From the cavity's mode structure
to a multi-qubit network —
one continuous derivation.
The instrument tests one claim: resonance preserves quantum coherence better than isolation, and the geometry of the resonant cavity decides which Bell-state subspace survives.Three independent experiments line up around that claim. A paired-qubit lab shows the cleanest head-to-head between paradigms. A distributed-channel page sends the entanglement across space. A multi-qubit network panel shows when a population of coupled qubits entangles before it phase-locks. Each module's verdict number is recomputed live below — none are stored, none are mocked. If you came here cold, this is the page that gives you the quantum thread end-to-end.
- Resonance side stays in the quantum regime (S > 2) while isolation falls below the classical bound within the same window.
- The Dhara cavity is the headline geometry — its directional channel breaks the super/subradiant degeneracy in favour of |Ψ−⟩.
- Toggle Wave-equation rates · ON to drive the simulation directly from the FDTD bridge.
- When Bob sits inside the Dhara channel (θ ≈ 0°, d < 40), distillable entanglement holds well above all other geometries.
- Move θ to 180° and Dhara becomes the worst geometry — no beam, no protection.
- Switch the initial state to |Φ+⟩ and the entire geometry race collapses to a near-tie — the page's falsification check.
- Spin-squeezing ξ² dips below 1 strictly before the classical order parameter r reaches 1.
- Between K_e and K_c the system is entangled but not phase-locked — the regime a quantum processor wants to live in.
- Mean-field Kuramoto cannot detect this. The full 16×16 Lindblad does, and it runs live in the browser.
Across the three modules, the same answer keeps surfacing: the Dhara cavity geometry has a unique modal structure that protects the antisymmetric Bell state |Ψ−⟩ — at the level of a single qubit pair, at the level of distributed transmission, and at the level of a multi-qubit network.
In Experiment 09, the resonance paradigm under Dhara holds CHSH above 2 indefinitely while isolation collapses to classical (1.63× S-ratio at t ≈ 5). In Experiment 10, Bob inside the channel beam receives more distillable entanglement than the equivalent Bob on the closed side. In the quantum panel of Experiment 06, the entanglement transition K_e sits at …, strictly before the classical phase-lock at K_c ≈ 1.6.
The three numbers come from three different physical models — a 4×4 Lindblad, a spatially-correlated noise tensor, and a 16×16 multi-qubit chain. They are consistent because they share one assumption: the geometry sets the mode structure, and the mode structure decides which subspace is decoherence-free. That assumption is testable against an FDTD field via the bridge on /entangle.
- A. If the /entangle resonance vs isolation S-ratio collapses to ~1× at any non-zero noise, the geometry has nothing to offer over shielding. This page reads the ratio live; collapse would be visible.
- B. If on /channel, moving Bob off the Dhara beam doesn't drop the entanglement, the directional radiation pattern is not actually doing the work — some other mechanism is. The off-beam comparison is computed here.
- C. If on /grid the quantum panel's K-sweep never crosses ξ² = 1, the multi-qubit chain doesn't entangle within the simulation's window — there's no entanglement transition to see. The K_e readout above would show "> 6.0" if so.
- D. If the FDTD bridge on /entangle gives Q_anti < Q_sym for Dhara (the opposite of the current 4 / 11 ratio), the entire geometric claim flips. Toggle Precision mode there to test the convergence.
- E. If the same FDTD bridge gives Q_anti > Q_sym for sphere or cube too, then Dhara is not unique — it's just the most extreme of a continuous family. The five-row comparison on /entangle bridge addresses this directly.