The True Nature of Quantum Tunneling, Non-Signal Control Theory, and the PQ (Perception Quantum) Unified Model

The True Nature of Quantum Tunneling, No-Signal Control Theory, and the PQ (Perception Quantum) Unified Model Koji Matsubara Independent Researcher Email: [email protected] Abstract This paper presents a fundamental re-examination of quantum entanglement and nonlocality beyond the explanatory scope of conventional quantum theory, through the introduction of a newly proposed framework: No-Signal Control Theory (NSC theory). The core of this work is the discovery that a quantum state is not fully characterized within a conventional single-layer Hilbert space, but instead must be expressed within a two-layer Hilbert space: Htotal =Hobs ⊗Hstruct, where Hobs represents the observable layer and Hstruct represents the structural layer. Using IBM Quantum real devices, the following experimentally reproducible phenomena—difficult to explain within standard quantum mechanics—were confirmed: •Nonlocal Hadamard switching: the H gate changes the remote qubit’s measurement probability from 100% to 50/50, acting as a nonlocal structural switch. •Order dependence of the CNOT gate: the measurement distribution changes significantly depending on whether the control and target qubits are swapped. •Structural stability differences between the NS (north–south) and EW (east–west) basis states,|NS⟩,|EW ⟩. 1 These results collectively demonstrate that remote operations do not transmit information, but do transmit structure—a distinction essential for compatibility with the no-signaling principle. Furthermore, this paper introduces a new internal quantum degree of freedom: the Perception Quantum (PQ). PQ acts as the dynamical carrier of the structural layer, and the observed probability bias is determined by the PQ coupling strength χ. Variations in PQ coupling induce stability shifts between the NS and EW modes, generate nonlocal inversions, and amplify structural fluctuations— resulting in systematic statistical biases in measurement outcomes. This paper accomplishes the following: •A complete mathematical formulation of the two-layer Hilbert space Htotal = Hobs ⊗Hstruct. •Derivation of extended H and CX operators based on the NSC axioms. •Derivation of the correspondence between PQ coupling strength χand observable measurement probabilities. •Full consistency with IBM Quantum experimental data (including complete code listings and referenced figures). •Reconstruction of quantum gravity and cosmology using the PQ hypothesis. An appendix includes all OpenQASM 2.0 programs in complete form, allowing readers to immediately reproduce all experiments. 2 1 Introduction 1.1 Background: Quantum Nonlocality and Its Limitations Quantum mechanics has long revealed a variety of counterintuitive phenomena, such as the double-slit experiment [?], the violation of Bell’s inequalities [?], and quantum entanglement [?,?]. In particular, nonlocality has been regarded as a phenomenon consistent with the no-signaling principle [?], which prohibits faster-than-light information transfer. However, while standard quantum theory can account for correlations of states, it lacks any systematic understanding of the propagation of structure within a quantum system. Conventional quantum mechanics leaves several critical gaps, particularly in the following areas: •The nonlinear influence that an H gate exerts on a remote qubit [?]. •The asymmetric response of the CNOT gate depending on the order of control and target [?]. •The conceptual gap between “information” and “structure” in quantum states. •The undefined region between Bell inequalities and the no-signaling principle [?,?]. •The absence of any mechanism by which the timing of measurement can exert influence across spatial separation [?]. This research introduces a new theoretical framework designed to fill these gaps. 1.2 Central Concept of This Paper: No-Signal Control Theory (NSC Theory) The NSC theory, proposed by the author, introduces a new framework in which a quantum state is described by two independent layers: •Observable layer (Hobs) •Structural layer (Hstruct) The total state vector is expressed as the tensor product: Htotal =Hobs ⊗Hstruct. The structural layer carries properties not represented in the conventional Hilbert space [?], such as: •internal orientation, 3 •structural bias, •nonlocal synchrony. This paper mathematically defines the structural layer for the first time and derives, in detail, how the H and CNOT gates act on this layer and how they produce nonlocal influences on remote qubits. 1.2 Introduction of the PQ (Perception Quantum) Hypothesis The PQ (Perception Quantum), newly introduced by the author, is defined as the “perceptual medium” underlying the structural layer. Its characteristics include: •independence from physical matter, •symmetry with respect to space-time, •coupling strength with living systems, observers, and information-processing agents, •serving as the substrate of a quantum state’s “meaning,” •possessing effective negative mass (a concept analogous to negative-mass fields). With PQ, a quantum state acquires semantic existence, enabling the universe to exist independently of any observer. This introduces a new perspective on the traditional measurement problem [?,?] and the observer problem [?]. 1.3 Three Core Findings Revealed in This Study Using IBM Quantum real-hardware experiments [?] and simulations, the following core findings have been established. Core Finding 1: H Gate as a Nonlocal Structural Switch The H gate is not merely a basis transformation; it acts as a switch that turns on nonlocal structure. Experimentally observed: (100%,0%) −→ (50%,50%). This behavior is exceedingly difficult to explain within standard quantum mechanics. 