FUSA — Facts, Evidence and Technical Progress

Star Law · Magnetar · Solar LOCC · Dave QET receiver
Canonical English version 1.0 · 12 September 2026
Evidence reviewed through 12 September 2026

FUSA combines a first-principles physics framework, quantitative results across cosmology and particle physics, controlled experiments on IBM quantum hardware, and a developed electrical receiver architecture. Its research history extends from Magnetar’s 2018–2024 development and October 2024 prototype test through Star Law, Solar-source information processing and the Dave quantum energy teleportation receiver.

The record includes sub-percent cosmological comparisons, a proton-mass calculation approximately 2.6 parts per million from the measured central value, a 150-logical-qubit hardware experiment with seven simultaneously positive receiver banks, and repeat executions preserving the measured response structure. The transducer work connects that programme to three-dimensional electromagnetic coupling, physical-time calculations and a defined capture, storage and electrical-output architecture.

FUSA is the programme and technology identity. Fusion Ltd is the privately held operating company. A separate independent IP valuation report, issued in Singapore and dated 4 August 2026, places US$3.4 trillion at the lower end of its assessed range, under its Base Case commercial-deployment assumptions.

A research history extending beyond the report dates

The programme’s development dates and its report dates describe different milestones. The consolidated reports issued in 2026 document work that began years earlier.

The earlier programme dates come from FUSA’s development chronology. Report dates and recorded filing or execution dates identify the corresponding documentary milestones. [1–9]

Star Law: a conserved entanglement account

Star Law, also called Entanglement Relativity, makes conservation central to its description of quantum correlations and geometry. It requires overlapping causal regions to give mutually consistent accounts of their shared physics. A causal region is the part of spacetime an observer can influence or receive information from; closure means that the shared description is complete and consistent within the framework’s stated conditions.

The conserved quantity is a global closure charge: Star Law’s mathematical account of entanglement across the complete system. Local entanglement and accessible correlations can change while that total remains conserved. This gives the framework a precise way to describe how information can become inaccessible to an observer without disappearing from the complete account. [2]

The corpus develops consequences for quantum measurement, the direction of time, and the relation between short-distance and long-distance descriptions, often called the ultraviolet/infrared or UV/IR split. These consequences follow from the distinction between the complete conserved account and the part accessible within a particular causal region.

First-principles construction across scales

The same closure construction is applied to cosmological horizons, matter composition, particle masses and local receiver physics. Its structural rule is scale independent; the relevant geometry, state and physical units are specified for each application.

The corpus reports derivations in which the discrete structure and mathematical inputs are fixed within the construction before the corresponding observational comparison. The displayed cosmological quantities and proton bridge are obtained without introducing adjustable parameters to fit those target values. Standard physical constants and the framework’s stated assumptions remain explicit inputs. [2]

That common derivation is an important feature of the programme: a cosmological calculation fixes an active physical scale that is then carried into the particle calculations.

Quantitative results from cosmology to particle physics

Four representative cosmological comparisons are shown below. The benchmark values use the stated, rounded Planck 2018 base-ΛCDM parameters.

All four displayed results lie within 1% of their stated central benchmarks. The comparison uses h = 0.674, Ω_bh² = 0.0224, Ω_ch² = 0.120 and Ω_m = 0.315. These percentages describe differences between central values, with observational uncertainties assessed separately. [2] Benchmark source: Planck Collaboration, Cosmological parameters.

The same construction yields an active length of approximately 3.84 femtometres and an energy scale of 51.36 MeV. The resulting proton bridge gives 938.269645 MeV, compared with the CODATA central value of 938.27208943 MeV: a difference of approximately 2.61 parts per million. The measured proton mass is not used to set the upstream active scale. The residual is larger than the experimental uncertainty, making the remaining matching correction a quantitative question. [2] Measured reference: NIST, 2022 CODATA constants.

The charged-particle work extends this construction to the six quarks and three charged leptons through their Yukawa structure—the couplings associated with their masses. It also addresses CKM mixing, which describes changes between quark flavours, and its CP-violating phase structure. Particle masses and mixing are distinct calculations within the same programme. Their comparisons retain the relevant energy scale and measurement convention. [2]

The appendices also examine the Bullet Cluster, comparing the different behaviour of collisionless gravitating matter and collisional hot gas. This supplies a spatial, component-level comparison alongside the cosmological abundances. The Star Law treatment addresses the observed separation qualitatively; quantitative spatial offsets require their own calculation. [2] Observational source: Clowe and colleagues, Bullet Cluster observations.

