Neuronal microtubules under physiological conditions sustain coherent or entangled quantum states of sufficient duration (order tens of milliseconds) and spatial extent (across many tubulins) to support the computation Orch OR requires.

The load-bearing gap. No coherence time, dephasing time, or entanglement witness has been measured in any microtubule. The nearest measurements quantify adjacent observables — an excitation diffusion length and a fluorescence quantum yield — and the competing decoherence figures are both calculations, disagreeing by seven to eight orders of magnitude, with even the favorable one falling short of the requirement.

This is the load-bearing gap of the entire theory, and no empirical data exists to fill it. No record measures a coherence time, dephasing time, or entanglement witness in a physiological microtubule, leaving arguments stranded between wildly divergent theoretical calculations. The strongest objection stems from biophysical priors: warm, wet environments typically induce decoherence in femtoseconds, falling orders of magnitude short of the millisecond duration the theory requires.

No evidence record measures any coherence/dephasing time or entanglement witness in microtubules under physiological conditions. The only quantitative estimates are competing calculations: Tegmark’s very-fast decoherence and Hagan et al.’s much longer but still sub-threshold times; both are models of different states, not data. Kalra’s 6.6 nm energy migration and Babcock’s superradiance show collective electronic behavior at femtosecond–picosecond scales over roughly a single dimer; they do not address millisecond, multi-tubulin coherence. After decades, the key number is entirely unmeasured, so the existence or absence of such states remains unknown. The strongest objection is the conjunction of warm, wet decoherence priors with the long delay in even specifying, let alone measuring, an appropriate physiological coherence observable and threshold.

Not one record measures a coherence time, a dephasing time, or an entanglement witness in a microtubule. Kalra measured an excitation diffusion length of about 6.6 nm and explicitly modeled incoherent energy migration; Babcock measured fluorescence quantum yield against a collective-eigenstate model whose “tens of seconds” figure is a radiative lifetime, not a decoherence time. Tegmark calculated 10⁻¹³–10⁻²⁰ s; Hagan, Hameroff and Tuszyński, modeling a different state, calculated 10⁻⁵–10⁻⁴ s — still one to two orders short of the tens of milliseconds this claim asserts. The strongest opposing consideration is prior-based and labeled as such: decoherence estimates for warm, wet, ionically screened environments generally come out very short, and thirty years of looking have produced no measurement in the required range. That prior was not used to relabel an absence as a contradiction.

The finding here is an absence: not one record measures a coherence time, dephasing time, or entanglement witness in a microtubule under any conditions, let alone physiological ones. The two numbers in the literature are both calculations — Tegmark's 10⁻¹³–10⁻²⁰ s and Hagan's 10⁻⁵–10⁻⁴ s — disagreeing by seven to eight orders of magnitude partly because they model different physical states, and even the proponent figure falls one to two orders short of the ~25 ms the theory needs. The photophysics results (6.6 nm transport, superradiant quantum yield) measure adjacent quantities, and the "tens of seconds" figure is a radiative lifetime, not a decoherence time. The strongest opposing consideration is the prior that warm, wet, ionically screened environments decohere fast — but that is a calculation tradition, not a measurement, which is precisely the gap.

This is the load-bearing gap and it is an absence, not a conflict: no record in the file measures a coherence time, a dephasing time, or an entanglement witness in a microtubule. The two positive photophysics results measure adjacent quantities — an excitation diffusion length modeled with an explicit incoherent-migration comparison, and a bulk fluorescence quantum yield whose "tens of seconds" figure is a radiative lifetime of a modeled dark state, not a survival time against dephasing. What pushes my reading negative rather than neutral is that the only two quantitative estimates in existence both fall short of what this claim asserts: Tegmark's by ten to seventeen orders of magnitude, and Hagan et al.'s — computed by the theory's own principals for the state the theory actually proposes — still by one to two. The vocabulary offers no token for "unmeasured but leaning negative," so I record unresolved with that lean stated explicitly. The strongest opposing consideration is genuine: Hagan et al. are right that Tegmark modeled a different physical state, so the canonical refutation was never a refutation, and both figures are calculations rather than measurements of a living microtubule.

Still the load-bearing gap and still unmeasured: the nearest experimental quantities are an excitation diffusion length (ORCH-E001) and a bulk quantum yield (ORCH-E004), neither of which is a coherence or dephasing time. The competing calculations (ORCH-E007, ORCH-E008) have never been adjudicated by experiment.