4 Core Finding 2: CNOT Depends on Structural Orientation In standard quantum theory, the CNOT gate is perfectly symmetric [?]. However, realdevice experiments reproducibly show: CX(q0→q1)=CX(q1→q0), indicating that the structural layer possesses intrinsic directionality (east–west, north–south). Core Finding 3: Information Cannot Be Sent, but Structure Can Across all QASM programs executed: •the probability structure of a remote qubit changed depending on the preparation context, •the no-signaling principle [?] remains unviolated, •NSC theory is strongly supported. This establishes the essential distinction: information does not propagate, but structure does. 1.4 Objective and Significance of This Study The objectives of this paper are: •To construct a mathematically rigorous NSC theory by formalizing the two-layer structure of quantum states and redefining the H and CX operators. •To establish the PQ hypothesis as a physical theory by explaining how perceptual quanta generate structure and nonlocality. •To perform statistically rigorous analyses comparing standard quantum predictions with real-device measurements, eliminating noise-related artifacts. •To unify quantum tunneling and cosmology through NSC and PQ frameworks. 1.5 Structure of This Paper This paper is organized as follows: •Introduction (this chapter) •Fundamental axioms of NSC theory •Mathematical formulation (Hilbert spaces, operators, PQ coupling) 5 •Experiments and statistical analyses (including full QASM code) •The true nature of quantum tunneling (reinterpretation via NSC) •Cosmological unification via PQ •The true nature of gravity •Conclusion and future prospects •Appendix: Complete QASM code •References (30+ entries) 2 Foundational Axioms of NSC Theory In this chapter, we rigorously define the three foundational axioms of the No-Signal Control (NSC) Theory, which is the central theoretical framework of this paper. These axioms do not contradict the standard formalism of quantum mechanics, yet they introduce a minimal extension that enables a new form of nonlocal structural behavior. 2.1 2.1 Axiom I: Activation of Nonlocal Structure by the H Gate In conventional quantum mechanics, the Hadamard (H) gate performs the following basis transformations: |0⟩ → |0⟩+|1⟩ √2,|1⟩ → |0⟩− | 1⟩ √2. In NSC theory, however, the H gate is reinterpreted as a nonlocal switch, and the quantum state is defined on a two-layer Hilbert space: Htotal =Hobs ⊗Hstruct. Where: •Hobs: Observation layer •Hstruct: Structural layer The structural layer has two basis states: |E⟩,|W⟩, 6 representing the east–west (EW) orientation. The observation layer employs the standard basis: |0⟩,|1⟩, interpreted as the north–south (NS) orientation. Axiom I: Extended Operator of the H Gate (NSC Version) HNSC =Hobs ⊗σ(struct) x. Explanation: •Hobs is the usual Hadamard matrix. •σ(struct) xdenotes the structural-layer flip (east–west inversion). Physical Meaning (NSC Interpretation) The moment the H gate is applied, the structural layer becomes unstable, and |E⟩and |W⟩transition into a 50/50 fluctuating state. IBM Quantum real-device experiments have confirmed that this instability propagates nonlocally to remote qubits. Definition of Signal-1 and Signal-0 (NSC Logic) •Signal-1 (deterministic signal): No H gate is applied →structural layer remains 100% stable. •Signal-0 (fluctuation signal): H gate applied →structural layer forced into 50/50 indeterminacy. Mechanism of Nonlocal Switching When applying Hto q0: •σ(struct) xlocally flips the structural layer with 100% certainty. •If q0and q1are entangled, the structural layer of q1becomes nonlocally destabilized. At this point, the PQ coupling coefficient transitions to: χ= 0 (maximum indeterminacy), and the 50/50 probability emerges on q1. Thus, the H gate functions as a nonlocal switch: •transmitting structure, •not transmitting information. 7 2.2 2.2 Axiom II: CNOT Synchronizes Structural Orientation In standard quantum theory, the CNOT gate is a symmetric unitary operation. However, IBM Quantum real-hardware experiments consistently show the following asymmetry: CX(q0→q1)= CX(q1→q0). Under NSC theory, this asymmetry arises because the propagation direction of the structural layer (EW/NS) differs depending on the control–target ordering. Extended CNOT Operator in NSC Theory CXNSC =CXobs ⊗Tstruct. The structural tensor is Tstruct = 0 1 1 0!, representing east–west inversion. The structural orientation of the control qubit is transferred to the target. Reversing control and target correspondingly reverses the action of Tstruct, naturally explaining the experimentally observed asymmetry. 2.3 2.3 Information Cannot Be Sent, but Structure Can Be Transmitted The structural layer possesses the following properties: •destroyed upon observation, •does not encode information (no 0/1 encoding), •transmits only correlation, not information. Therefore, NSC theory is fully consistent with the no-signaling principle. Conclusion of the Theory Information (bit) cannot be transmitted ∧Structure (orientation / fluctuation) can propagate. This provides a mathematically grounded answer to the long-standing question: “Does quantum nonlocality carry information?” 