{
  "id": "oai:papers.qnfo.org:passive-signal-as-passive-controller-a-systems-theoretic-feasibility-analysis-of",
  "slug": "passive-signal-as-passive-controller-a-systems-theoretic-feasibility-analysis-of",
  "title": "Passive Signal as Passive Controller: A Systems-Theoretic Feasibility Analysis of the Signal‑Worker Ontology",
  "authors": [
    "Rowan Brad Quni-Gudzinas"
  ],
  "abstract": "Engineers who must stabilize fragile quantum or mesoscopic states face a trade‑off between active control, which continuously injects energy, and passive structural control, which encodes stabilizing information in the environment but lacks a certification theory. The Signal‑Worker (S‑W) ontology interprets the boson as a signal—a delocalized field instruction—and the fermion as a worker—the localized state that performs work, proposing that passive, structure‑encoded control is thermodynamically superior to active, energy‑intensive control. The specific gap addressed here is the absence of a control‑theoretic bridge: no dissipation inequality with an explicit storage function has been derived for the Signal block, so the ontology’s central engineering claim cannot be certified or falsified. This paper treats the Signal as a discrete‑time controller block and derives, with full arithmetic, (i) exact passivity of a pure integrator under the modified output y_k = x_k + (1)/(2)u_k, (ii) strict passivity of a leaky integrator under y_k = (1-α)x_k + (1)/(2)u_k with dissipation rate δ = α - fracα²2 (margin -0.095 x_k² at α = 0.1), and (iii) a worst‑case quantization degradation bound of 5.0 energy units over N = 100 steps with quantization resolution q = 0.1. The bound is tolerable only when the accumulated dissipation δ∑_k x_k² exceeds the budget, which requires state magnitudes of at least 0.726 under a constant‑magnitude assumption. An illustrative example quantifies delay margin (ρ ≈ 4.71), quantization energy cost (2.5\\% per packet), attractor radius (r_q = 0.05), and robustness budget (16.7\\% margin erosion tolerance). The result is placed at Technology Readiness Level 1–2, and the smallest next test is a storage‑function fitting for any concrete Signal dynamics.",
  "abstract_markdown": "Engineers who must stabilize fragile quantum or mesoscopic states face a trade‑off between active control, which continuously injects energy, and passive structural control, which encodes stabilizing information in the environment but lacks a certification theory. The Signal‑Worker (S‑W) ontology interprets the boson as a *signal*—a delocalized field instruction—and the fermion as a *worker*—the localized state that performs work, proposing that passive, structure‑encoded control is thermodynamically superior to active, energy‑intensive control. The specific gap addressed here is the absence of a control‑theoretic bridge: no dissipation inequality with an explicit storage function has been derived for the Signal block, so the ontology’s central engineering claim cannot be certified or falsified. This paper treats the Signal as a discrete‑time controller block and derives, with full arithmetic, (i) exact passivity of a pure integrator under the modified output \\(y_k = x_k + \\tfrac{1}{2}u_k\\), (ii) strict passivity of a leaky integrator under \\(y_k = (1-\\alpha)x_k + \\tfrac{1}{2}u_k\\) with dissipation rate \\(\\delta = \\alpha - \\tfrac{\\alpha^{2}}{2}\\) (margin \\(-0.095\\,x_k^{2}\\) at \\(\\alpha = 0.1\\)), and (iii) a worst‑case quantization degradation bound of \\(5.0\\) energy units over \\(N = 100\\) steps with quantization resolution \\(q = 0.1\\). The bound is tolerable only when the accumulated dissipation \\(\\delta\\sum_k x_k^{2}\\) exceeds the budget, which requires state magnitudes of at least \\(0.726\\) under a constant‑magnitude assumption. An illustrative example quantifies delay margin (\\(\\rho \\approx 4.71\\)), quantization energy cost (\\(2.5\\%\\) per packet), attractor radius (\\(r_q = 0.05\\)), and robustness budget (\\(16.7\\%\\) margin erosion tolerance). The result is placed at Technology Readiness Level 1–2, and the smallest next test is a storage‑function fitting for any concrete Signal dynamics.",
  "date": "2026-10-10",
  "first_published": "2026-10-10",
  "last_revised": "2026-10-22T07:11:09Z",
  "modified": "2026-10-22T07:11:09Z",
  "version": "2.3.0",
  "version_count": 5,
  "language": "en",
  "keywords": [],
  "quality_tags": [
    "High-quality scholarly research",
    "open-access scholarly work",
    "versioned research publication"
  ],
  "quality_label": "High-quality scholarly research",
  "quality_basis": "QNFO publisher classification for open-access, versioned research with a public revision history and reader correction channel; this is not a claim of independent peer review.",
  "quality_evidence_url": "https://qnfo.org/about",
