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

==== 1. Decoherence vs intensity (Ramsey fringes on a two-level atom/ion): measure T2T_2T2 as a function of III and Δ\DeltaΔ; fit to the boxed formulas. QAT wins if the “rate of change” of the system’s classicality tracks the photon event rate. ====
# Scattering-only decoherence (far detuned probe): no energy level changes, yet coherence still decays at Rsc∝I/Δ2R_{\rm sc}\propto I/\Delta^2Rsc∝I/Δ2. That directly implements your “even light scattering is geometry” claim.
# Cross-section geometry: verify σ0=3λ2/2π\sigma_0=3\lambda^2/2\piσ0=3λ2/2π (standard), then use it to predict event rates from photon flux. This is your “spherical boundary → area → rates” pathway.

If you want, I can now:
* plug in a specific line (e.g., hydrogen Hα at 656.3 nm) with its Γ\GammaΓ and compute Isat,Rsc,Γ2I_{\rm sat}, R_{\rm sc}, \Gamma_2Isat,Rsc,Γ2 vs I,ΔI,\DeltaI,Δ;
* or derive the same scaling starting from the boundary action we built (surface current jaAaj^a A_ajaAa), showing explicitly how the Poynting flux through a 4πr24\pi r^24πr2 surface produces the same RscR_{\rm sc}Rsc and Γ2\Gamma_2Γ2.