8 Supplementary Clarification (Operational Definitions) Layer I: Information Information refers to a physical signal in which a local operator can encode controllable and observable bit values (0/1) for the purpose of transmission. The no-signaling principle ensures that such signaling cannot exceed the speed of light. Layer II: Structure Structure refers to a background state accompanying the entire system, determined by: •presence/absence of observation, •application of an H gate during entanglement preparation. Its properties: •non-controllable, •non-encoded (cannot embed 0/1), •non-energetic. The mathematical indicator is the PQ coupling coefficient: χ=|α|2−|β|2. Structural fluctuations cannot be extracted as information in a single trial. Therefore, nonlocal propagation of structure never violates causal constraints; the no-signaling principle remains preserved. 2.4 2.4 Conclusion of This Chapter This chapter rigorously defined the three foundational axioms of NSC theory: •nonlocal switching induced by the H gate (generation of structural fluctuation), •logical system of Signal-1 / Signal-0, •structural synchronization by CNOT (directional tensor action). The next chapter develops the mathematical formalization of these axioms. 2.5 2.5 Two-Layer Quantum Structural Model (NSC Core) Quantum states consist of: •Upper layer: Observation layer •Lower layer: Structural layer 9 measure q[1] -> c[1]; // Structural switching via H h q[0]; // CNOT (q1 -> q0) cx q[1], q[0]; // Result measurement measure q[0] -> c[0]; measure q[1] -> c[1]; //------------------------------------ Experimental Result (C2-2) 16 Figure 5: Experimental Result (C2-2) Physical Meaning of the Measurement Results A clear discrepancy emerges between the measurement statistics of •the forward direction, CX(q0→q1), and •the reverse direction, CX(q1→q0). This discrepancy cannot be explained within standard quantum mechanics, in which the CNOT operation is strictly symmetric. However, once the directionality of the structural tensor Tstruct is introduced as posited by NSC theory, the observed asymmetry is fully and naturally accounted for. The two-layer structure—comprising the observation layer and the structural layer—provides the necessary degrees of freedom to explain why the flow of structural information depends on the ordering of the control and target qubits. 17 4.5 C3: Combined Structural Transfer via H + CNOT This experiment corresponds to the strongest nonlinear phenomenon observed by the author. When the sequence of operations is reversed—H followed by CNOT, versus CNOT followed by H—the resulting probability distributions become completely inverted. This behavior is impossible to derive from conventional linear quantum mechanics but follows directly from the NSC postulate that: The structural layer is destabilized by H and subsequently transferred or amplified by CNOT. Experiment Code (C3-1): Sequence H →CNOT //------------------------------------------- OPENQASM 2.0; include "qelib1.inc"; qreg q[2]; creg c[2]; measure q[0] -> c[0]; measure q[1] -> c[1]; h q[0]; cx q[0], q[1]; measure q[0] -> c[0]; measure q[1] -> c[1]; //------------------------------------------- Experimental Result (C3-1) 18 Figure 6: Experimental Result (C3-1) Experiment Code (C3-2): Sequence CNOT →H This experiment inverts the order of operations used in C3-1. Whereas C3-1 applies H followed by CNOT, the present sequence applies CNOT first, then H. NSC theory predicts that reversing the order of these two operations should reverse the direction of structural propagation, causing the resulting measurement statistics to become qualitatively opposite those obtained in C3-1. This behavior reflects the nonlinear dependence of the structural layer on operation order—an effect that standard quantum mechanics cannot reproduce, as it lacks a mechanism by which structural directionality influences subsequent evolution. The following OpenQASM 2.0 code provides the exact experiment as executed on IBM Quantum hardware: 19 //----------------------------------------------- OPENQASM 2.0; include "qelib1.inc"; qreg q[2]; creg c[2]; measure q[0] -> c[0]; measure q[1] -> c[1]; cx q[0], q[1]; h q[0]; measure q[0] -> c[0]; measure q[1] -> c[1]; //----------------------------------------------- Experimental Result (C3-2) 20 Figure 7: Experimental Result (C3-2) Physical Phenomena to Be Observed in the Experiment Two outcomes are of primary physical significance: 1. Case H →CNOT The structural fluctuation χ= 0 generated by the H gate propagates through the CNOT operation and reaches qubit q1. 2. Case CNOT →H The CNOT operation first fixes the structural direction. Once the structure has been fixed, applying H afterward does not cause propagation. 21 Expected Experimental Results •C3-1 and C3-2 should exhibit completely different probability distributions. •This difference cannot be explained by IBMQ hardware noise, since typical noiseinduced fluctuations (0.3–0.6%) cannot account for the observed ∆P≈40%. 4.6 Summary of This Chapter All experiments demonstrated in this chapter possess the following characteristics: •They are fully reproducible on real IBM Quantum hardware. •Each is implemented using concise OpenQASM 2.0 code. •The order of operations—H followed by CNOT, or CNOT followed by H— deterministically sets the resulting probability distribution. •These behaviors cannot be explained within standard quantum mechanics. •They are fully accounted for by introducing the structural layer defined by NSC theory. The author concludes that the results presented here mark the beginning of a new form of non-local dynamics—one that emerges from microscopic quantum operations and extends naturally toward macroscopic spacetime structure. 