No.
Even somebody who isn’t a quantum physicist can see that you are making claims about ORCH-OR that bear no resemblance to claims made by that hypothesis’ main proponents – all this conclusion requires is a fairly basic understanding of the English language.
Add to this the fact that you misidentified an apologist as a quantum physicist and the working assumption that you simply have no idea what you’re talking about becomes even stronger.
Unless and until you provide some evidence that you have any understanding of what you’re talking about, I see no reason to alter my earlier conclusion:
This is particularly the case as (i) your latest round of “predictions” seem to be nothing but a series of non sequitors and (ii) we have no evidence you have even read the papers you cite as evidence of them – your history to date would indicate that it’s more likely you are simply parroted some other apologist’s citation of them.