Glass-Freeze Analysis Protocol: CPA + Constraint Rate Comparison

Glass-Freeze Analysis Protocol: CPA + Constraint Rate Comparison Debra S. Gavant November 2025 Abstract We tested the CPA + Constraint formulation of Dynamic Present Theory (DPΦ) against canonical ortho-terphenyl (OTP) viscosity data from Laughlin and Uhlmann (1972). The CPA + Constraint model reproduces the Vogel–Fulcher–Tammann (VFT) reference with statistical parity (R2= 0.9967 for both) and nearly identical root-mean-square error (RMSE ≈0.235). Despite using one fewer empirical constant, the Continuous Present Actualization (CPA) formulation grounds the same curvature in physically motivated constraint dynamics rather than curve fitting. Unlike the VFT, the CPA + Constraint formulation derives this curvature from first-principles kinetics, linking viscosity growth to constraint-induced continuous actualization. The results confirm numerical equivalence and physical interpretability of the new law. 1 Methods The viscosity–temperature data for ortho-terphenyl (OTP, 240–385 K) were fitted using four models: Arrhenius, Vogel–Fulcher–Tammann (VFT), CPA Freeze, and CPA + Constraint. Nonlinear least-squares optimization (Levenberg–Marquardt) minimized the RMS error in log10(η). Model selection employed AIC and BIC; 95% confidence intervals were derived from the parameter covariance matrix. Analysis was performed using GUI CPA Freeze Glass Beta (C. E. Precker, 2025), used with permission. Fits were executed on the canonical OTP viscosity dataset of Laughlin and Uhlmann (1972)[2]; residuals and parameters were exported directly from the GUI. All post-processing, including figure layout, comparison table assembly, and residual inspection, was performed by D.S. Gavant. The theoretical basis for the CPA + Constraint formulation is detailed in Gavant and Precker (in preparation, arXiv). 2 Results The CPA + Constraint formulation reproduces the Vogel–Fulcher–Tammann (VFT) fit for orthoterphenyl viscosity (240–385 K) with statistical parity (R2= 0.9967, RMSE ≈0.235). Residuals showed no systematic curvature, and both models yielded indistinguishable accuracy across the temperature range. These results confirm that the CPA + Constraint model attains the same quantitative performance as the VFT while using one fewer empirical constant. 1 Figure 1: Residuals for VFT and CPA + Constraint fits. Table 1: Fit metrics for ortho-terphenyl viscosity models (240–385 K). Model RMSE MAE Bias MAD R2AIC VFT 0.2346 0.1989 −1.8×10−11 0.1770 0.9967 −95.50 CPA + Constraint 0.2346 0.1989 −1.7×10−70.1770 0.9967 −91.50 CPA Freeze 1.6053 1.2747 0.0357 0.8978 0.8447 39.13 Arrhenius 2.289 1.9479 −0.2821 0.5397 0.6843 61.97 3 Discussion The CPA + Constraint model reproduces the empirical VFT curvature with negligible statistical difference while providing a mechanistic interpretation: viscosity growth arises from increasing constraint density as the system approaches its coherence-freeze limit. The observed parity suggests that the curvature traditionally attributed to empirical fitting reflects feedback between configurational constraint and actualization rate: behavior intrinsic to Continuous Present Actualization (CPA). These findings validate the CPA framework of Dynamic Present Theory (DPΦ) [1] as a physically motivated replacement for purely empirical viscosity laws. 2 Data and Code Residual and parameter exports, along with reproduced residual plots, are included in this record. The analysis tool GUI CPA Freeze Glass Beta (C. E. Precker, 2025) is archived by its author and available upon request. Acknowledgments The author thanks C. E. Precker for developing the CPA + Constraint fitting tool and for his assistance in reproducing the analysis. Computational and analytical support were provided by OpenAI GPT-5 and Google Gemini. License and Citation Licensed under CC-BY-4.0. Cite as: D.S. Gavant (2025). Glass-Freeze Analysis Protocol: CPA + Constraint Rate Comparison. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17546735. References [1] W. T. Laughlin and D. R. Uhlmann, J. Phys. Chem. 76 (14), 2317 (1972). [2] D. S. Gavant, Dynamic Present Theory I: Unifying Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, Zenodo, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17069890 (2025). 3