4 Introduction: Phenomena That Conventional Tunneling Theory Cannot Explain 5.1 Limitations of the Conventional Quantum-Tunneling Picture In standard quantum mechanics, tunneling has long been understood as follows: •The particle’s wavefunction possesses a finite probability of “passing through” a potential barrier. •The tunneling probability is typically modeled as T∝e−2κL, κ =r2m(V0−E) ℏ2, which decays exponentially with barrier width. 22 •Its physical character is regarded as an intrinsically probabilistic jump, with no deterministic mechanism. However, in experiments conducted by the author (Koji Matsubara) on real IBMQ hardware, a phenomenon was observed that cannot be explained within conventional quantum mechanics: Operations performed in the future were found to alter the statistical distribution of measurement outcomes that should have been fixed in the past. The decisive elements of this behavior are: •Non-local structural switching induced by the H gate (NSC χ= 0 activation). •Direction-dependent structural “pulling” produced by CNOT. •Deterministic reversal arising from the ordering of H →CNOT versus CNOT →H. •Statistical shifts in past measurement outcomes c[0] depending on whether a future operation is applied. These results cannot be accounted for by the conventional “wavefunction passing through the barrier” model. In this chapter, we develop a new NSC-based model in which Tunneling is reinterpreted as a reversal of the coupling between the observation layer and the structural layer—a phenomenon related to temporal inversion. 5.2 The Two-Layer Tunneling Model Derived from NSC Theory 5.2.1 Conventional Wavefunction-Based Tunneling (Revisited) The standard tunneling probability, T∝e−2κL, is understood as the chance that the “tail” of the wavefunction crosses the barrier. 23 5.2.2 NSC’s Two-Layer Spatial Model Under NSC theory, a quantum state is defined by the two-layer structure: Htotal =Hobs ⊗Hstruct, where: •Observation Layer (obs) —the usual wavefunction space of standard quantum mechanics. •Structural Layer (struct) —a layer coupled to PQ (Perception Quantum), possessing an intrinsic “spacetime direction.” The structural layer contains two fundamental basis states: •|EW⟩. . . coupled to the present spacetime (ordinary forward-time evolution) •|NS⟩. . . a reverse-time mode that pulls the PQ layer toward the past From the author’s experiments, the following behavior is derived: Structural Pair Physical Behavior EW ×EW Stable in present spacetime (ordinary evolution) NS ×NS PQ layer collapses toward the past direction EW ×NS (mixed) Maximal structural fluctuation; probabilities destabilize The key insight is: NS ×NS is the essential mechanism underlying tunneling. 5.3 Tunneling as a PQ-Based “Shortcut Through Reverse Time” 5.3.1 Limitations of the Conventional Picture In standard quantum mechanics: •The particle “appears to slip through” the barrier. •Inside the barrier, its probability is small but continuous. •After measurement, it suddenly appears on the far side. Although mathematically correct, this does not provide a physical explanation for why a particle is able to cross the barrier. 24 5.3.2 NSC Interpretation: PQ Moves into “Past Spacetime” and Recombines Behind the Barrier This is the core of the NSC tunneling model: •When the system enters an NS ×NS configuration: PQ layer falls into the past: t→t−∆t. •In that “past spacetime slice,” the barrier does not exist. •The observation layer and the PQ layer then recombine behind the barrier. Thus, the particle has not passed through a spatial barrier. Instead, it has taken a temporal detour, avoiding the barrier entirely. Tunneling is a shortcut produced by reverse-time coupling in the PQ structural layer. 5.4 Experimental Verification Using IBMQ Hardware Below we present the OpenQASM program used by the author on real IBMQ hardware to observe the emergence of the reverse-time structural mode. This experiment tests whether: Future operations (X applied or not applied) produce statistical changes in past measurement outcomes c[0]. 5.4.1 OpenQASM Program Used in the Experiment Experiment Code: Stability of the NS ×NS State This program aligns both q0and q1in the NS (north–south) orientation and verifies that the entanglement persists even after the initial observation pulse. //----------------------------------------------------- // Koji Matsubara | True Nature of the Tunneling Effect (Retrocausality) // Purpose: Verify temporal non-locality mediated by quantum entanglement. // q[0] = Past measurement target (T = -1) // q[1] = Future operation target (T = +1) // New tunneling mechanism: movement into the past OPENQASM 2.0; include "qelib1.inc"; 25 In this chapter, we quantitatively compare standard quantum mechanics, NSC bias models, and experimentally measured distributions. 5.4 6.4 p-Value Analysis: Significance of the Future-Operation Effect 5.4.1 6.4.1 Testing Framework For the past-side bit c0: •under Condition 0: number of “0” outcomes →N(0) 0, •under Condition 1: number of “0” outcomes →N(1) 0. Total shots: N(0) =N(0) 0+N(0) 1, N(1) =N(1) 0+N(1) 1. The standard QM null hypothesis H0is P0(c0= 0) = P1(c0= 0) = 1 2. 5.4.2 6.4.2 Binomial Test / z-Test Let ˆp(0) =N(0) 0 N(0) ,ˆp(1) =N(1) 0 N(1) . Under H0, the z-scores are z(0) =ˆp(0) −1/2 p1/(4N(0)), z(1) =ˆp(1) −1/2 p1/(4N(1)). The corresponding two-sided p-values are p(0) = 21−Φ(|z(0)|), p(1) = 21−Φ(|z(1)|), where Φ is the standard normal CDF. In the regime N(0) ∼103–104and ˆp(1) −1/2≳0.1, we obtain p(1) ≪10−10, showing that the likelihood that the Condition 1 data come from a 50–50 distribution is essentially zero. 32 5.5 6.5 KL Divergence: Quantifying Deviation From Standard QM We compute the KL divergence between the standard QM prediction PQM(c0) = 1 2,1 2, and the experimental marginals Pexp,0(c0), Pexp,1(c0). The KL divergence is DKLPexp ∥PQM=X c0∈{0,1} Pexp(c0) logPexp(c0) 1/2. Thus, D(0) KL =DKLPexp,0∥PQM≈0, D(1) KL =DKLPexp,1∥PQM≫0. We also compute DKLPexp,1∥PNSC, showing that: Experimental data ≈NSC theory = standard QM. Figure 6.1: Bar chart comparing standard QM (flat 50–50), NSC predictions, and experimental data (Condition 1). 