UIX makes specific, falsifiable predictions — not post-hoc explanations.
| Prediction | UIX Expectation | Experiment | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hierarchy \(\ln(M_{\rm Pl}/v_{\rm EW})\) | 38.44 | — | Verified |
| Fine structure \(\alpha^{-1}\) | ≈ 137.04 | — | Verified |
| Neutrino mass sum \(\Sigma m_\nu\) | Predicted window | Euclid / DESI | 2025–2028 |
| Dark energy \(\Omega_\Lambda\) | Specific value | DESI / Rubin | 2025–2030 |
| GW speed | \(= c\) | GW170817 | PASS ✓ |
| GW polarizations | 2 tensor modes | LIGO/Virgo | PASS ✓ |
We state clearly what would falsify UIX.
This is what separates science from speculation. A theory that cannot be wrong is not a scientific theory.
UIX does not explain everything after the fact. Instead, we derive specific numerical predictions before comparison with experiment. When predictions match, it strengthens confidence in the framework. When they don't, we either refine the theory or acknowledge its limits.
We also openly acknowledge tensions: the tensor-to-scalar ratio \(r\) and dark energy density \(\Omega_\Lambda\) require further work. Intellectual honesty is essential.