Penrose (2017) proposed that reported correlated noise between the two LIGO detectors, with the same time delay as the gravitational-wave signals, could be impulsive gravitational events from erebon decay.

Penrose (2017, arXiv:1707.04169) explicitly conjectured that apparent correlated noise between Hanford and Livingston detectors at the time of GW150914 could represent impulsive gravitational radiation from erebon decays. The statement is an accurate factual record of Penrose's published hypothesis. Strongest opposing consideration: Nielsen et al. (2019) demonstrated that the inter-detector correlation vanishes when a proper maximum-likelihood template is subtracted, eliminating the empirical basis that prompted the conjecture.

As stated, the claim documents Penrose's 2017 proposal, which is verbatim on the record, along with Creswell et al.'s finding that noise correlations peaked at the event's own time lag — the premise he adopted. The strongest opposing consideration is that the premise was subsequently deflated: Nielsen et al. find no significant residual correlation after maximum-likelihood waveform subtraction, and Allen's calculation puts both erebon GW backgrounds 35–95 orders below LIGO detectability, so the proposal is documented but its evidential base has eroded.

Penrose's 2017 note directly proposes that the reported correlated detector noise could consist of gravitational events from Planck-mass erebon decay. This establishes the historical proposal, not its truth as an explanation of LIGO data. The strongest opposing consideration is that the empirical residual-correlation premise was contested and the quantitative decay calculation places even the larger memory-effect background many orders below LIGO sensitivity.

Penrose 2017 did propose that reported LIGO inter-detector noise correlations at the gravitational-wave time lag could be erebon-decay impulses; that much is documentary fact. The empirical premise was not reproduced after maximum-likelihood waveform subtraction (Nielsen et al.), and Allen’s calculation places both direct and memory-effect backgrounds many orders below detectability under the stated channel. Strongest opposing consideration is residual debate over residual correlations in broader event sets, which still supplies no positive erebon detection.

As stated the claim reports Penrose's 2017 proposal, and the arXiv abstract says exactly that apparently spurious noise may be gravitational events from erebon decay (CCC-E019, CCC-E064); the Creswell et al. premise about correlations maximized at the event's own time lag is also on the record (CCC-E062). Strongest opposing consideration: the proposal's empirical premise has largely collapsed — Nielsen et al. find no statistically significant residual Hanford–Livingston correlation after subtracting the maximum-likelihood waveform (CCC-E067), Ulhoa et al. find event peaks indistinguishable from off-source noise in 26 of 27 pair-measurements, and Allen's calculations put the expected signal tens of orders of magnitude below detectability, so the conjecture is accurately reported and substantively unsupported.

The proposal and its specified test are verified (CCC-E019, E064). Its premise — correlated LIGO noise maximized at the event's lag (CCC-E062, unverified source) — is not reproduced after maximum-likelihood waveform subtraction (CCC-E067, on a source the ledger has not fully verified); the 2026 preprint is context only (CCC-E077). The decisive verified record is Allen 2020: the memory-effect background from the decay Penrose described misses LIGO by 35 orders of magnitude (CCC-E069), the direct background by 95 (CCC-E042). Allen's model is a homogeneous population; Penrose's galactic concentration argument buys a factor of order 100, not 10³⁵.

Penrose (2017, arXiv:1707.04169) explicitly conjectured that the inter-detector noise correlations reported by Creswell et al. at the time of GW150914 could represent impulsive gravitational radiation from decaying erebons. The claim is a verified historical description of Penrose's proposal. The strongest opposing consideration is that subsequent reanalyses (Nielsen et al. 2019) demonstrated that the correlated noise vanished upon subtracting the maximum-likelihood waveform.

The claim reports Penrose 2017's proposal, which the abstract documents verbatim, and Creswell et al. supply the empirical premise on the ledger. The strongest opposing consideration is that both legs of the conjecture have since been deflated: Nielsen et al. find no significant residual Hanford–Livingston correlation after maximum-likelihood waveform subtraction, and Allen shows even the memory-effect background misses LIGO detectability by 35 orders of magnitude — the conjecture is documented but effectively inert. Ulhoa et al. keep inter-detector correlation questions technically open, but as weak, unrefereed context.

Penrose's 2017 note directly proposes that apparently correlated LIGO noise could represent gravitational events from decaying Planck-mass erebons, establishing the historical claim. This does not validate the conjecture itself. The strongest opposing consideration for its scientific viability is that a maximum-likelihood waveform analysis finds no significant residual correlation, while Allen's quantitative decay calculation places the relevant gravitational-wave background far below LIGO sensitivity.