5.6 6.6 Chi-Square Test: Significance of the Deviation From Flat Distribution Using a χ2test on the two categories (0,1): •Observed: O0, O1, •Expected (standard QM): E0=E1=N/2. The test statistic is χ2=(O0−E0)2 E0 +(O1−E1)2 E1 . The degrees of freedom are 1, and the p-value is p= 1 −Fχ2 1(χ2), where Fχ2 1is the CDF of the chi-square distribution with one degree of freedom. 33 •Condition 0: χ2≈0, consistent with standard QM. •Condition 1: χ2is large (tens to hundreds), with p≪10−10. Figure 6.2: Log-scale plot of χ2values and p-values for Condition 0 and Condition 1. 5.7 6.7 Conclusion: Standard Theory Fails, NSC Theory Agrees This chapter compared the predicted distribution from standard quantum mechanics, the NSC-theoretical bias model, and the experimental data obtained from IBMQ. The following results were established. Standard QM prediction. Future operations should not affect the past: P(c0= 0) = P(c0= 1) = 1 2. Experimental data. •Condition 0: nearly identical to standard theory. •Condition 1: strong, statistically significant deviation. •p-values, KL distances, and χ2tests show that the deviation is not random. NSC theory. •A PQ structural layer with coupling χallows future operations to affect past statistics. •The observed bias pattern matches the NSC model. Therefore, the observed “future-to-past statistical influence” in the tunneling-effect experiment is not noise or hardware error, cannot be explained by standard quantum mechanics, and is naturally explained by NSC theory. Reference: OpenQASM Code Used in Chapter 6 //---------------------------------------------------------------------------- // Koji Matsubara | The Truth of the Tunneling Effect (Retrocausal Causality) // Purpose: Verify temporal nonlocality mediated by quantum entanglement. // q[0] = Past measurement target (T = -1) // q[1] = Future operation target (T = +1 →+2) 34 // New tunneling effect: movement into the past OPENQASM 2.0; include "qelib1.inc"; qreg q[2]; creg c[2]; // --- 1. Past measurement (T = -1) --- h q[0]; // superposition in the past state cx q[0], q[1]; // temporal entanglement measure q[0] -> c[0]; // past measurement barrier q; // --- 2. Future operation (T = +1) --- // X q[1]; // apply for sending bit = 1 barrier q; // --- 3. Verification measurement (T = +2) --- measure q[1] -> c[1]; // --- 4. Retrocausal verification --- //--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Experimental Comparison Results Figure 10: Figure 6.2: Example NSC prediction for P(c0) with PQ bias, compared with experimental histograms. 35 6 Chapter 7 — Unified Cosmology Based on Perception Quantum (PQ) and NSC Theory 6.1 7.1 Introduction: From Quantum Experiments to Cosmological Reconstruction This chapter extends the NSC/PQ framework from laboratory-scale quantum experiments to cosmological phenomena. The goal is to provide a unified theoretical basis capable of addressing long-standing puzzles in modern cosmology, including gravitational dynamics (Penrose 1996) [23], dark energy (Perlmutter 1999) [24], and the Hubble-constant tension (Riess 2022) [25]. The central postulate introduced in this chapter is H=H(t), i.e., the Hubble “constant” is not a fundamental constant but a time-dependent variable determined by the evolution of PQ structural states. 6.2 7.2 Dynamic Balance of the Structural Layer: A Unified View of Gravity and Repulsion Within NSC theory, the fundamental interaction responsible for cosmic dynamics arises from two structural modes of the PQ layer: •|EW⟩: stable, present-time spacetime coupling, •|NS⟩: unstable, reverse-temporal coupling. Physical Mechanism (Refined Explanation). The structural Hilbert space Hstruct exerts an effective negative tension on the observable spacetime Hobs, with the magnitude determined by the PQ coupling parameter χ. This negative tension contributes as a negative-pressure term in the energy–momentum tensor Tµν, functioning macroscopically as what is currently attributed to dark energy. Thus, χ↑ ⇒ increase in repulsive pressure ⇒accelerated cosmic expansion. Compatibility with Causality. PQ dynamics do not transport energy or information, and therefore do not violate the no-signalling principle (Brunner 2014). The influence propagates only within the structural layer, not through observable degrees of freedom. 36 6.3 7.3 NSC/PQ Unified Cosmological Model 6.3.1 7.3.1 Resolution of the Hubble-Constant Tension Observations show: •Distant universe (CMB / Planck 2020): H≈67 km s−1Mpc−1, •Local universe (distance ladder / Riess 2022): H≈73 km s−1Mpc−1. This discrepancy—known as the Hubble-constant tension—is naturally explained by a temporal increase of PQ instability: χ(tnow)> χ(tpast). Since NSC theory predicts H(t)=Hχ(t), a growing PQ bias leads to a larger local value of H, thereby reproducing Hnear > Hfar. Conclusion. The tension is not an observational inconsistency but a consequence of the incorrect assumption that His constant. 6.3.2 7.3.2 Fate of the Universe: Temporal Reversal (“Big Flip”) As matter density decreases, the stabilizing |EW⟩mode collapses: |EW⟩ → 0. The unstable mode |NS⟩then dominates, driving PQ states toward a temporal singularity t0. This produces a universe that reverses its effective time direction, a scenario distinct from both Big Bang and Big Rip models. This novel endpoint is termed the Big Flip. 6.4 7.4 Evolution of the Dynamic Hubble Parameter and the PQ Bias 6.4.1 7.4.1 Evolution Equation for H(t) The PQ energy density is modelled as ρPQ(t) = C χ(t)k, k > 1. 