The null museum
The failures we publish on purpose
A journal will not carry these. That is exactly why they belong here. Each was sealed and Bitcoin-anchored before it was scored, so the timestamp proves when we knew — including the one we sealed, tested, and then retracted after our own verification found it was wrong.
Null museum · Solid-Earth physics
We searched for the Slichter mode and found nothing -- cleanly
The Slichter mode -- a translational oscillation of Earth's solid inner core, never definitively detected -- searched with a 20-pier coherent superconducting-gravimeter stack over 303 station-years. Null. The sealed pre-registration's primary prediction held and our armed false-alarm flag did not fire; the estimator is confirmed off every one of 38 masked tidal lines.
NULL | methods-clean | estimator off all 38 masked tidal constituents
20 SG piers / 36 segments / 303 station-years (IGETS)
Positive control
The fix is estimator-level and the test was forward-blind: the sealed pre-registration armed a red flag (KSTAR_STILL_ON_A_LINE) that would fire if the search were still sitting on a tidal line. It was graded AFTER the OTS seal and did not fire.
What would have falsified it
A real Slichter triplet would place the detection statistic ON a predicted split frequency; ours sits 31.4 milli-cycles/day off the nearest masked line edge -- exactly where a genuine mode would NOT be.
Verify this
Sealed pre-reg
d882abb27233ef67752ba80c93e721d89f1877b7c1f00348816ec415b3582c73
locked 2026-08-29 · sealed before scored
Bitcoin anchor
block 964581
confirmed
Anchor file
hypotheses/tested/20260829_slichter_1s1_search_v9_line_mask_8579f6b3.json.ots
Run it yourself
python scripts/verify_hypothesis_anchors.py
Data & code
IGETS SG network; cleaned store igets_cleaned_v3sol (20 piers / 36 segments / 303.3 station-yr, 38 constituent lines); trackAB v9 caller, estimator sha b4089bce
Why it matters. Same instrument and program as the l=4 first-measurement above. Here is where it returned nothing -- and we sealed and anchored the null just as carefully as a positive result.
Null museum · Fundamental physics
A clean null on ultralight scalar dark matter
A coherent 21-station superconducting-gravimeter stack searched 50 candidate masses for an oscillating scalar-dark-matter coupling across the band 1 microHz to 8.3 mHz (4.56 million frequency bins, 10,000 permutations). Clean null: no candidate crossed the pre-registered, look-elsewhere-corrected detection threshold.
NO_CANDIDATE_LIMITS | 50 masses | LEE-corrected threshold S >= 4494.87
21 IGETS SG stations · 4.56M frequency bins
Positive control
The unblinding seed was fixed to the hash of a Bitcoin block (961333) that was mined AFTER the analysis was frozen -- so the randomization provably could not have been chosen to flatter the result.
What would have falsified it
Any candidate mass whose coherent amplitude exceeded the sealed look-elsewhere threshold (S >= 4494.87) would have been reported; none did.
Verify this
Sealed pre-reg
972dcbd603607cfa5d96a6627e5365451ad4c5bac4be89cc09f2d1f65b4ee367
locked 2026-08-07 · sealed before scored
Bitcoin anchor
block 961369block 961372block 961402
confirmed
Anchor file
hypotheses/locked/20260807_ultralight_scalar_dm_oscillating_4d41c614.json.ots
Run it yourself
python scripts/verify_hypothesis_anchors.py
Data & code
scripts/nobel_shots/dm_oscillating_g_v2_run.py (commit 276f91e3); IGETS Level-2 CORMIN 1-min SG data, 21 stations >= 5 yr; unblinding seed data/dm_v2_seed.json (BTC block 961333 hash)
Why it matters. A null on a frontier search, done with the discipline that makes a null trustworthy -- a sealed threshold and a randomization seed nobody could game.
Null museum · Earthquake precursors
Solar high-speed streams do not trigger big earthquakes
We tested whether coronal-hole high-speed solar-wind streams elevate the global M6.5+ earthquake rate within 48 hours. Over 1996-2025 (31 stream onsets; 1,310 declustered M6.5+ events) we observed 6 events in the exposure windows against a null expectation of 7.4 -- below chance. Null: no hint of elevation. The bound excludes a rate lift of 1.76x or more at 97.5%.
NULL | observed 6 vs null 7.4 | excludes rate lift >= 1.76x (97.5%)
31 HSS onsets · 1,310 declustered M6.5+ events (1996-2025)
Positive control
The null is a circular-shift surrogate that preserves the earthquake catalogue's own temporal structure; the observed count sits inside its 95% CI [2, 13], below the mean.
What would have falsified it
Had solar streams triggered quakes, the exposure-window count would have exceeded the shuffle null's upper tail; instead it fell below the mean.
Verify this
Sealed pre-reg
06cafff0efa2d6b2e2cef171e54d7fa34190304747f94666b755b3ec42bc3e03
locked 2026-08-15 · sealed before scored
Bitcoin anchor
block 962628block 962629block 962631block 962676
confirmed
Anchor file
hypotheses/locked/20260815_coronal_hole_high_speed_streams__d599a50d.canonical-sha256.ots
Run it yourself
python scripts/verify_hypothesis_anchors.py
Data & code
NASA OMNI2 hourly 1996-2025; ComCat via common/fdsn_multi.py (global M6.5+, declustered 500 km / 30 d)
Why it matters. A popular precursor claim, tested at scale with a proper null and a stated sensitivity floor. It fails -- and the sensitivity bound tells you exactly how large an effect we could have ruled in.
Null museum · Retraction with proof
A precursor we sealed -- then retracted, on the record
Not every sealed hypothesis survives. In one case we sealed a physical precursor hypothesis in our earthquake-forecasting program, forward-tested it, and our OWN later verification found the apparent signal was an artifact -- consistent with the earthquakes recording themselves rather than preceding them. We retracted it. The original seal and the retraction both sit on the Bitcoin-anchored registry, unedited.
STATUS: RETRACTED after our own verification | seal + retraction both anchored, unedited
Sealed pre-registration (identity under commit-reveal)
Positive control
The retraction was driven by an independent internal verification wave that reproduced the original analysis and then found the artifact -- the same discipline that lets a null be trusted, turned on our own positive.
What would have falsified it
The claim was falsifiable by construction; our verification is what falsified it. Because the seal is timestamped, the record proves WHEN we knew we were wrong.
Verify this
Bitcoin anchor
sealed under commit-reveal (identity disclosed on reveal)
Data & code
Commit-reveal registry entry; the retraction principle is auditable across the public hypothesis registry at /hypotheses
Why it matters. This is the point of the whole page. A group that hides its failures degrades under scrutiny; a group that publishes them -- with a timestamp proving when it knew -- gets stronger. No journal carries a retraction like this. The anchored registry does.
Deliberately generic: this precursor is under a commit-reveal seal. Its identity is disclosed only on reveal.