Penrose 2017 did propose that the reported LIGO inter-detector noise correlations at the same time lag as the gravitational-wave events could be erebon-decay impulses. The empirical premise (Creswell et al.) was subsequently contested by Nielsen et al. 2019, who found no significant residual correlation after subtraction of a maximum-likelihood waveform; Allen 2020 further shows that both direct and memory-effect backgrounds fall tens of orders of magnitude below LIGO sensitivity. The strongest opposing consideration is that a non-spherical or locally concentrated decay channel has never been calculated, so a narrow window of detectability is not formally closed.

The claim states only that Penrose proposed the identification, which the verbatim abstract confirms (CCC-E019), together with his framing that the black-hole encounter serves merely to locate a galaxy in the sky (CCC-E064). So the claim as stated holds. Strongest opposing consideration — decisive for the conjecture, not the claim — is that its empirical premise has been removed: after subtracting the maximum-likelihood waveform, Nielsen et al. find no statistically significant Hanford–Livingston residual correlation at GW150914 (CCC-E067), Ulhoa et al. find event peaks indistinguishable from off-source noise in 26 of 27 pair-measurements (CCC-E077), and Allen's memory-effect background misses detectability by 35 orders of magnitude (CCC-E069). The proposal exists; the phenomenon it was proposed to explain largely does not.

Penrose (2017, arXiv:1707.04169) explicitly published the conjecture that correlated noise between Hanford and Livingston detectors reported by Creswell et al. could represent impulsive gravitational-wave signals from decaying erebons. The claim accurately states the historical existence and content of Penrose's proposal. The strongest opposing consideration is that Nielsen et al. (2019) subsequently showed that the noise correlations were artifacts of an imperfect waveform template, removing the empirical anomaly.

The conjecture is documented (CCC-E019, E064), but its empirical premise — Creswell et al.'s residual noise correlations — was not confirmed by Nielsen et al. 2019 after proper waveform subtraction (CCC-E067), and the only published quantitative calculation shows even the larger memory-effect channel misses LIGO detectability by ~35 orders of magnitude (CCC-E069). The strongest opposing consideration is that Nielsen is LIGO-affiliated and single-event, and Ulhoa et al. 2026 keep correlated inter-detector structure weakly open (CCC-E077) — but that preprint's own whitened re-run removes its anomalous result and its statistic is shown non-robust.

Penrose's 2017 note explicitly proposed that apparently correlated detector noise might instead consist of gravitational events from decaying Planck-mass erebons, so the historical claim is established. This does not establish that the proposal is physically correct. The strongest opposing considerations are that a maximum-likelihood waveform analysis removes the motivating GW150914 residual correlation and Allen's modeled erebon signal lies far below LIGO sensitivity.

Penrose 2017 conjectured that reported LIGO inter-detector noise correlations at the GW time lag could be erebon decays. Nielsen et al. 2019 find no significant residual correlation after maximum-likelihood waveform subtraction; Allen 2020 shows both direct and memory-effect backgrounds lie 35–95 orders below detectability. The strongest opposing consideration is Ulhoa et al. 2026’s claim of persistent off-source structure in a band-pass-only pipeline, which the authors themselves note is non-robust under whitening and does not mention erebons.

The claim concerns what Penrose proposed, and his abstract says so verbatim: apparently spurious correlated noise 'may in fact be gravitational events caused by the decay of dark-matter particles (erebons)' (E019), with the black-hole event 'serving merely to locate an individual galaxy in the sky' (E064). The proposal's premise and physical viability are separate matters, and both are weakened. Creswell et al.'s same-lag noise correlation (E062) was not reproduced once the maximum-likelihood waveform was subtracted (E067), Allen's memory-effect background misses LIGO detectability by 35 orders of magnitude (E069), and the 2026 Ulhoa preprint (E077) is unrefereed, never mentions CCC, and moves nothing. Strongest opposing consideration, against treating the conjecture as dead: Allen models a homogeneous stochastic background rather than individual impulsive decays in a dense galactic halo, and Nielsen et al. are LIGO-affiliated and examine a single event with a GR-template residual, so the conjecture is undercut rather than formally refuted.

As worded, the claim records Penrose's proposal, which his note states (CCC-E019, CCC-E064). This adopts the panel majority; the incumbent's 'contradicted' graded the conjecture rather than the claim. The conjecture itself is in poor shape: after subtracting a maximum-likelihood waveform, Nielsen et al. find no significant residual correlation (CCC-E067), and Allen's memory background misses detectability by 35 orders (CCC-E069). The premise (CCC-E062) and a 2026 extension (CCC-E077) are context only.