ER/EPR: why the connection matters

ER refers to an Einstein–Rosen bridge, a wormhole geometry in general relativity. EPR refers to Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen quantum correlations. In 2013, Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind proposed that these geometric and quantum descriptions could be deeply connected. Their work linked entangled black holes to bridges and explored the implications for the black-hole firewall problem. Maldacena and Susskind, Cool horizons for entangled black holes

Star Law’s corpus presents a proof of correspondence within its specified class of quantum systems with finite-index access, recoverability and causal consistency: a non-product EPR closure has a corresponding nonzero ER-type bridge class. “Non-product” means that the shared quantum state cannot be decomposed into two independent states. The result supplies a defined connection between quantum correlation structure and relational geometry within that class, with local applicability beyond a premise of Anti-de Sitter boundary geometry. [2]

The subsequent transducer analysis takes the question into physical geometry: the conditions for an ER bridge, the local spacetime metric, proper distances and times, and configuration-dependent sizing. Here, a physical wormhole means an actual spacetime geometry satisfying those physical conditions. The programme makes no claim of traversability or faster-than-light communication.

The bridge correspondence and the conditions for a physical metric are separate steps in the derivation. The current record establishes the correspondence and develops the metric and sizing conditions; it does not report a completed numerical throat solution for the intended receiver. Any physical size belongs to the specified resource, geometry and Maxwell/QET configuration, with no universal wormhole dimension implied. [2, 7]

This distinction makes the engineering connection precise. Geometry and the conditional quantum state determine the field response; the field response determines which work modes can be accessed; the receiver must couple to those modes.

Magnetar: the experimental and engineering lineage

Magnetar was developed during 2018–2024 and first prototype-tested in October 2024. Its architecture combines bulk magnetic compression of fusion fuel with an engineered holographic boundary for organising correlations and receiver control. [1]

The design brings the fuel into a dense, optically thick plasma regime. Its boundary uses a MERA network, a layered arrangement for representing correlations at different scales. Entanglement wedges—the bulk regions associated with those boundary channels—provide the organising picture for the QET extraction architecture. The compression analysis and the correlation-controlled receiver are distinct parts of the system. [3]

FUSA’s March 2026 technical report describes a separate thirty-minute controlled run, reporting sustained receiver output with correct classical control and a fall toward baseline when that control was disabled or randomised. It documents receiver metrology, timing tests and entanglement diagnostics. These are results reported by the FUSA test programme. [3]

The October 2024 work also prompted a later research question: whether fusion at nuclear colour/flavour scales could be described through an ER-related change in quantum geometry and wave-function organisation. That question helped direct the subsequent Star Law and bulk-QET analysis. The later geometric interpretation developed from that experimental and engineering history.

The progression is therefore identifiable in time: fusion-system development and boundary control, followed by Star Law’s geometric analysis, Solar LOCC protocol tests and the Dave receiver formulation.

Alice, Solar LOCC and local quantum work

Quantum energy teleportation, or QET, uses a measurement record and a corresponding local operation to make work accessible within a correlated quantum system. Masahiro Hotta’s 2008 work established a theoretical route using local operations and classical communication while respecting causality and energy conservation. Hotta, Quantum Energy Teleportation in Spin Chain Systems

In FUSA’s architecture, Alice supplies the source-side record, Bob carries or buffers the causal classical information, and Dave performs the local receiver operation. LOCC means local operations and classical communication. The message identifies the operation to apply; its role is control and authorisation, not transport of the intended bulk electrical output.

The Solar programme applies this architecture to source information associated with the Sun–Earth causal overlap. In the IBM experiments, that source record enters a specified quantum protocol implemented on a locally prepared QPU resource. The campaign sequence includes the retained Alice v1.3 historical record as an input-control reference. Source-record provenance and the QPU’s live measurement branch are tracked separately. [4–6]

This gives the experiment a concrete test: whether the specified record, branch and Star Law controller produce the predicted local energy change, and whether changing the sign, address or controller changes the result.

Controlled experiments on IBM quantum hardware

The IBM campaigns implemented quantum circuits, measured their outcomes, and retained the input records, frozen predictions, job identifiers and specified falsification controls. Work was scored from the implemented Hamiltonian energy before and after Dave’s local operation. The reported quantities therefore have an explicit physical observable within the finite quantum model. [4–6]

Structure, capacity and repeatability

The early campaigns tested the ordered Pauli/Weyl sign and phase structure used to address the quantum sectors. Campaign 1 recovered all 35 prescribed signs. The analysis also resolved the 1 + 14 + 20 decomposition: three components of the 35-dimensional structure that distinguish a correct sector pattern from a superficially similar total signal. [4]

Campaigns 3G and 3H established positive work with one-sided 95% lower bounds above zero. Campaign 4A then used 150 logical qubits on IBM Fez, with 282,000 executions, to test work capacity across seven Dave banks and 105 mapped work coordinates. [4, 5]

