Editing Openai/6897769e-4ee4-800f-aba5-69cca34f701c (section)

==== 1. Decoherence vs flux — QAT says photon absorption is the generator of “now”. So decoherence rate should scale with absorbed photon flux and coupling strength. Predict a functional dependence Γdec(F)\Gamma_{\rm dec}(F)Γdec(F). Experiment: measure decoherence rates of a small mesoscopic system under controlled photon flux (e.g., trapped ion/atom in cavity) and compare to the predicted scaling. ====
# Mass increase from absorbed energy — in principle a system absorbing power PPP gains mass dM/dt=P/c2dM/dt=P/c^2dM/dt=P/c2. This is experimentally tiny, but in extreme laboratory conditions (ultra‑intense laser on micron targets) you can compute orders of magnitude. QAT suggests thinking of the boundary as storing that mass locally — predict tiny changes in gravitational field or inertia (practically extremely small).
# Transition statistics — QAT emphasizes the geometry of many repeated photon exchanges. You can predict statistical distributions of atomic transition sequences (including correlations) that could differ if the boundary geometry imposes a golden‑ratio structure on allowed couplings. This is speculative but can be framed into a spectral prediction for hydrogen lines or selection rules.
# Plasma / large‑scale — if boundary surface ideas scale to plasma double layers, QAT may predict measurable macroscopic correlations (e.g., polarization alignments, filament geometry) in plasmas that correlate with local radiation fluxes.