This document records a hypothesis and the numbers it predicts, fixed before any experiment designed to test them. It is the author's hypothesis. It is not proven, it is not established physics, and it is not a theory of everything. Every prediction below lies below the sensitivity of current experiments, so a null result at today's sensitivity neither supports nor refutes it. The purpose of this record is to fix the expected sizes, scalings and rules in advance, with a public date, so that a later measurement can be compared against them. The "information cloud" named in the hypothesis is, by the author's definition, the quantum state itself and cannot be observed; the testable predictions are therefore the heat and the mass change at the sending and receiving ends. Predictions dated 16 October 2026. Author's hypothesis; not proven and not established physics.
This document records a hypothesis and the numbers it predicts, fixed before any experiment designed to test them. It is the author's hypothesis. It is not proven, it is not established physics, and it is not a theory of everything. Every prediction below lies below the sensitivity of current experiments, so a null result at today's sensitivity neither supports nor refutes it. The purpose of this record is to fix the expected sizes, scalings and rules in advance, with a public date, so that a later measurement can be compared against them. The "information cloud" named in the hypothesis is, by the author's definition, the quantum state itself and cannot be observed; the testable predictions are therefore the heat and the mass change at the sending and receiving ends. Predictions dated 16 October 2026. Author's hypothesis; not proven and not established physics.
Dated predictions, registered before any experiment designed to test them. This is the author's hypothesis. It is not proven, it is not established physics, and it is not a theory of everything. Every prediction lies below the sensitivity of current experiments, so a null result at today's sensitivity neither supports nor refutes it. Building on E=mc²=i (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.23415364), where one bit carries the mass of its Landauer energy, kT ln 2 / c², this record applies that formula to an entangled pair. By the author's choice, one maximally entangled pair (one ebit) carries n = 1 bit, held by the relation between the halves, not by either half: 3.2 × 10⁻³⁸ kg at 300 K. Six pair predictions follow (EP1 to EP6: weigh the pair, drop the pair, heat at the detectors, the pair as fuel, locked bits in silicon against the entangled pair, and superdense coding), each set against what standard physics predicts. It also registers P12: the 2 kT ln 2 of heat per teleportation (E=mc²=i P7, cited unchanged) appears at the moment of the Bell-state measurement, even while the outcome record is kept and never erased. A delayed-erasure test is proposed that separates the measurement moment from the record erasure. Open questions are stated as open. Foundation: this record builds on the author's earlier record E=mc²=i (all versions: DOI 10.5281/zenodo.23414461), which is itself untested. Its predictions hold only if E=mc²=i holds; a confirmation of E=mc²=i would not by itself confirm the choice n = 1. Falsifier, stated plainly: no excess mass (n = 0) is the result that proves the entangled-pair claim wrong. Prior work: Melvin M. Vopson's mass-energy-information equivalence principle, a stored bit with mass kT ln 2 / c² (Vopson 2019, AIP Advances 9, 095206; test protocol Vopson 2022, AIP Advances 12, 035311), proposed and not yet confirmed. This record shares that vision from another perspective: the bit held by the relation in an entangled pair, one shared bit, rather than by a memory. Bits = quanta is an author's postulate used within the E=mc²=i framework and should not be interpreted as a statement of established quantum information theory.
SCQG Paper 12 of 28 This paper sets out experiments for testing Semantic Commitment Quantum Gravity. It connects the theory’s physical equations to detector records, matched control interventions and decision rules fixed before data collection. The main laboratory proposal uses light coupled to a mechanical oscillator. It compares three conditions. Arm D adds measured noise independently of the record. Arm C measures the system and uses the result for feedback control. Arm S keeps that physical control matched and changes a stored instruction that selects a later action. The contrast C − D tests active record stabilization. The contrast S − C tests whether instruction content changes later choices on new task cases excluded from training and tuning. The paper gives equations for the cavity and oscillator, continuous measurement, feedback, noise, covariance reconstruction, work and heat. The calculations include the physical bath response, detector bandwidth, control latency and approximation error. Calibration and statistical procedures connect predicted changes in physical variability to quantities estimated from repeated runs. A source–receiver protocol distinguishes when a record becomes physically available from when the receiver can reliably identify its source. A separate clock protocol tests whether retained physical records can distinguish different cycles of a repeating clock. Gravity protocols combine causal order, discrete curvature, screen response, energy flux and tensor reconstruction to test the Einstein equation at specified scales. Each protocol specifies the controls, calibration, uncertainty, held-out evaluation, stopping rules and retained data needed to reproduce the analysis. These conditions determine when a result supports the tested prediction, reveals a physical discrepancy or remains inconclusive. This is Paper 12 of the Semantic Commitment / Quantum Gravity series.
Ethical Scope and Use Limitation. This work is intentionally constrained to a diagnostic and evaluative framework. It does not propose, enable, or imply direct control, manipulation, or inducement of physical, cognitive, or informational systems. All algorithmic descriptions and experimental considerations are provided solely for the purpose of falsification, boundary testing, and theoretical clarification. Any interpretation suggesting operational deployment or actionable control lies outside the intended scope of this work. This record contains Part II of the Entropy-Induced Collapse (EIC) model, together with its complete Supplementary Information. Part II reformulates the EIC hypothesis in fully operational terms, focusing on definitions, detection rules, and falsifiable predictions that can be tested using quantum error correction (QEC) logs. All quantities are defined exclusively in terms of experimentally accessible data streams, avoiding reliance on unobservable variables or interpretational assumptions. The main text establishes the logical structure of the framework, including entropy-based proxies, dynamic threshold conditions, collapse classification, and scaling predictions with respect to code distance. The Supplementary Information provides full technical details required for implementation and reproduction, including a complete algorithmic specification, a Python reference implementation, sensitivity and scaling analyses, and detailed experimental protocols compatible with existing quantum computing platforms. Together with Part I, this document defines a fully testable, implementation-ready research framework that connects questions of wavefunction collapse directly to contemporary quantum information experiments. The material is intended for researchers interested in quantum foundations, quantum error correction, and reproducible, data-driven collapse models. Keywords(Suggested keywords) Entropy-induced collapse Quantum measurement problem Quantum error correction Information-theoretic collapse Operational collapse models Wavefunction collapse Reproducible research Quantum foundations