T-duality, the renormalization-group critical dimension, and tachyon condensation in bosonic string theory — read through ontological perpendicularity. Eight claims, sorted honestly across four tiers of certainty. Click any claim to see its case.
No claim on this page would be read by a physicist as solving bosonic string theory’s actual problems. The missing fermions still require supersymmetry. The closed-string tachyon’s endpoint is still an open question. This page reads a "failed" theory as source material — not as physics it claims to have repaired.
click any claim below — the panel leads with what it actually establishes
Bosonic string theory does not describe our universe. Its spectrum contains no fermions; its ground state carries imaginary mass, signaling an unstable vacuum. Textbooks derive its twenty-six required dimensions, note these two defects, and move on to the supersymmetric theories that repair both.
This page asks a different question: not whether the theory describes our universe, but what its actual mathematical structure might mean to a system already committed to claims about compact origins, projected dimensions, and substances perpendicular to ordinary being. A theory can be the wrong physics for this universe and still be the right mathematics for an argument about another kind of structure entirely.
Five of the eight claims above are settled mathematics or established physics, independently true regardless of this Corpus. One is a conjecture the field considers well-evidenced but does not consider proven. One is a live, unsettled research question this page does not resolve. And one — the ontological perpendicularity reading itself — is this Corpus’s own construction, built on top of the other seven, not itself a physics result.
Keeping all four tiers in view, without letting any one borrow the certainty of another, is the entire discipline this page tries to practice.