CBF • Conclusions

Quantum Mechanics

1. Collapse Timing Dependence on Spatial Separation

Near Future QM Small deviation (~ps)

CBF Prediction:

Wavefront collapse time increases with spatial extent of the wavefunction. For a wavefront spanning distance L, collapse delay beyond baseline: Δτ_collapse ≈ L/c + τ₀

Standard QM:

Instantaneous collapse regardless of spatial extent. No delay from wavefunction size.

Experimental Signature:

Prepare large (~cm scale) single-photon wavefunction using beam splitters
Measure time between arrival at detector and when interference pattern updates
CBF predicts ~30 ps delay for L = 1 cm. Standard QM: 0 delay
Requires femtosecond timing resolution + single-photon detection

Falsification Threshold: If collapse timing is completely independent of spatial extent (no L/c term detectable), Event Ledger mechanism is falsified.

2. Decoherence Without Dissipation (D‑field Scars)

Testable Now QM Qualitative difference

CBF Prediction:

Vetoed branches reduce coherence by writing D‑field scars (history of pruned attempts) without depositing heat in the system or bath. Coherence can fall substantially while measured thermal energy remains flat within instrumentation limits.

Standard QM:

Environment‑induced decoherence is usually tied to uncontrolled coupling that also exchanges energy. Pure dephasing is acknowledged, but is typically modeled as weak, source‑specific noise rather than a persistent history bias.

Experimental Signature:

Platform: single‑photon Mach–Zehnder or superconducting‑qubit Ramsey interferometry at cryogenic temperature.
Protocol: run repeated interaction‑free veto trials (dark‑port clicks or high‑hazard paths) to accumulate scars, then remove the veto.
Measure simultaneously: (i) fringe visibility/contrast, (ii) precise calorimetry or noise thermometry of the interferometer region, and (iii) residual path bias after veto removal.
CBF signal: visibility drops faster than any measurable heat uptake, plus a small post‑removal path bias that relaxes on a finite timescale (scar decay).

Controls / Confound Rejection:

Swap in a sham veto with identical optics but no hazard, to confirm no comparable bias forms.
Vary veto rate: CBF predicts scar size scales with cumulative veto count, not with optical loss or bath temperature.
Temperature guard: verify Johnson noise and black‑body photon flux are unchanged between runs.

Falsification Threshold: If decoherence is always accompanied by commensurate energy exchange within sensitivity, and no post‑veto bias is observed, the D‑field scar mechanism is falsified.

3. High-Order Interference Pattern Deviations

Near Future QM Small (~10⁻⁴ relative)

CBF Prediction:

In large-N slit gratings, a finite temporal coincidence window of the Event Ledger limits perfect phase reconciliation for very high fringe orders. Visibility decreases with order even when geometric coherence is satisfied: V_CBF ≈ V_QM · (1 − n²·τ_gate/T_coh) where n is fringe order, τ_gate is the Ledger’s effective timing gate, and T_coh is source coherence time.

Standard QM:

For path differences within the coherence length, visibility is order-independent. No systematic n-dependent drop beyond optical imperfections.

Experimental Signature:

High-quality transmission grating with N ≥ 1000 slits and sub-µrad angular stability.
Measure visibility for n = 10–20 while holding geometry and illumination constant.
CBF expects a small, systematic reduction at high orders, target scale ~10⁻⁴ relative to low orders.
Use intensity-linear detectors and flat-field calibration to reach <0.1% visibility uncertainty.

Controls / Confounds:

Grating MTF: Characterize grating transfer function at high spatial frequencies and deconvolve it.
Source linewidth: Lock laser and verify T_coh ≫ optical path spread across measured orders.
Detector linearity: Calibrate pixel response, avoid clipping, correct for blooming/PRNU.
Aperture vignetting: Keep pupil fixed, confirm identical NA across orders.

Falsification Threshold: If, after deconvolving grating MTF and detector effects, high-order visibility matches standard QM (no residual ∝ n² dependence within the error budget), the finite coincidence-window prediction is falsified.

4. Phase-Reset Memory in Re-Interference

Near Future QM Moderate (~1–5 %)

CBF Prediction:

After deliberate coherence loss, partial visibility can re-emerge once D-field scars decay. The Ledger retains latent phase correlations that slowly “heal,” restoring a fraction of interference contrast.

Standard QM:

Once a superposition decoheres into a mixed state, re-combining beams without a fresh coherent source cannot restore visibility beyond instrumental drift.

Experimental Signature:

Alternate destructive “veto” runs and idle intervals Δt between interferometer shots.
Measure visibility recovery V(Δt) ≈ V₀ (1 − e^{−Δt/τ_scar}).
CBF predicts τ_scar on the order of seconds–minutes, depending on environment.

Falsification Threshold: If visibility never rebounds beyond statistical noise, D-field memory is falsified.