The capacity crossover compares Dave’s work with Alice’s local injection. A complete system energy balance also accounts for preparation of the correlated resource. [5]

The experiments retained the relevant sign, address and controller tests. For example, Campaign 4C’s bank-7 result was approximately +2.0289 under correct operation, +0.0934 with the controller disabled and −6.4797 with its sign reversed. The repeat execution reproduced the same positive, near-zero and negative pattern. These figures are in the experiment’s finite-model work units. [6]

The Alice–Dave entanglement witnesses were 1.797818 and 1.789273 in the two 4C executions, with one-sided 99% lower bounds above the specified separable-state bound of 1. Together, the work controls and entanglement measurements test the conditional mechanism and its underlying quantum resource. [6]

Campaign 3H also measured tolerance around the exact controller. Small deformations retained useful operation; both tested families showed resolved departures at the deformation parameter λ = 2 and strongly negative work at λ = 3. This establishes a finite tolerance region in those tests and motivates further empirical work on control accuracy and complexity. [4]

These results constitute controlled hardware tests of the implemented Star Law/QET architecture and its specified alternatives. The separately executed 4C jobs used the same backend and circuit specification; their repeatability is distinct from replication by an independent research institution. [5, 6]

Execution provenance

These identifiers connect the results to the retained execution record. The campaign reports distinguish the measured work aperture from the separately supplied engineering power reference. FUSA’s public evidence index also records campaign provenance. [5, 6]

Dave: a three-dimensional electrical QET receiver architecture

The Dave transducer research has developed a three-dimensional, proper-time QET design framework supported by analytic electromagnetic coupling calculations and controlled numerical studies. “Three-dimensional” refers to a physical volume; “proper time” is the time measured locally by the system. Together they define the 3+1-dimensional setting used for the receiver calculation. [7]

This work connects the correlated resource to electrical capture modes and a separate storage/output stage. It specifies how geometry, material response, boundary conditions and the conditional quantum state enter the receiver problem. Maxwell’s equations supply the electromagnetic coupling; the loaded quantum system determines the work accessible to the allowed local operation.

The developed design includes:

• Electromagnetic coupling and mode matching: analytic projection of resource and receiver fields onto electrical charge and flux modes, with spatial and spectral matching treated separately.
• Physical-time work analysis: a formulation connecting local field dynamics, the conditional state and the interval over which work can be captured.
• Passivity and branch tests: numerical studies examining when a local operation can extract work, and how the result changes when the required branch information or state preparation is altered.
• Capture and output separation: a receiver architecture that isolates quantum capture from bulk storage and customer-load changes, then transfers captured work through a controlled electrical stage.
• Explicit energy accounting: separate treatment of accessible work, control and reset costs, conversion losses, storage and useful output.

The contribution is the connection between these elements: geometric conditions, physical field response, conditional work modes and an electrical receiver interface are treated within one design framework. It develops QET beyond a minimal qubit illustration into a bulk receiver problem with spatial extent, timing, loading and power-handling requirements. [7]

The application families address 10–100 kW uses and 1–30 MW industrial blocks. These are the intended electrical ratings of the design families. [7]

The design distinguishes the receiver’s electrical resonance, the useful QET work spectrum and the downstream switching cadence. It also distinguishes the physical ER metric from the dimensions of the receiver hardware. These distinctions allow the geometry and the electrical design to be tested against the quantities each actually determines.

Power references and conservation

The IBM reports’ terawatt figures are normalised pre-transducer reference quantities. Campaign 4A’s measured aperture of approximately 14.3045%, applied to the declared 40.7 TW reference ceiling, gives approximately 5.82 TW. Campaign 4C’s apertures of 15.0162% and 13.9079% give 6.11 TW and 5.66 TW under the same convention. [5, 6]

That historical project ceiling used a 10⁻¹³ admission factor against a 4.07 × 10²⁶ W source reference. The later transducer analysis revisits the physical source normalisation. These reported equivalents retain their original convention; they are not measurements of electrical watts delivered by either the IBM processor or a Dave transducer. [5–7]

Star Law’s conserved closure account and the physical energy budget are separately defined. An exact representation of a certified work sector does not admit an arbitrary fitted output multiplier. The receiver must still establish which sector and dynamics it physically accesses. Useful off-take depends on accessible work, mode matching, control costs, material limits and heat removal. [7]

Phased rollout targets

FUSA’s published roadmap targets 1 TWh per day of delivery capability in Asia before the end of 2026, rising to 40 TWh per day in 2027—equivalent to average outputs of approximately 41.67 GW and 1.667 TW, respectively. National participation establishes the path to industrial access, followed by smaller commercial and domestic applications as terminal production expands and regional electrical qualifications are completed. The longer-term ambition is up to 40 TW of continuous capacity by the decade’s end. These dated targets guide participation, capacity allocation and the subsequent commissioning of electrical service. FUSA, Powering the Planet — rollout roadmap

Intellectual property and valuation

The source-information and local receiver technologies have a recorded UK filing date of 1 May 2026. This is an identifiable development milestone preceding the later IBM campaigns and transducer reports. [9]

The independent Valuation of Patent Rights report was issued in Singapore, dated 4 August 2026. It states that it applies the International Valuation Standards effective from 31 January 2025, including IVS 210 — Intangible Assets. [8]

Its assessment uses income-based methods: a greenfield analysis allowing for the complementary assets required for deployment, the incremental benefit of accelerated commercial access, and relief from royalties as a supporting comparison.