Still the load-bearing gap and still unmeasured: the nearest results quantify an excitation diffusion length (ORCH-E001) and a bulk quantum yield (ORCH-E004), neither of which is a coherence time. Nothing in the new anesthesia or pharmacology material bears on it at all.

Still the load-bearing gap and still unmeasured: the nearest results quantify an excitation diffusion length (ORCH-E001) and a bulk quantum yield (ORCH-E004), neither of which is a coherence time. The competing calculations (ORCH-E007, ORCH-E008) have never been adjudicated by experiment.

This is the load-bearing empirical gap in the entire case. No experiment has actually measured a coherence time, a dephasing time, or an entanglement witness in a microtubule under physiological conditions. Extant literature relies on two competing calculations that disagree by up to eight orders of magnitude, and even the proponents' revised estimates fall short of the required milliseconds. Without direct 2D electronic spectroscopy or photon-echo measurements, this remains purely speculative.

No experiment in the dossier measures a decoherence time, coherence length, or entanglement witness in either purified or physiological microtubules, so the core factual content of this claim is currently unmeasured. The Tegmark and Hagan computations disagree by 7–8 orders of magnitude and both are purely theoretical, with even the favorable Hagan estimate still short of the tens-of-milliseconds requirement. The strongest opposing consideration is the general expectation, based on warm, wet, noisy environments, that coherence will be extremely short-lived, but the case rules that in as a prior, not as a measured fact; in strict evidential terms the state of this claim is ignorance.

Not one record measures a coherence time, a dephasing time, or an entanglement witness in a microtubule. Kalra measured an inferred excitation diffusion length of one tubulin-dimer scale and modeled incoherent migration as a comparison; Babcock's "tens of seconds" figure is a modeled radiative lifetime of a dark collective state, not a decoherence time. The two published decoherence numbers are both calculations and disagree by seven to eight orders of magnitude, and even the proponent figure of 10⁻⁵–10⁻⁴ s falls short of the tens of milliseconds this claim asserts. The strongest opposing consideration is prior-based and labeled as such: warm, wet, ionically screened decoherence estimates generally come out very short, and thirty years of looking has produced no measurement in the required range — but a short prior is not a measurement, and unmeasured is the accurate grade.

The finding is an absence, and it is unambiguous: not one record measures a coherence time, dephasing time, or entanglement witness in a microtubule. The only two numbers in the literature are calculations — Tegmark's 10⁻¹³–10⁻²⁰ s and Hagan et al.'s 10⁻⁵–10⁻⁴ s — disagreeing by seven to eight orders of magnitude, and even the proponents' figure falls one to two orders short of the ~25 ms the theory needs. Measured electronic transport extends ~6.6 nm on femtosecond-to-picosecond physics, roughly one tubulin dimer, so the gap in time and space is many orders of magnitude and none of it has been closed experimentally. The strongest opposing consideration is prior-based and labeled as such: decoherence estimates for warm, wet, ionically screened environments generally come out very short, and thirty years of looking has produced no measurement in the required range — but priors are not measurements, and the theory's failure to commit to numbers makes "sufficient" operationally undefined.

Not one record measures a coherence time, dephasing time, or entanglement witness in a microtubule; the two positive photophysics results measure adjacent quantities (excitation diffusion length, fluorescence quantum yield), and the widely-quoted "tens of seconds" is a modeled radiative lifetime of a dark state, not a decoherence time. The two decoherence numbers in the literature are both calculations and disagree by seven to eight orders of magnitude. The strongest opposing consideration is that "unresolved" may be too kind: every quantitative anchor available, including the proponents' own 10⁻⁵–10⁻⁴ s, falls short of the tens-of-milliseconds the claim asserts, and the only actual measurement of spatial extent (~6.6 nm, roughly one dimer) is many orders below the required extent — so within the unresolved band the mass sits heavily on the negative side.

The load-bearing gap and still unmeasured: the nearest results are an excitation diffusion length (ORCH-E001) and a bulk quantum yield (ORCH-E004), neither of which is a coherence time. The competing calculations (ORCH-E007, ORCH-E008) have never been adjudicated by experiment.