5. Collapse-Timing Jitter vs Source Coherence

Testable Now QM Statistical (~ps variance)

CBF Prediction:

Commit-time jitter of correlated detections scales inversely with source coherence time: σ_CBF ≈ τ₀ (T_coh,ref/T_coh). Longer-coherence sources yield tighter coincidence histograms once instrumental jitter is removed.

Standard QM:

Timing variance arises only from detector response and optical dispersion; coherence time affects visibility, not jitter width.

Experimental Signature:

Use heralded-photon pairs with variable linewidth (etalon or cavity tuning).
Measure coincidence histogram width σ vs. T_coh.
CBF predicts σ ∝ 1/T_coh; standard QM predicts flat σ.

Falsification Threshold: If coincidence-time variance stays constant once detectors are calibrated, commit-latency scaling is falsified.

6. Weak-Measurement Hysteresis

Near Future QM Small phase drift (~mrad)

CBF Prediction:

Sequential weak measurements accumulate a tiny Ledger load, producing a cumulative phase lag: δφ ≈ ζ N_meas τ₀ / T_cycle. Later weak values drift systematically relative to early trials.

Standard QM:

Weak measurements are non-invasive; ensemble averages remain invariant to measurement order.

Experimental Signature:

Perform repeated weak-value extractions on a stable qubit or photon ensemble.
Track mean weak phase vs. repetition count N_meas.
CBF predicts a linear drift; standard QM predicts flat phase within noise.

Falsification Threshold: No measurable drift (|δφ| < 0.1 mrad over 10⁴ runs) falsifies cumulative Ledger load.

7. Polarization-Dependent D-Field Write Rate

Testable Now QM Qualitative difference

CBF Prediction:

D-field pruning rate depends on polarization topology: linear polarization (spin 0) writes scars more efficiently than circular or elliptical (spin ±1). Spin-locked modes self-cancel partial pruning through rotational averaging.

Standard QM:

Decoherence and scattering rates depend only on coupling strength and environment, not on polarization handedness.

Experimental Signature:

Run identical single-photon interferometers with linear and circular polarization.
Measure long-term visibility decay V(t).
CBF predicts V_lin < V_circ over time; standard QM predicts equality.

Falsification Threshold: Equal decay curves within 0.5 % uncertainty falsify spin-weighted D-field coupling.

1. Queue-Burst Sensitivity in Time Dilation

Far Future SR Very small (~10⁻⁶ at v≈0.9c)

CBF Prediction:

Proper-time dilation depends very weakly on the burstiness of acceleration, not only on instantaneous speed. When the same final velocity v is reached via short, intense bursts versus smooth acceleration, the Event Ledger briefly saturates its maintenance queue, producing a tiny transient excess delay. For equal average γ, τ_burst/τ_smooth ≈ 1 + ε · (γ − 1) · Q where Q is a dimensionless burstiness parameter (e.g., normalized rms acceleration), and ε ≈ 10⁻⁶ at v ≈ 0.9c.

Standard SR:

Ideal clocks’ rates depend on instantaneous velocity and gravitational potential only. For the same worldline endpoints and the same v(t), no additional history-dependent overshoot is expected beyond γ(v).

Experimental Signature:

Storage-ring clocks: Compare lifetime/clock drift for bunched versus deliberately de-bunched beams tuned to the same average γ (muons or highly charged ions).
Space clocks: Two identical optical clocks on a spacecraft, one experiencing short thruster bursts to reach v, the other a smooth thrust profile to the same v. Compare differential ticks during and shortly after maneuvers.
Target sensitivity: fractional timing differences at the 10⁻⁶ × (γ−1) level.

Controls / Confounds:

Remove gravitational redshift via symmetric up/down burns or differential modeling.
Account for synchrotron radiation and beam heating in rings (lifetime systematics).
Thermal/servo transients in optical cavities must be < 10⁻⁷ fractional during burns.

Falsification Threshold: If bunched and smooth profiles at the same γ yield identical proper-time within 10⁻⁸ fractional (after systematics), queue-burst buffering is falsified.

2. Planck-Scale Dispersion in Ultra-High-Energy Particles

Speculative SR Tiny (~10⁻¹² at E_Planck)

CBF Prediction:

Finite tick precision in the Ledger’s update cycle introduces a minute, energy-dependent dispersion at extreme energies. The effect arises because worldlines quantize translation and maintenance credits in discrete τ₀ steps rather than in a continuous metric. Group velocity for massless carriers: v_g/c ≈ 1 − (1/12)(k a_eff)² where a_eff = c τ₀ defines the Planck-tick scale. Detectable departures occur only when E ≳ 10²⁰ eV (so k a_eff ≈ 1), giving Δv/c ≈ 10⁻¹².

Standard SR:

All photons and other massless quanta propagate exactly at c, independent of energy or wavelength. No Planck-scale dispersion is permitted.

