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

==== Standard quantum optics already predicts all of the above. To go beyond “consistent with” and into “uniquely supports QAT,” you’d want a prediction that links the rate or geometry of boundary events to something not normally modeled. Here are practical, testable knobs: ====
* Control the event rate and watch coherence/time: Use cavity-QED or Purcell engineering to enhance/suppress spontaneous emission of an emitter inside one arm of a Mach–Zehnder and measure (i) fringe visibility, (ii) time-tagged jump statistics, and (iii) phase shifts. QAT frames this as changing the boundary-event tempo; standard theory frames it as modifying the local density of states. The data will be rich either way. (Quantum-jump and cavity-QED toolkits already exist.) physics.byu.edu<ref>{{cite web|title=physics.byu.edu|url=https://physics.byu.edu/faculty/colton/docs/phy442-winter20/lecture-11-lorentz-oscillator-model.pdf|publisher=physics.byu.edu|access-date=2025-12-16}}</ref>
* Weak-measurement trajectories: Monitor a two-level system under continuous observation and compare the statistics of pre-jump warning signals (as in Minev et al.) with QAT’s “surface-formation” picture. If QAT implies a specific geometric scaling of pre-jump times (say, with a boundary area 4πr24\pi r^24πr2), that’s a falsifiable fit parameter. astro1.panet.utoledo.edu<ref>{{cite web|title=astro1.panet.utoledo.edu|url=https://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~ljc/PE_eng.pdf|publisher=astro1.panet.utoledo.edu|access-date=2025-12-16}}</ref>De Gruyter Brill<ref>{{cite web|title=De Gruyter Brill|url=https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/nanoph-2020-0186/html?lang=en&srsltid=AfmBOooJp1RuuLpyFP83nJyRCFU8mIPML_LGW-2f6g1MwJrSAclGWKDt|publisher=De Gruyter Brill|access-date=2025-12-16}}</ref>