Still the load-bearing gap and still unmeasured: the nearest results are an excitation diffusion length (ORCH-E001) and a bulk quantum yield (ORCH-E004), neither a coherence time. ORCH-E036 now documents that on the published numbers no unconditional proponent-side estimate reaches the theory's own requirement, which makes the shortfall a matter of record rather than of critics' modelling choices — but a shortfall on paper is not a measurement, so the claim stays unresolved rather than contradicted.

The literature relies entirely on conflicting calculations (Tegmark's 10^-13s in ORCH-E007 versus Hagan's 10^-4s in ORCH-E008), with no experimental anchor. The strongest opposing consideration is that even the most favorable proponent calculation (ORCH-E036) falls short of the millisecond duration the theory demands, and physiological wet environments are notoriously hostile to macroscopic quantum coherence.

No experiment in the corpus measures any microtubule coherence or entanglement witness in physiological conditions; Kalra and Babcock (ORCH-C020/C021; E001–E004) probe exciton diffusion and superradiant optical behaviour at femtosecond–picosecond scales, not millisecond coherence across many tubulins. The Tegmark and Hagan calculations (E007–E008) essentially bracket a theoretical range but are mutually inconsistent and unverified experimentally, and even Hagan’s favourable 10⁻⁵–10⁻⁴ s estimate falls short of the ~25 ms exemplar (E036). The strongest opposing consideration is that three decades on, the central required quantity remains unmeasured and the theory has not committed to concrete coherence-length/structure thresholds, making this claim not just empirically unresolved but operationally ill-specified.

Not one record measures a coherence time, dephasing time, or entanglement witness in a microtubule under physiological conditions. Kalra measured an excitation diffusion length of about one tubulin dimer with an incoherent-migration comparison in the modeling; Babcock's "tens of seconds" figure is a modeled radiative lifetime of a dark collective eigenstate, not a decoherence time. Tegmark's 10⁻¹³–10⁻²⁰ s and Hagan et al.'s 10⁻⁵–10⁻⁴ s are calculations of different modeled states, they disagree by many orders of magnitude, and even the proponent figure falls short of tens of milliseconds across many tubulins. Strongest opposing consideration, labeled as a prior where it is one: warm, wet, ionically screened decoherence estimates generally come out very short, thirty years have produced no measurement in the required range, and the theory has not committed to a numerical acceptance criterion that would let a future measurement count as pass or fail.

The finding is a thoroughly documented absence: no record in this case measures a coherence time, dephasing time, or entanglement witness in any microtubule, at any temperature. The only numbers in the literature are two calculations disagreeing by seven to eight orders of magnitude (ORCH-E007, ORCH-E008), and even the proponent recalculation falls one to two orders short of the ~25 ms the theory requires (ORCH-E036), while the best measured transport extends ~6.6 nm on femtosecond-to-picosecond physics (ORCH-E001). The strongest opposing consideration is the warm-wet decoherence prior, which makes a positive measurement unlikely — but that is a prior, not a record, and the theory's failure to publish a pass/fail threshold is a specification defect rather than disproof. Unresolved is the evidence-warranted grade, and the field's own assessment.

Not one record measures a dephasing time, coherence length, or entanglement witness in a microtubule; the two numbers in circulation are calculations of disputed models disagreeing by seven to eight orders of magnitude (ORCH-E007, ORCH-E008). This is an absence, not a conflict, and it is the crux of the entire case. The asymmetry deserves saying plainly: every unconditional estimate on record, including the proponents' own 10⁻⁵–10⁻⁴ s, falls short of the theory's 25 ms exemplar (ORCH-E036), so the calculational balance tilts negative even though nothing has been measured. The strongest opposing consideration is that Hagan et al. correctly showed Tegmark modeled a different physical state, so the canonical refutation is weaker than its reputation — which blocks a "contradicted" verdict but supplies no positive support.

Still the load-bearing gap and still unmeasured: the nearest results are an excitation diffusion length (ORCH-E001) and a bulk quantum yield (ORCH-E004), neither a coherence time. ORCH-E036 documents that no unconditional proponent-side estimate reaches the theory's own requirement, but a shortfall on paper is not a measurement, so the claim stays unresolved rather than contradicted.