  "peer_review_status": "Not independently peer-reviewed",
  "resource_type": "ScholarlyArticle",
  "doi": null,
  "doi_url": null,
  "url": "https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/passive-signal-as-passive-controller-a-systems-theoretic-feasibility-analysis-of",
  "license_url": "https://legal.qnfo.org/",
  "license_spdx": null,
  "sha256": "8ad95bdc42980cb4d6703d6a1e4786ccae7aaec64d62dcf3296a0cea2f071103",
  "version_url": "https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/passive-signal-as-passive-controller-a-systems-theoretic-feasibility-analysis-of/v/2.3.0",
  "datacite": {
    "schemaVersion": "http://datacite.org/schema/kernel-4",
    "identifiers": [
      {
        "identifier": "https://papers.qnfo.org/papers/passive-signal-as-passive-controller-a-systems-theoretic-feasibility-analysis-of",
        "identifierType": "URL"
      }
    ],
    "creators": [
      {
        "name": "Rowan Brad Quni-Gudzinas",
        "nameType": "Personal",
        "nameIdentifiers": [
          {
            "nameIdentifier": "https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4317-5604",
            "nameIdentifierScheme": "ORCID",
            "schemeUri": "https://orcid.org"
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "titles": [
      {
        "title": "Passive Signal as Passive Controller: A Systems-Theoretic Feasibility Analysis of the Signal‑Worker Ontology"
      }
    ],
    "publisher": "QNFO",
    "publicationYear": "2026",
    "resourceType": {
      "resourceTypeGeneral": "Text",
      "resourceType": "ScholarlyArticle"
    },
    "subjects": [
      {
        "subject": "High-quality scholarly research",
        "subjectScheme": "QNFO publisher classification",
        "schemeUri": "https://qnfo.org/about"
      },
      {
        "subject": "open-access scholarly work",
        "subjectScheme": "QNFO publisher classification",
        "schemeUri": "https://qnfo.org/about"
      },
      {
        "subject": "versioned research publication",
        "subjectScheme": "QNFO publisher classification",
        "schemeUri": "https://qnfo.org/about"
      }
    ],
    "dates": [
      {
        "date": "2026-10-10",
        "dateType": "Issued"
      },
      {
        "date": "2026-10-22",
        "dateType": "Updated"
      }
    ],
    "language": "en",
    "version": "2.3.0",
    "rightsList": [
      {
        "rightsUri": "https://legal.qnfo.org/"
      }
    ],
    "descriptions": [
      {
        "description": "Engineers who must stabilize fragile quantum or mesoscopic states face a trade‑off between active control, which continuously injects energy, and passive structural control, which encodes stabilizing information in the environment but lacks a certification theory. The Signal‑Worker (S‑W) ontology interprets the boson as a signal—a delocalized field instruction—and the fermion as a worker—the localized state that performs work, proposing that passive, structure‑encoded control is thermodynamically superior to active, energy‑intensive control. The specific gap addressed here is the absence of a control‑theoretic bridge: no dissipation inequality with an explicit storage function has been derived for the Signal block, so the ontology’s central engineering claim cannot be certified or falsified. This paper treats the Signal as a discrete‑time controller block and derives, with full arithmetic, (i) exact passivity of a pure integrator under the modified output y_k = x_k + (1)/(2)u_k, (ii) strict passivity of a leaky integrator under y_k = (1-α)x_k + (1)/(2)u_k with dissipation rate δ = α - fracα²2 (margin -0.095 x_k² at α = 0.1), and (iii) a worst‑case quantization degradation bound of 5.0 energy units over N = 100 steps with quantization resolution q = 0.1. The bound is tolerable only when the accumulated dissipation δ∑_k x_k² exceeds the budget, which requires state magnitudes of at least 0.726 under a constant‑magnitude assumption. An illustrative example quantifies delay margin (ρ ≈ 4.71), quantization energy cost (2.5\\% per packet), attractor radius (r_q = 0.05), and robustness budget (16.7\\% margin erosion tolerance). The result is placed at Technology Readiness Level 1–2, and the smallest next test is a storage‑function fitting for any concrete Signal dynamics.",
        "descriptionType": "Abstract"
      },
      {
        "description": "Publisher quality classification: High-quality scholarly research. QNFO publisher classification for open-access, versioned research with a public revision history and reader correction channel; this is not a claim of independent peer review.",
        "descriptionType": "Other"
      },
      {
        "description": "Peer review status: Not independently peer-reviewed",
        "descriptionType": "Other"
      }
    ],
    "formats": [
      "text/html"
    ]
  }
}