-energy content is the CKM phase, quantified by the Jarlskog invariant \(J\approx3.0\times10^{-5}\) (PDG 2024).

Step 3 — asymmetry before washout (order-of-magnitude, SM-CKM channel). The dimensionally-suppressed estimate for CP-violating effects in the SM at the electroweak scale scales roughly as \[ \delta_{CP} \sim J \cdot \prod_i \frac{\Delta m_i^2}{T^2} \sim 10^{-20} \] at \(T\sim100\) GeV, following Gavela et al. (1994) / Huet & Sather (1995). This gives \(\eta_B^{\rm SM,CKM}\lesssim10^{-20}\), roughly ten orders of magnitude below the observed \(\eta_B \approx 6.1\times10^{-10}\).

Step 4 — departure from equilibrium. Electroweak baryogenesis additionally requires a strongly first-order electroweak phase transition to provide the non-equilibrium bubble walls. Lattice calculations (Kajantie et al. 1996) show the SM electroweak transition is a smooth crossover once \(m_H \gtrsim 70\)–\(80\) GeV; the measured Higgs mass \(m_H = 125.25\) GeV (PDG 2024) is well above that bound. So the second Sakharov condition also fails in the unmodified SM.

Step 5 — compare to observed \(\eta_B\). \(\eta_B^{\rm SM} \ll \eta_B^{\rm observed}\) by roughly ten orders of magnitude, and the required non-equilibrium condition is absent in the unmodified SM. This is not a new result — it is the standard reason the field concludes physics beyond the Standard Model is required for baryogenesis (extra CP phases, extra scalars, leptogenesis via heavy right-handed neutrinos, etc.).

Step 6 — does this framework supply its own mechanism? No dynamical CP-source-and-washout calculation specific to this framework has been produced. No candidate new CP-violating phase, new scalar sector, or leptogenesis spectrum tied to the framework's geometry has been computed and checked against \(\eta_B\).

5. Granularity Interpretation

In the framework's language, the baryogenesis epoch is where the universe first fixes a stable, recordable sign for the baryon number — the matter/antimatter distinction becomes permanent and propagates forward as an observable relic (\(\eta_B\), fixed at freeze-out and diluted only by known entropy production afterward). The granularity claim under test is that this fixing event is a legitimate, dynamically-computed distinction event, not simply an unexplained given. At present the record check passes (\(\eta_B\) is a well-measured, stable, cross-checked fossil — CMB and BBN agree to good precision), but the encoding/actualization mechanism that produced that specific number is not supplied by this framework. The distinction (matter over antimatter) is certainly recordable; what is open is whether this framework's physics, as opposed to unspecified new physics, did the recording.

6. Gate Routing

Baryogenesis mechanism gate -> OPEN -> SM-CKM+EWPT ceiling ~10 orders of magnitude short of eta_B; no distinctive CP source/washout calculation supplied -> open gap: need explicit new CP phase + non-equilibrium mechanism computed from this framework's field content, checked against eta_B = (6.12 +/- 0.04)e-10 (Planck 2018)

This routes to the same Baryogenesis mechanism gate the test suite names, and cross-links to Test 17 (electroweak sphaleron and baryogenesis) where it exists, since both share the same open requirement: a working non-equilibrium, CP-violating mechanism, not yet supplied natively.

7. Failure Mode

The specific reason this test does not close as CLOSED: the only CP violation currently on the table (SM CKM) is known, by an established and widely cited calculation, to be roughly ten orders of magnitude too small, and the required non-equilibrium condition (a first-order electroweak phase transition) is independently excluded by the measured Higgs mass. This program has not proposed and computed a replacement mechanism. Per the test suite's explicit rule: "If the theory only says 'actualization selected matter,' mark DEAD-END unless it provides a dynamical asymmetry calculation." No dynamical calculation has been provided, so the honest status is OPEN rather than CLOSED, and any temptation to describe this as "the framework accounts for matter dominance" without a calculation would be a dead-end problem disguised as a physics closure — explicitly guarded against here.

8. Next Action

To move this test toward CLOSED or Agrees, the program needs one of: (a) a specific leptogenesis mechanism (e.g. right-handed neutrino masses and CP phases) derived from the framework's field content, with a computed \(\eta_B\) compared to \(6.12\times10^{-10}\); (b) a specific electroweak baryogenesis extension (new scalar sector altering the phase-transition order) derived from the framework, with a lattice- or perturbation-theory-based washout calculation; or (c) an explicit admission that this sector is presently a DEAD-END / Agrees input, not a derived one. Until one of these exists, this test stays OPEN. No further public claim about "why there is more matter than antimatter" should be made pending that calculation.

Is this a distinctive result?

No. The insufficiency of Standard Model CP violation for baryogenesis, and the exclusion of a first-order electroweak phase transition at the measured Higgs mass, are established results of mainstream cosmology and particle physics, independent of this program (Sakharov 1967; Gavela et al. 1994; Huet & Sather 1995; Kajantie et al. 1996; Higgs mass measurement, ATLAS/CMS, confirmed in PDG 2024). This program inherits the open problem along with the rest of standard hot-big-bang cosmology; it has not yet contributed a distinctive resolution. Labeled here as consistent with standard cosmology.

← Back to the granularity test suite ← Back to Early & Distant Universe