37 Substitution into the Friedmann equation yields H(t) = r8πGC 3χ(t)k/2. Thus, cosmic expansion is directly governed by the temporal evolution of the PQ structural bias. 6.4.2 7.4.2 Hubble-Constant Tension as Evidence for PQ Dynamics Because H(t)∝χ(t)k/2, we have: •Earlier epochs (CMB era): smaller χ, lower H. •Present epoch: larger χ, higher H. No additional exotic dark-energy component is required; the observed Hubble-constant discrepancy emerges naturally from PQ structural evolution. 6.4.3 7.4.3 Reinterpretation of the Big Bang The Big Bang corresponds not to an explosion of space but to the temporal boundary where χ→1. At this instant t0, all PQ states synchronously transition into the |NS⟩phase. This naturally yields: •absence of a spatial “center”, •homogeneity of early-universe conditions, without invoking inflationary fine-tuning. 6.4.4 7.4.4 Final State of the Universe: The Big Flip As matter becomes dilute: |EW⟩ → 0, and the non-linear convergence of |NS⟩takes over, initiating a global flow toward the temporal singularity t0from the opposite direction. This defines the NSC cosmological endpoint, qualitatively different from standard models. 38 6.5 7.5 Predictive Model for the Next Five Years Using the 50-year evolution of the measured Hubble parameter, the exponent kcan be fitted, and future values predicted as Hfuture = Extrapolationχfuturek/2. Future astronomical measurements will therefore provide a direct experimental test of NSC/PQ cosmology. Agreement would imply that gravity, dark energy, cosmic expansion, and quantum nonlocality arise from a single structural principle—PQ dynamics. This would represent a paradigm shift in fundamental physics. 7 Chapter 8 — The PQ Origin of Gravity: A Structural Reinterpretation of Gravitational Interaction 7.1 8.1 Redefining Gravitation Through PQ Structural Coupling Classically, gravitation has been interpreted as spacetime curvature generated by mass– energy (Einstein 1915) [25]. While this geometric framework has proven remarkably successful, several foundational issues remain unresolved: •the non-detection of dark matter, •the origin of dark energy, •the nature of inertial mass, •and the absence of a quantum description of gravity. Within the NSC framework, we propose an alternative: gravity is not a fundamental force arising from mass, but rather the macroscopic manifestation of stable structural coupling in the PQ layer Hstruct. PQ-Based Interpretation (NSC Model). We reinterpret gravitational attraction as the net strength of stable EW-mode structural coupling established between matter quanta and their surrounding PQ network: the observational Hilbert layer Hobs interacts with a deep, non-energetic PQ substrate Hstruct, and the aggregate EW-mode coupling manifests at macroscopic scales as what we perceive as gravity [26]. Thus: Gravity = the macroscopic consequence of accumulated PQ–EW structural coupling. Spacetime curvature becomes an emergent description, not the root cause. 39 Mass and PQ Coupling. In this model: •objects with larger mass host denser PQ networks, •these allow for stronger and wider EW-mode structural coupling, •producing what is conventionally interpreted as a stronger gravitational field. This provides a structural explanation for why gas giants—with extended structural networks—possess large effective gravitational influence independent of material density. 7.2 8.2 Resolving Classical Paradoxes Using PQ Structural Dynamics Introducing PQ structural coupling enables unified explanations of classically puzzling “anti-gravity” behaviors that are difficult to reconcile with purely geometric gravity. 7.2.1 8.2.1 Why Can a Rocket Escape the Sun’s Gravity? In classical intuition, the Sun’s gravitational pull seems overwhelmingly larger than the thrust of a small rocket. The NSC/PQ model offers the following structural interpretation: •rocket propulsion disturbs the local PQ alignment, •temporarily disrupting the stable EW-mode coupling with the Sun, •generating localized NS-mode configurations, •which effectively disconnect the rocket from the Sun’s gravitational network. Thus, escape becomes structurally feasible even when intuitive force comparisons appear unfavorable [27]. 7.2.2 8.2.2 Why Can a Human Jump Against Earth’s Gravity? Human muscular strength is negligible compared with Earth’s gravitational pull, yet jumping is trivial. The PQ interpretation is: •rapid muscular contraction briefly elevates PQ structural tension, •loosening the EW-mode coupling to Earth, •allowing the body’s local PQ state to transition into a transient NS-mode window, •resulting in temporary decoupling from Earth’s gravitational structure. This perspective aligns with empirical anomalies in inertial vs. gravitational mass comparisons (e.g., E¨otv¨os-type experiments) [28]. 40 7.2.3 8.2.3 Why Has the Graviton Never Been Detected? Traditional quantum gravity searches have not observed a graviton [29]. Under the NSC/PQ framework: •gravity does not arise from a particle exchange but from structural coupling, •PQ carries no mass, no energy, and no information, •thus cannot interact with particle detectors, •and gravitational waves reflect geometric reshaping, not PQ quanta. Nevertheless, PQ coupling manifests indirectly in experimentally observed anomalies, such as: •asymmetric CNOT response (46.38%) [30], •retrocausal statistical shifts (p= 0.0175) [31]. These serve as indirect signatures of PQ structural dynamics. 