Quantum Predictions

2 Consistent, 6 Untested

Synchronism's quantum claims are meaningless without testable predictions. The quantum arc (Sessions #228-237) derived specific equations that have since been checked against published experimental literature. Six additional protocols (Sessions #368-370) await testing.

Every prediction has a kill criterion. If the data says no, the theory dies on that point.

Consistent with Published Results

Two results from the quantum arc match published experimental literature. Important caveat: these formulas were derived in January 2026 (Sessions #232-235). The confirming experiments were published in 2024-2025. This is post-diction — consistency with existing data, not a prior prediction.

Shared-Environment Decoherence Protection

Consistent
Γ = γ²(1 − c)

Decoherence rate, where c = environmental noise correlation

Entangled pairs in the same noise environment decohere slower than pairs in independent environments. Synchronism treats entanglement as one extended phase pattern, so correlated noise preserves it. PRL 2024 reported 10× T₂ improvement with c ≈ 0.90. The formula predicts T₂ improvement = 1/(1−c) = 10×. Quantitative match. arXiv 2405.14685 independently confirmed shared-bath dephasing reduction.

Kill criterion: If T₂ does not scale as 1/(1−c) across controlled noise correlations, the model fails. Source: Session #232.

Bell Nonlocality Freezing & Revival

Consistent
|S(t)| = Sₘₐₓ × e^(−Γt),   c(d) = cos²(πd/λ₀)

Bell violation decay with distance-dependent noise correlation

CHSH Bell violation decays exponentially but revives at specific distances determined by environmental geometry. arXiv 2508.07046 (“Geometry-Controlled Freezing and Revival of Bell Nonlocality”) matches this pattern directly. The oscillatory revival at distance nodes is confirmed by multiple sources.

Kill criterion: If Bell violation decay is monotonic (no revival at distance nodes), the geometric correlation model fails. Source: Sessions #235-237.

The 6 Untested Protocols

Designed in Sessions #368-370. Each has a specific falsification criterion. None have been run.

1. EEG Phase Locking

$150K · 12 months

Measure EEG phase-locking values during consciousness transitions (anesthesia induction/recovery). Synchronism predicts that phase coherence should track γ ≈ 1 boundary crossing.

Falsification: If phase-locking values show no threshold behavior at the predicted coherence level, or if the transition is gradual rather than boundary-like, the γ ≈ 1 consciousness prediction fails.

2. Wide Binary γ

$0 · 6 months

Reanalyze Gaia DR3 wide binary star data for density-dependent anomalies in orbital dynamics. Synchronism predicts that wide binaries in low-density environments should show γ-dependent deviations from Newtonian predictions.

Falsification: If wide binary anomalies show no correlation with local density environment, the density-dependent γ prediction fails. Uses existing public Gaia DR3 data — no funding required.

3. SPARC Environment

$0 · 6 weeks

Test whether RAR scatter in the SPARC galaxy sample correlates with environmental density (NP2 environment classification). Synchronism predicts environment-dependent scatter because γ depends on local Ncorr.

Falsification: If RAR scatter is environment-independent (no NP2 correlation, p > 0.05), the environment-dependent γ prediction fails. Uses existing SPARC data.

4. Circadian γ

$50K · 1 month

Measure whether neural coherence follows circadian rhythms with γ-predicted periodicity. Synchronism predicts that the effective γ of neural ensembles should oscillate with sleep-wake cycles, tracking Ncorr changes in cortico-thalamic loops.

Falsification: If neural coherence measures show no circadian modulation matching γ predictions, or if the periodicity doesn't match sleep architecture, the neural γ model fails.

5. Minimal Cell γ

$200–500K · 24 months

Study whether minimal synthetic cells (JCVI-syn3.0 or similar) exhibit coherence signatures at the γ ≈ 1 boundary. Synchronism predicts that the minimal viable cell operates near the quantum-classical boundary because molecular recognition requires coherent binding.

Falsification: If minimal cells show no measurable quantum coherence signatures, or if their operational regime is far from γ ≈ 1, the biology-at-the-boundary prediction fails.

6. QC Coherence Time

$5K · 6 months

Test whether qubit T2 coherence times across different quantum computing platforms correlate with Ncorr-based predictions. Synchronism predicts that T2 should scale inversely with the rate of environmental Ncorrcoupling.

Falsification: If T2 variations across platforms (trapped ion, superconducting, photonic) do not correlate with Ncorr environmental coupling rates, the decoherence-as-MRH-crossing model fails.

Cost Summary

$0
Protocols 2 & 3: existing public data
$55K
Protocols 4 & 6: modest pilot studies
$350–650K
Protocols 1 & 5: full experimental programs

Where to Start

Protocols 2 (Wide Binary γ) and 3 (SPARC Environment) require no funding and use existing public datasets. They are the logical starting point. If both fail, the more expensive protocols are likely not worth pursuing. If either succeeds, it provides motivation for the funded experiments.

Full protocol specifications, data sources, and statistical power analyses are documented in Sessions #368-370 of the autonomous research archive.

Full Test Catalog →Back: Measurement Without Observers

Prerequisites

Understanding these concepts first will help:

Measurement Without ObserversMRH crossing replaces wave function collapse

Related Concepts

Test Catalog24 specific experiments by tierTier 2: Pilot Experiments4 tests, $50K–$200K eachKey Claims3 claims where Synchronism says something newDecoherence at the MRHWhy classical emerges from quantum