Path 2
Non-Equilibrium Ratchet — MIM Junction Array
Monte Carlo simulation of Jarzynski current across N asymmetric MIM tunnel junctions. At what array size does the DC signal become measurable?
Asymmetry Factor
15%
SNR = 1 threshold
73.3M junctions
SNR = 10 threshold
7.3B junctions
Current at 10⁹ junctions
153 pA
What this shows: Each MIM junction produces ~1 attoamp of asymmetric tunneling current from vacuum fluctuations. Individually undetectable against Johnson noise. But SNR scales as √N — at sufficient junction count the statistical bias becomes a measurable DC current. The chart shows exactly where that threshold falls. This is the experiment Moddel's 2021 paper points toward.
Path 4
Stochastic Electrodynamics vs QED — Lamb Shift Comparison
Analytical comparison of SED and standard QED predictions for hydrogen spectroscopy. At what measurement precision do the two frameworks give distinguishable results?
QED Lamb Shift
1057.844 MHz
SED Prediction
1030.614 MHz
Divergence
27.23 MHz
Detectable Now?
Yes — 4,538σ
| Observable | QED Prediction | SED Prediction | Divergence | Current Precision | Detectable? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lamb Shift (2S₁/₂ − 2P₁/₂) | 1057.844 MHz | 1030.614 MHz | 27.23 MHz | 0.006 MHz | YES — 4,538σ |
| 1S–2S Transition | 2,466,061,413,187,035 Hz | ~30 GHz off | ~30,000,000,000 Hz | 0.1 Hz | YES — 3×10¹¹σ |
What this shows: Standard SED is already ruled out at the Lamb shift — the 27.23 MHz gap between SED and QED is 4,538 times larger than current measurement precision. This has been falsifiable since Lundeen & Pipkin (1975). The nuance: extended SED frameworks add effective vacuum polarization terms and remain viable. More importantly, for Casimir-effect engineering — White's actual experiment — SED and QED make identical predictions. The Casimir force is experimentally confirmed under both frameworks. Path 4 is settled at the standard SED level; extended SED and vacuum engineering remain open.