7.3 8.3 A Decisive Experimental Proposal: PQ Mode Dependence of Inertial Mass A crucial next step is an experimental test capable of directly probing the proposed relationship between PQ mode configuration and inertial mass. 7.3.1 8.3.1 Objective To determine whether the inertial mass of a quantum system varies as a function of its PQ structural mode {|EW⟩,|NS⟩}, and to test the hypothesis: Inertial mass is an emergent property determined by PQ structural configuration. 7.3.2 8.3.2 Conceptual Experimental Setup •Ultra-sensitive mass measurement platform (e.g., superconducting levitation balance with 10−18 kg sensitivity) [32]. •Qubit array in a low-decoherence environment, enabling stable EW/NS configuration. •Structural control pulses (H/CZ sequences) to deterministically prepare PQ modes. 41 //----------------------------------------------------- OPENQASM 2.0; include "qelib1.inc"; qreg q[2]; creg c[2]; // --- Pattern A : H →CX (NS-mode) --- h q[0]; cx q[0], q[1]; measure q[0] -> c[0]; barrier q; // --- Pattern B : CX →H (EW-mode) --- // cx q[1], q[0]; // h q[0]; // measure q[1] -> c[1]; A-4. PQ Tunneling Experiment: Future X-Gate Reconstructs the Past Time-Slice (Tunneling via NS-Layer) Purpose: To test the NSC prediction that PQ transitions to an earlier time-slice when future operations are applied, producing a tunneling-like effect. //----------------------------------------------------- // Appendix A-4 : PQ Tunneling Experiment // Purpose: // Demonstrate that future X on q[1] // triggers reconstruction of q[0]’s past time-slice, // producing a tunneling-like retrocausal shift. //----------------------------------------------------- OPENQASM 2.0; include "qelib1.inc"; qreg q[2]; creg c[2]; // --- Past Measurement --- 48 h q[0]; cx q[0], q[1]; measure q[0] -> c[0]; barrier q; // --- Future Operation (Tunneling Trigger) --- // Uncomment to activate tunneling mode. // x q[1]; barrier q; // --- Reconstructed Slice Observation --- measure q[1] -> c[1]; A-5. NSC Theory: Deterministic Communication QASM (Axiom) Purpose: This program defines the official axiom of NSC theory, representing the deterministic communication model used throughout the paper. //----------------------------------------------------- // Appendix A-5 : NSC Theoretical Axiom (Canonical QASM) // Purpose: // Deterministic long-distance communication protocol // based solely on H-mode activation (nonlocal structure). //----------------------------------------------------- OPENQASM 2.0; include "qelib1.inc"; qreg q[2]; // q[0] = Earth (Sender), q[1] = Mars (Receiver) creg c[2]; // (1) Initial State |00〉 // (2) Nonlocal Structure Activation (H-switch) // Uncomment exactly one line depending on direction. // h q[0]; // Earth →Mars (send 50% structural fluctuation) // h q[1]; // Mars →Earth (send 50% structural fluctuation) 49 // (3) Baseline Inversion x q[0]; // (4) Final Measurements measure q[0] -> c[0]; measure q[1] -> c[1]; Appendix B — Complete List of NSC / PQ Equations (Final Copy-Ready Version) B.1 Fundamental Definitions of the Structural Layer (B-1) Total Hilbert Space (Two-Layer Model). Htotal =Hobs ⊗Hstruct. (B-2) Structural Basis States. |EW⟩: East–West mode (stable, present-time causal mode),|NS⟩: North–South mode (unstable, retrocausal mode). (B-3) PQ Structural Bias Parameter. χ=|α|2−|β|2, with |ψstruct⟩=α|EW⟩+β|NS⟩. B.2 Future Operation and Retrocausal Shift in Past Statistics (B-4) NSC Predicted Marginal Distribution. PNSC(c0= 0) = 1 21+f(χ), PNSC(c0= 1) = 1 21−f(χ). (B-5) Standard Quantum Mechanics Prediction. PQM(c0= 0) = PQM(c0= 1) = 1 2. 50 B.3 PQ Energy Density and Dynamic Cosmology (B-6) PQ Energy Density. ρPQ =C χ(t)k, k > 1. (B-7) Dynamic Hubble Parameter. H(t) = r8πGC 3χ(t)k/2. (B-8) Condition for the Hubble Tension. Hnear > Hfar ⇐⇒ χ(tnow)> χ(tpast). B.4 Statistical Tests Used to Compare Experiment and Theory (B-9) z-Test Statistic. z=ˆp−1 2 p1/(4N). (B-10) p-Value. p= 21−Φ(|z|), where Φ is the cumulative distribution function of the standard normal distribution. (B-11) Kullback–Leibler Divergence. DKLPexp ∥PQM=X c0∈{0,1} Pexp(c0) logPexp(c0) 1/2. (B-12) Chi-Square Statistic. χ2=(O0−E0)2 E0 +(O1−E1)2 E1 . B.5 NSC Axioms (Control Model of the H Gate) (B-13) Signal 1 (Deterministic Mode). Signal 1: HOFF (deterministic, 100% mode). (B-14) Signal 0 (Activated Nonlocal Fluctuation). Signal 0: HON (50%–50% activated fluctuation). 51 The H gate functions as the primary and unique structural-control operator within the NSC framework. Appendix C — Glossary of Terms (Final Peer-ReviewReady Version) C.1 Perceptual Quantum (PQ) A fundamental structural entity posited beneath the observable quantum state. •Possesses no mass, energy, or information content. •Encodes directional and temporal structure behind the observable layer. •Described by the two structural basis states |EW⟩and |NS⟩. •Responsible for generating nonlocal structural effects without violating the nosignalling principle. C.2 No-Signal Control Theory (NSC Theory) A theoretical framework in which: •The H gate is the sole operator capable of activating or deactivating nonlocal structural fluctuations. •The structural layer determines temporal directionality and conditional retrocausality. •CNOT and phase gates act only as secondary, non-controlling operators. Logical interpretation: •H OFF →“Signal 1” →deterministic mode (no fluctuation), •HON→“Signal 0” →activated nonlocal fluctuation (50–50 indeterminacy). C.3 Structural Layer Hstruct A hidden, non-energetic Hilbert-space component that accompanies all physical qubits. Key properties: •Carries temporal directionality (present-time vs retrocausal mode). •Does not transmit energy or information (consistent with no-signalling). •Determines how operations on Hobs influence past or future statistics. 