{ "id": "test-jj-phase1-coupled-cavity", "type": "test", "title": "Test JJ Phase 1 \u2014 Coupled-Cavity Joint 7-Vector Search", "status": "open", "project": "gwc_test_jj", "date_published": "2026-05-09", "date_updated": "2026-05-12", "tags": [ "test-jj", "coupled-cavity", "fdtd", "joint-operator", "decoh", "fingerprint" ], "author": "Jonathan Shelton", "log_subtype": "experiment", "url": "https://prometheusresearch.tech/research/tests/test-jj-phase1-coupled-cavity.html", "source_markdown_url": "https://prometheusresearch.tech/research/_src/tests/test-jj-phase1-coupled-cavity.md.txt", "json_url": "https://prometheusresearch.tech/api/entries/test-jj-phase1-coupled-cavity.json", "summary_excerpt": "Test JJ Phase 1 looks for *emergent* spectral behavior when two FDTD cavities are coupled and driven slightly out of balance. The theory predicts that the seven foundational geometric expressions should *compose* when geometries couple \u2014 producing a joint fingerprint distinct from the sum of two sin...", "frontmatter": { "id": "test-jj-phase1-coupled-cavity", "type": "test", "title": "Test JJ Phase 1 \u2014 Coupled-Cavity Joint 7-Vector Search", "date_published": "2026-05-09", "date_updated": "2026-05-12", "project": "gwc_test_jj", "status": "open", "log_subtype": "experiment", "tags": [ "test-jj", "coupled-cavity", "fdtd", "joint-operator", "decoh", "fingerprint" ], "author": "Jonathan Shelton", "data_supporting": [], "data_refuting": [], "predicts": [ "joint-7-vector-emerges-under-coupling" ], "see_also": [ "aperture-coupling-falsified" ], "attachments": [] }, "body_markdown": "\n## Author notes\n\nTest JJ Phase 1 is the empirical search for a *joint* 7-vector operator \u2014\nwhether two coupled cavities, driven with mismatched per-cell drive, produce a\nspectral fingerprint that cannot be decomposed into the sum of two independent\ncavity fingerprints. If such a joint emergence exists, it would be the\nempirical handle on the framework's prediction that the seven foundational\nexpressions (CONCENTRATE / DISTRIBUTE / RADIATE / POLARIZE / TRIANGULATE /\nCUBIFY / FRUSTRATE) compose when geometries couple.\n\n**Three coupling topologies under test:**\n\n| Topology | Physical picture | Expected if joint exists |\n|---|---|---|\n| `aperture` | Two cavities sharing a small opening | Joint mode appears when aperture < \u03bb/2 of shared resonance |\n| `shared_wall` | Cavities adjacent across a thin wall | Joint mode appears when wall thickness < skin depth at shared resonance |\n| `near_field` | Cavities adjacent but uncoupled, control | If joint mode appears here, the \"joint\" signal is an artifact |\n\n**Decoh teeter-totter protocol.** Each topology is driven with mismatched\nper-cell decoh: (0.10/0.50) \u2192 (0.30/0.30) \u2192 (0.50/0.10). The teeter-totter\nsweeps drive imbalance through neutral and out the other side. If the joint\nfingerprint is real, it should show a *non-monotonic* response to drive\nbalance \u2014 appearing at the boundaries but vanishing at symmetric drive,\nor vice-versa. A monotonic response is consistent with linear mixing only.\n\n**Per-config artifacts.** Each (topology, decoh_A, decoh_B) tuple produces:\n1. `pair.npy` \u2014 full waveform of the coupled run (saved atomically: write to\n `.tmp` with explicit file handle to avoid numpy's `.npy` auto-append, then\n `os.rename` to final).\n2. `baseline_A.npy`, `baseline_B.npy` \u2014 single-cavity controls run at the\n same step count (`STEPS = steps_for_decoh(max(decoh_A, decoh_B))`) so FFT\n bins align across all three sims in the config.\n3. `summary.json` \u2014 top-30 peaks, spectrum_summary (centroid, bandwidth,\n entropy, band_energy_fraction), cos-distance(pair, A+B) \u2014 the\n fingerprint comparison.\n4. Source snapshot at `results_test_jj/_scripts/_/` with\n SHA256 manifest so every result is traceable to the exact code that\n produced it.\n\n**The previous Phase 1 attempt (aperture-only) was falsified** \u2014 see the\n[aperture-coupling-falsified](/research/notes/aperture-coupling-falsified.html)\nlog. That null result is what motivated extending Phase 1 to three topologies\nplus the teeter-totter. If all three topologies null out across the full\ndecoh sweep, the joint-7-vector hypothesis is empirically dead in coupled\nFDTD and the framework needs to either (a) propose a different test rig\n(higher-dimensional simulation, non-EM substrate) or (b) accept that the\nseven expressions don't compose under classical EM coupling at this scale.\n\n**Pre-registration.** Null result on all three topologies = joint-7-vector\nhypothesis falsified at FDTD scale. Joint mode appearing only in `aperture`\n+ `shared_wall` (and not `near_field`) = positive evidence with the right\nselectivity. Joint mode appearing in `near_field` = artifact, halt and\ndebug.\n\n## Summary\n\nTest JJ Phase 1 looks for *emergent* spectral behavior when two FDTD\ncavities are coupled and driven slightly out of balance. The theory predicts\nthat the seven foundational geometric expressions should *compose* when\ngeometries couple \u2014 producing a joint fingerprint distinct from the sum of\ntwo single-cavity fingerprints. Phase 1 puts that prediction in front of\nthree different coupling topologies and a sweep of drive imbalance.\n\nEach test config produces a top-30 peak list, a four-number spectrum\nsummary, and a cos-distance comparison between the coupled run and the\ntwo single-cavity baselines. Every artifact is archived with a SHA256\nmanifest of the exact script that produced it, so any result is reproducible\nfrom this page alone.\n\n**The previous aperture-only attempt was falsified** \u2014 see the linked\nresearch note. Phase 1 expands to three topologies so the falsification has\nto hold across all of them, not just one. Pre-registered outcomes: null on\nall three = hypothesis dead at this scale; positive on `aperture` +\n`shared_wall` only = the right kind of evidence; positive on the `near_field`\ncontrol = artifact.\n\n**Status: in progress on Hetzner.** Results post here as configs complete.\n", "body_html": "