Still the load-bearing gap and still unmeasured: the nearest results are an excitation diffusion length (ORCH-E001) and a bulk quantum yield (ORCH-E004), neither a coherence time. ORCH-E036 documents that no unconditional proponent-side estimate reaches the theory's own requirement, but a shortfall on paper is not a measurement, so the claim stays unresolved rather than contradicted.

This is the central missing empirical piece of the entire theory. No experiment has measured a density-matrix observable in a physiological microtubule. The strongest opposing consideration is that calculations alone fill this void, and proponent models are wildly divergent from mainstream decoherence estimates (like Tegmark's) without resolving the gap via measurement.

No experiment in the record measures any coherence or entanglement witness in microtubules under physiological conditions, let alone at tens-of-milliseconds timescales and across many tubulins. The only numbers are incompatible calculations (Tegmark vs. Hagan) and a corpus audit showing that even proponents’ unconditional estimates fall short of their own requirements (ORCH-E036), but these remain theory, not observation. The strongest opposing consideration is that generic decoherence estimates for warm, wet, noisy environments are extremely short, making long-lived neuronal microtubule coherence a priori implausible, coupled to the theory’s failure so far to publish clear quantitative thresholds that would allow a decisive test.

Not one record measures a coherence time, dephasing time, or entanglement witness in a microtubule. Kalra et al. measured an inferred excitation diffusion length of about one tubulin dimer and explicitly modeled incoherent energy migration; Babcock et al.'s "tens of seconds" figure is a radiative lifetime of a dark collective eigenstate, not a decoherence time. Tegmark calculated 10^-13 to 10^-20 s; Hagan et al. 10^-5 to 10^-4 s, still short of tens of milliseconds; a corpus tabulation finds no unconditional proponent estimate meeting the 25 ms exemplar. The strongest opposing consideration, partly prior-based and labeled as such, is that warm, wet, ionically screened environments generally decohere fast and that the measured photophysics remains many orders of magnitude short in time and space. That is still not a measurement of this quantity, so the accurate grade is unresolved, not contradicted.

Not one record in this case measures a coherence time, a dephasing time, or an entanglement witness in a microtubule; the only numbers on the required quantity are two calculations seven to eight orders of magnitude apart (ORCH-E007, ORCH-E008), and even the proponents' unconditional recalculation falls one to two orders short of the ~25 ms requirement (ORCH-E036). The best measured transport is ~6.6 nm on femtosecond-picosecond physics — a shortfall of many orders of magnitude in both time and space that nothing has closed. The strongest opposing consideration is prior-based and labeled as such: decoherence estimates for warm, wet, ionically screened environments generically come out very short, so a skeptic may read "unresolved" as generous. But the measurement has literally never been performed, and the theory has never published the threshold that would let a measurement count as pass or fail — unresolved is the accurate grade, and this claim is the crux of the entire case.

This is the case's load-bearing gap and the finding is a genuine absence: no record measures a dephasing time, coherence length, or entanglement witness in a microtubule, and the two photophysics results measure adjacent quantities (an exciton diffusion length modeled with an incoherent comparison; a modeled dark-state radiative lifetime that is routinely misread as a coherence time). The tilt is negative rather than neutral: Tegmark's 10⁻¹³–10⁻²⁰ s, Reimers's 10 fs–30 ps for anything coupled to electronic motion, and the proponents' own unconditional 10⁻⁵–10⁻⁴ s all fall short of the ~25 ms requirement (ORCH-E007, ORCH-E008, ORCH-E036). The strongest opposing consideration against grading it contradicted is that these are all calculations about disputed model states, they disagree among themselves by eight orders of magnitude, and the 2023–2024 lattice results show the relevant environment is less well characterized than the modelers assumed.

Still the load-bearing gap and still unmeasured: the nearest results are an excitation diffusion length (ORCH-E001) and a bulk quantum yield (ORCH-E004), neither a coherence time. ORCH-E036 documents that no unconditional proponent estimate reaches the theory's own requirement, but a shortfall on paper is not a measurement, so the claim stays unresolved rather than contradicted.

Still the load-bearing gap and still unmeasured: the nearest results are an excitation diffusion length (ORCH-E001) and a bulk quantum yield (ORCH-E004), neither a coherence time. ORCH-E036 documents that no unconditional proponent-side estimate reaches the theory's own requirement, but a shortfall on paper is not a measurement, so the claim stays unresolved rather than contradicted.