Experimental Signature:

Astrophysical: energy-resolved arrival times of γ-rays (1–100 TeV) from GRBs, AGN flares, and magnetar bursts.
Cosmic-ray: compare air-shower front curvature for E > 10²⁰ eV events across detectors (Auger, TA).
CBF expects a cumulative lag Δt ≈ L (ka_eff)² / 12c; for L ≈ 10⁹ ly and E ≈ 10 TeV, Δt ≈ 10⁻⁴ s.
Current Fermi-LAT limits: |Δv/c| < 10⁻¹⁷ → CBF requires ≈10⁵ improvement to reach test sensitivity.

Controls / Confounds:

Model intrinsic emission delays per GRB energy band to separate source structure from propagation effects.
Cross-check with neutrino and UHECR datasets for identical energy-lag trend.
Correlate multiple instruments (Fermi, MAGIC, HAWC, CTA) for systematic-bias rejection.

Falsification Threshold: If no measurable energy-dependent arrival-time dispersion is seen up to 10²⁰ eV (|Δv/c| < 10⁻¹⁷), the finite-tick precision model of spacetime translation is falsified.

3. Clock Drift in Alternating Acceleration (Ledger Memory)

Near Future SR Small (~10⁻¹⁵ fractional)

CBF Prediction:

Alternating acceleration sequences (equal positive and negative thrusts, net velocity ≈ 0) produce a small residual proper-time lag because each acceleration burst saturates the local Ledger queue before fully discharging. The result is a hysteresis-like “tick memory”: Δτ ≈ N · ε_burst · τ₀, where N is the number of acceleration reversals.

Standard SR:

Proper time depends only on the total spacetime path, not on the acceleration history. Perfectly symmetric forward–back motion cancels exactly, yielding zero net drift.

Experimental Signature:

Place two identical optical clocks on a centrifuge arm, one experiencing oscillating angular acceleration, the other steady rotation.
After N ≈ 10⁴ reversals, compare accumulated tick difference.
CBF predicts residual lag of order 10⁻¹⁵ s after hours; SR predicts none.

Falsification Threshold: No cumulative drift (|Δτ| < 10⁻¹⁶ after 10⁴ reversals) falsifies Ledger-memory hysteresis.

4. Cross-Frame Jitter in Simultaneity Tests

Testable Now SR Statistical (~fs)

CBF Prediction:

The global Ledger synchronizes events in discrete α-paced ticks rather than continuously. Simultaneity comparisons between moving frames therefore show tiny stochastic jitter around the ideal Lorentz prediction: σ_sim ≈ τ₀ · √(v²/c²).

Standard SR:

Lorentz transformation is exact and deterministic; any jitter arises solely from measurement noise, not intrinsic tick discreteness.

Experimental Signature:

Two-way optical time-transfer between ground and LEO clock pair at varying velocities.
Analyze residual timing variance after subtracting modeled Doppler and gravitational effects.
CBF predicts an irreducible floor of ~10⁻¹⁵ s (≈ τ₀) scaling with relative velocity.

Falsification Threshold: If simultaneity variance continues to shrink linearly with hardware precision (no plateau near τ₀), discrete α-tick pacing is falsified.

5. Unified α-Field Coupling to Acceleration (SR–GR Bridge)

Near Future SR/GR Conceptual (~10⁻⁹ fractional)

CBF Prediction:

The same α(x) pacing field that produces gravitational redshift also governs velocity-based time dilation. In uniformly accelerated frames, α depends on proper acceleration a via α = √(1 − a·x/c²), matching GR’s potential redshift at low curvature. CBF predicts a tiny cross-term when gravitational and kinematic α gradients coexist, observable as mixed redshift–Doppler asymmetry.

Standard Relativity:

SR and GR treat kinematic and gravitational redshift as distinct contexts; their equivalence principle is conceptual but not normally expressed as a single pacing field.

Experimental Signature:

Compare identical optical clocks in a centrifuge (centripetal a = 10⁴ m/s²) and in a vertical gravitational potential producing equivalent g.
CBF predicts identical α-ratio within ~10⁻⁹ fractional if both accelerations produce the same local pacing gradient.
Residual mismatch between the two frames tests the unified α-field mapping.

Falsification Threshold: If redshift and acceleration-based dilation differ by >10⁻⁹ after correcting for all known SR/GR terms, α-field unification fails.

Quantum Mechanics

1. Collapse Timing Dependence on Spatial Separation

2. Decoherence Without Dissipation (D‑field Scars)

3. High-Order Interference Pattern Deviations

4. Phase-Reset Memory in Re-Interference

5. Collapse-Timing Jitter vs Source Coherence

6. Weak-Measurement Hysteresis

7. Polarization-Dependent D-Field Write Rate

1. Queue-Burst Sensitivity in Time Dilation

2. Planck-Scale Dispersion in Ultra-High-Energy Particles

3. Clock Drift in Alternating Acceleration (Ledger Memory)

4. Cross-Frame Jitter in Simultaneity Tests

5. Unified α-Field Coupling to Acceleration (SR–GR Bridge)

Gravity & Cosmology

Gravity & cosmology predictions coming soon

Electromagnetism & Materials

EM & materials predictions coming soon