Author notes

\n

Test JJ Phase 1 is the empirical search for a *joint* 7-vector operator \u2014 whether two coupled cavities, driven with mismatched per-cell drive, produce a spectral fingerprint that cannot be decomposed into the sum of two independent cavity fingerprints. If such a joint emergence exists, it would be the empirical handle on the framework's prediction that the seven foundational expressions (CONCENTRATE / DISTRIBUTE / RADIATE / POLARIZE / TRIANGULATE / CUBIFY / FRUSTRATE) compose when geometries couple.

\n

Three coupling topologies under test:

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
TopologyPhysical pictureExpected if joint exists
apertureTwo cavities sharing a small openingJoint mode appears when aperture < \u03bb/2 of shared resonance
shared_wallCavities adjacent across a thin wallJoint mode appears when wall thickness < skin depth at shared resonance
near_fieldCavities adjacent but uncoupled, controlIf joint mode appears here, the \"joint\" signal is an artifact
\n

Decoh teeter-totter protocol. Each topology is driven with mismatched per-cell decoh: (0.10/0.50) \u2192 (0.30/0.30) \u2192 (0.50/0.10). The teeter-totter sweeps drive imbalance through neutral and out the other side. If the joint fingerprint is real, it should show a *non-monotonic* response to drive balance \u2014 appearing at the boundaries but vanishing at symmetric drive, or vice-versa. A monotonic response is consistent with linear mixing only.

\n

Per-config artifacts. Each (topology, decoh_A, decoh_B) tuple produces: 1. pair.npy \u2014 full waveform of the coupled run (saved atomically: write to .tmp with explicit file handle to avoid numpy's .npy auto-append, then os.rename to final). 2. baseline_A.npy, baseline_B.npy \u2014 single-cavity controls run at the same step count (STEPS = steps_for_decoh(max(decoh_A, decoh_B))) so FFT bins align across all three sims in the config. 3. summary.json \u2014 top-30 peaks, spectrum_summary (centroid, bandwidth, entropy, band_energy_fraction), cos-distance(pair, A+B) \u2014 the fingerprint comparison. 4. Source snapshot at results_test_jj/_scripts/_/ with SHA256 manifest so every result is traceable to the exact code that produced it.

\n

The previous Phase 1 attempt (aperture-only) was falsified \u2014 see the aperture-coupling-falsified log. That null result is what motivated extending Phase 1 to three topologies plus the teeter-totter. If all three topologies null out across the full decoh sweep, the joint-7-vector hypothesis is empirically dead in coupled FDTD and the framework needs to either (a) propose a different test rig (higher-dimensional simulation, non-EM substrate) or (b) accept that the seven expressions don't compose under classical EM coupling at this scale.

\n

Pre-registration. Null result on all three topologies = joint-7-vector hypothesis falsified at FDTD scale. Joint mode appearing only in aperture + shared_wall (and not near_field) = positive evidence with the right selectivity. Joint mode appearing in near_field = artifact, halt and debug.

\n

Summary

\n

Test JJ Phase 1 looks for *emergent* spectral behavior when two FDTD cavities are coupled and driven slightly out of balance. The theory predicts that the seven foundational geometric expressions should *compose* when geometries couple \u2014 producing a joint fingerprint distinct from the sum of two single-cavity fingerprints. Phase 1 puts that prediction in front of three different coupling topologies and a sweep of drive imbalance.

\n

Each test config produces a top-30 peak list, a four-number spectrum summary, and a cos-distance comparison between the coupled run and the two single-cavity baselines. Every artifact is archived with a SHA256 manifest of the exact script that produced it, so any result is reproducible from this page alone.

\n

The previous aperture-only attempt was falsified \u2014 see the linked research note. Phase 1 expands to three topologies so the falsification has to hold across all of them, not just one. Pre-registered outcomes: null on all three = hypothesis dead at this scale; positive on aperture + shared_wall only = the right kind of evidence; positive on the near_field control = artifact.

\n

Status: in progress on Hetzner. Results post here as configs complete.

", "see_also": [ "aperture-coupling-falsified" ], "cited_by": [ "test-jj-joint-emergence-prereg", "test-jj-pre-launch-contrarian-audit" ], "attachments": [], "schema_version": "1.0", "generated_at": "2026-05-12T03:27:18.533879Z" }