US$3.4 trillion is the lower endpoint of the report’s assessed valuation range and corresponds to its Base Case deployment scenario. It is a scenario-based assessment of patent rights and associated IP. It is distinct from a guaranteed sale price, company equity valuation or public-market capitalisation. Fusion Ltd is privately held and has no quoted stock-market capitalisation. [8]

Further scientific questions arising from the framework

The current results define several precise directions for further research. [2, 4, 7]

• Measurement and probability: the appendices develop finite-system arguments concerning Born probabilities, causal consistency and quantum-correlation bounds. Extending those results to the full continuum description, emergent Lorentz symmetry and a common physical causal speed remains a defined research task. Writing c = 1 is a units convention; the causal structure itself requires the derivation.
• Gravity and quantum mechanics: Star Law investigates their descriptions as compatible application domains of a common closure construction. A separate fundamental spin-2 sector is excluded only under the stated condition that the geometric sector exhausts the gravitational response. Collective metric excitations remain compatible with that interpretation.
• Quantum networking: the programme asks whether correlations already present in a shared causal region can become operationally accessible through closure, joint activation and tractable control. Establishing the usable resource and its cost is central to assessing possible reductions in entanglement-distribution requirements.
• Complexity and tolerance: the observed controller tolerance motivates further tests of the conditions under which the useful work structure survives increasingly demanding operations.
• Cosmological evolution: a possible end-of-time reset remains a working hypothesis to be tested against the framework’s conservation and cosmological conditions.

These questions extend a programme with explicit mathematical results, quantitative comparisons, hardware controls and a developed receiver formulation. Each can be pursued through a defined derivation or experiment.

Programme records and supporting sources

The numbered records below identify the provenance of the statements on this page. Dates identify the documents or executions concerned; earlier development periods are listed separately in the chronology.

1. FUSA programme chronology. Magnetar development, 2018–2024; Star Law research from 2022; Magnetar prototype test, October 2024.
2. Star Law: Entanglement Relativity — Main Corpus and Appendices. Consolidated through 2026. Cosmology, matter inventory, proton and charged-particle bridges, CKM structure, global closure, measurement and probability, and the scoped ER/EPR correspondence. Bullet Cluster discussion: Appendix C.8 and D; ER/EPR: Appendix I; finite-system probability and causal results: Appendix L.
3. Magnetar Quantum Fusion System Demonstration, V2.2, Dubai, 10 March 2026. Boundary architecture and compression analysis; receiver metrology, timing and control results. This report date is separate from the October 2024 prototype milestone.
4. QPU Star Law — Consolidated IBM Hardware Evidence Report, final audited version, 4 August 2026. Campaigns 1–3H; Pauli/Weyl structure, closure, entanglement, work and tolerance tests.
5. QPU Star Law Campaign 4A — Final Hardware Report, plain-English revision, 14 August 2026; Fez hardware execution, 8 August 2026. Work-capacity crossover, seven-bank operation, 105-coordinate aperture and controls.
6. QPU Star Law Campaign 4C — Final Hardware Report, 14 August 2026. Separate Kingston primary and repeat executions, seven-bank response matrices, entanglement witnesses and normalised power references.
7. FUSA transducer design and derivation record, 22–28 August 2026, including the final retained continuations. Physical ER conditions, configuration-dependent sizing formulation, proper-time QET, electromagnetic coupling, controlled numerical studies, capture/storage architecture and electrical application classes.
8. Valuation of Patent Rights, Singapore, 4 August 2026. Report identification and standards: pp. 1, 3 and 5–7; valuation methodology and scenario range: pp. 28–30.
9. UK filing acknowledgement for source-information and local receiver technology. Recorded filing date, 1 May 2026; acknowledgement letter dated 5 May 2026.

Public historical and observational references are linked alongside the relevant discussion: Hotta’s QET work, Maldacena and Susskind’s ER/EPR proposal, Planck cosmological parameters, NIST/CODATA constants and the Bullet Cluster observations. They provide background or comparison data; FUSA’s programme results are attributed to its own identified records.