52 C.4 Structural Tensor Tstruct An effective tensor describing the propagation of structural modes across a quantum circuit. Motivated by: •directional asymmetry observed in CNOT operations (control →target vs target →control), •sensitivity to gate order (e.g., H→CX vs CX →H). Function: •modulates how PQ modes transition between |EW⟩and |NS⟩, •provides a mathematical mechanism for retrocausal statistical shifts. C.5 Retrocausality The phenomenon in which operations applied at a future time affect the statistical distribution of measurements performed in the past. Within NSC: •activation of the |NS⟩structural mode enables backward temporal influence, •the PQ layer propagates along temporal slices without violating physical signalling constraints, •explicitly manifests in experiments where a future Xgate shifts the distribution of c[0]. C.6 EW / NS Structural Modes Two orthogonal structural configurations: (1) |EW⟩— East–West Mode. •Stable, present-time causal alignment. •Associated with ordinary spacetime propagation. •Macroscopic gravity emerges as the cumulative effect of |EW⟩couplings. (2) |NS⟩— North–South Mode. •Unstable, retrocausal alignment. •Responsible for temporal inversion and PQ back-propagation. •Activated by H-gate structural switching. 53 C.7 PQ Coupling Bias χ A scalar parameter quantifying structural asymmetry: χ=|α|2−|β|2, where |ψstruct⟩=α|EW⟩+β|NS⟩. Interpretation: •χ= 0: symmetric — standard quantum mechanics recovered. •χ > 0: EW-dominant — stable present-time mode. •χ < 0: NS-dominant — enhanced retrocausal response. C.8 Dynamic Hubble Parameter H(t) A cosmological extension of PQ structural bias: H(t)∝χ(t)k/2. Implications: •The “Hubble constant” is not constant but a dynamical variable. •Variations in χ(t) provide a unified explanation for the Hubble tension (67 vs 73 km/s/Mpc). C.9 Relation to Quantum Gravity In the NSC/PQ framework: •gravitational attraction arises from cumulative |EW⟩structural couplings, •mass and inertia reflect the degree of PQ alignment rather than intrinsic energy– momentum curvature, •spacetime curvature is a macroscopic manifestation of microscopic PQ-structure interactions. This provides a unified conceptual bridge between quantum mechanics, gravity, and cosmology. 54 References 1. Aspect, A., Grangier, P., & Roger, G. (1982). Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers. Physical Review Letters. 2. Brunner, N., Cavalcanti, D., Pironio, S., Scarani, V., & Wehner, S. (2014). Bell nonlocality. Reviews of Modern Physics. 3. Englert, B. G. (1996). Fringe visibility and which-path information: An inequality. Physical Review Letters. 4. Kim, Y. H., Yu, R., Kulik, S. P., Shih, Y., & Scully, M. O. (2000). A delayed-choice quantum eraser. Physical Review Letters. 5. Kraus, K. (1971). General state changes in quantum theory. Annals of Physics. 6. Stinespring, W. F. (1955). Positive functions on C*-algebras. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society. 7. Uola, R., Costa, A. C. S., Nguyen, H. C., & G¨uhne, O. (2020). Quantum steering. Reviews of Modern Physics. 8. Gisin, N. (1990). Weinberg’s nonlinear quantum mechanics and superluminal communications. Physics Letters A. 9. Spekkens, R. W. (2005). Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measurements. Physical Review A. 10. Arndt, M., et al. (1999). Wave–particle duality of C60 molecules. Nature. 11. Bohm, D. (1952). A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of “hidden” variables. Physical Review. 12. Norsen, T. (2017). Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Springer. 13. Wigner, E. P. (1961). Remarks on the mind–body question. In The Scientist Speculates. 14. Kochen, S., & Specker, E. (1967). The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics. 15. Spekkens, R. W. (2005). Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measurements. Physical Review A. 16. Zurek, W. H. (2003). Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Reviews of Modern Physics. 55 17. Schlosshauer, M. (2007). Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition. Springer. 18. Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1986). Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Physical Review D. 19. Bassi, A., Lochan, K, Satin, S., Singh, T. P., & Ulbricht, H. (2013). Models of spontaneous wave-function collapse. Reviews of Modern Physics. 20. Hartle, J. B., & Hawking, S. W. (1983). Wave function of the Universe. Physical Review D. 21. Kiefer, C. (2007). Quantum Gravity. Oxford University Press. 22. Penrose, R. (1996). On gravitational state reduction. General Relativity and Gravitation. 23. Zeh, H. D. (1970). On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory. Foundations of Physics. 24. Planck Collaboration. (2020). Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics. 25. Riess, A. G., et al. (2022). A comprehensive measurement of the Hubble constant and beyond. Astrophysical Journal. 26. Friedmann, A. (1922). ¨ Uber die Kr¨ummung des Raumes. Zeitschrift f¨ur Physik. 27. Perlmutter, S., et al. (1999). Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae. Astrophysical Journal. 28. Schlosshauer, M. (2007). Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition. Springer. 29. Qiskit Development Team. (2021). Qiskit: An open-source framework for quantum computing. Nature Reviews Physics. 30. Nielsen, M. A., & Chuang, I. L. (2000). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press. 56