Undermines· strongCCC-E012
Bodnia et al. 2024: few-pixel spots manufacture the signatures; nulls at full resolution
- what the source states
- A maximum-resolution search of Planck and WMAP data: "We find that spots consisting of a few unusually bright (high-temperature) or dark (low-temperature) pixels, erroneously lead to regions with many low-variance circles, and consequently sets of near-concentric low-variance circles, when applying the search criteria used in previous work. After removing those spots from the data, no statistically significant low-variance circles can be found." HawkingNet, a ResNet18-based search, likewise finds no significant Hawking points, and the authors state that spots "with a magnitude in the range from 100 to 400 µK amplitude and spatial Gaussian extend between 0.7 and 1.2 degrees... can be ruled out." They add: "The absence of such statistically-significant distinct features in the currently available CMB data does not disprove the CCC model, but implies that higher resolution CMB data and/or refined CCC based predictions are needed."
- what we infer
- The most consequential record in the case: it does not merely fail to confirm the signatures, it identifies the generating mechanism for false positives under the proponents' own criterion (anomalous few-pixel spots inflating the local baseline variance) and publishes open-source code. It also models the epistemics this site asks for — an explicit statement of what its null does and does not establish, and a call for quantitative predictions (taken up as CCC-R005).
- limitations
- The ruled-out Hawking-point amplitude/size box is specific to the assumed Gaussian profile; fainter or differently shaped imprints are unconstrained.
- The artifact diagnosis explains false circles around anomalous spots; it does not by itself account for every concentric family reported earlier.