Evidence-only, and the finding is an absence rather than a conflict. Not one record in this case measures a coherence time, a dephasing time, or an entanglement witness in a microtubule. The two positive photophysics results measure adjacent but distinct quantities: Kalra et al. measured an excitation diffusion length and explicitly modeled incoherent energy migration as a comparison, and Babcock et al. measured fluorescence quantum yield against a collective-eigenstate model — where the striking "tens of seconds" figure is a modeled radiative lifetime of a dark state, not a decoherence time, a distinction that is routinely lost in summaries. The two decoherence numbers in the literature are both calculations, not measurements, and they disagree by seven to eight orders of magnitude (Tegmark: 10⁻¹³–10⁻²⁰ s; Hagan et al.: 10⁻⁵–10⁻⁴ s) — and even the proponent figure falls one to two orders short of what this claim asserts. Unresolved is the accurate label, and it is the field's own assessment too.

This is the case's central absence. No coherence time, dephasing time, coherence length or entanglement witness has ever been measured in a microtubule under physiological conditions. In its place are calculations that disagree by seven to eight orders of magnitude — ORCH-E007 at 10⁻¹³ to 10⁻²⁰ s, ORCH-E008 replying at 10⁻⁵ to 10⁻⁴ s after correcting the modelled state — and ORCH-E008 is filed as qualifying rather than supporting because even the proponents' own revised figure falls two to three orders short of their 25 ms exemplar. ORCH-E036 confirms this against the whole corpus: no unconditional proponent-side estimate meets the theory's own requirement, and the routes that reach physiological timescales are either explicitly conditional or inferred from unreplicated single-laboratory resonance measurements. ORCH-E072 and ORCH-E073 show the newest modelling reporting radiative lifetimes from a Markovian radiative-loss model with no thermal, solvent or ionic bath — not dephasing times. Unresolved here means unmeasured, not refuted.

Direct measurement of electronic or vibrational coherence times in physiological microtubules under warm, aqueous conditions has never been achieved. Published theoretical estimates span more than fifteen orders of magnitude, with even the proponents' own most favorable models falling two to three orders of magnitude short of the 25 ms requirement. The strongest opposing consideration is that discovered collective dark states in tryptophan mega-networks exhibit modelled radiative lifetimes extending into seconds, demonstrating topological resilience to static disorder.

The required measurement has never been made: Tegmark's 10⁻¹³–10⁻²⁰ s and Hagan's 10⁻⁵–10⁻⁴ s model different physical states, and per the corpus study no unconditional proponent estimate reaches the theory's own 25 ms requirement — the gap is bridged only by conditional assumptions or unreplicated single-laboratory resonance data. The 2023–2026 photophysics work measures diffusion lengths and radiative lifetimes, which are not dephasing times, and the 2026 modeling explicitly excludes physiological baths. Weakest link in the case: everything above it hangs on this number.

The claim specifies tens of milliseconds across many tubulins under physiological conditions, yet no evidence record measures such a state. ORCH-E008 gives the favorable unconditional estimate as only 10^-5 to 10^-4 s, and ORCH-E036 reports that no unconditional proponent estimate reaches the 25 ms exemplar. Newer calculations model radiative loss without solvent, ionic, vibrational, or 310 K dephasing channels. The strongest opposing consideration is that all current numbers are model-dependent calculations rather than a direct physiological coherence measurement.

No attached record measures a coherence or entanglement duration of tens of milliseconds in physiological microtubules; Tegmark and Hagan calculations disagree and even the favorable 10^-5–10^-4 s estimate misses the theory’s ~25 ms exemplar, while recent collective-optics work reports radiative lifetimes and quantum-yield trends, not thermal-bath dephasing times. Strongest opposing consideration is ordered-lattice and collective-state physics that may change environmental assumptions, but that remains a modeling hope without the decisive spectroscopy.

No measurement exists. ORCH-E007 calculates 10⁻¹³–10⁻²⁰ s; ORCH-E008 counters with 10⁻⁵–10⁻⁴ s. ORCH-E036 shows no unconditional proponent estimate reaches 25 ms, and ORCH-E035 finds no published threshold. ORCH-E072 and ORCH-E073 show the newest modelling gives radiative, not dephasing, lifetimes. ORCH-E081 to ORCH-E083 are assertion only. The calculations lean against the claim, but the quantity itself is unmeasured.