Logica Quanta III completes the Logica Quanta trilogy by translating accumulated wave interference from a conceptual and mechanistic proposal into a set of explicit, falsifiable experimental predictions. Building on Logica Quanta I, which reframed physics as interacting waves, and Logica Quanta II, which identified accumulated interference as the physical origin of collapse, this paper asks a single empirical question: if accumulated interference is real, where should it appear? The paper identifies history-dependent (hysteretic) signatures that are forbidden by standard, memoryless formulations of quantum mechanics. These include deviations in tunneling statistics, polarization dynamics, decoherence rates, and weak-interaction phase evolution under sustained wave–environment coupling. No new particles, forces, or speculative assumptions are introduced. The proposed tests rely exclusively on existing experimental platforms such as Josephson junctions, magneto-optic systems, superconducting qubits, and long-baseline weak-interaction experiments. Logica Quanta III is intentionally conservative: it specifies where accumulated interference must manifest—and how it can be decisively falsified—if collapse is a dynamical consequence of wave history rather than an instantaneous postulate.
Logica Quanta III completes the Logica Quanta trilogy by translating accumulated wave interference from a conceptual and mechanistic proposal into a set of explicit, falsifiable experimental predictions. Building on Logica Quanta I, which reframed physics as interacting waves, and Logica Quanta II, which identified accumulated interference as the physical origin of collapse, this paper asks a single empirical question: if accumulated interference is real, where should it appear? The paper identifies history-dependent (hysteretic) signatures that are forbidden by standard, memoryless formulations of quantum mechanics. These include deviations in tunneling statistics, polarization dynamics, decoherence rates, and weak-interaction phase evolution under sustained wave–environment coupling. No new particles, forces, or speculative assumptions are introduced. The proposed tests rely exclusively on existing experimental platforms such as Josephson junctions, magneto-optic systems, superconducting qubits, and long-baseline weak-interaction experiments. Logica Quanta III is intentionally conservative: it specifies where accumulated interference must manifest—and how it can be decisively falsified—if collapse is a dynamical consequence of wave history rather than an instantaneous postulate.
Logica Quanta II introduces the missing physical mechanism underlying discrete quantum outcomes: accumulated wave interference. Building on Logica Quanta I, which reframed modern physics as interacting waves rather than particles, this paper identifies history as the absent variable in standard quantum mechanics. While conventional formulations treat collapse as instantaneous and memoryless, many physical systems—from tunneling barriers to decohering environments—experience sustained wave–environment coupling over time. This work argues that interference is not merely instantaneous but accumulates, producing a form of wave stress analogous to material fatigue. When accumulated interference exceeds a stability threshold, collapse-like transitions occur naturally, without randomness, observers, or duality. The concept is developed at the level of physical logic rather than formal mathematics, positioning accumulated interference as a measurable state variable compatible with quantum mechanics, decoherence theory, and known experimental platforms. Logica Quanta II serves as the mechanistic bridge between conceptual reinterpretation (Logica Quanta I) and experimental falsification (Logica Quanta III).
Logica Quanta I presents a unifying interpretive perspective on modern physics, arguing that many well-established phenomena already describe a world of interacting waves rather than isolated particles or intrinsically random processes. Using the Faraday effect as a clear laboratory-scale prototype, the paper systematically reviews experimentally verified cross-influences among electromagnetic, gravitational, weak, and strong interactions—including gravitational lensing, beta decay, nuclear spectroscopy, and neutrino phase effects. These phenomena are shown to share a common structure: propagating waves are continuously conditioned by background fields that modify their phase, trajectory, stability, or emission properties. The paper introduces Logica Quanta as a logical reframing rather than a new physical theory. It argues that the long-standing mystery of quantum collapse arises from a failure to explicitly track accumulated wave interference over time. When interference accumulation is considered, collapse appears as a natural threshold phenomenon rather than a postulate. No new forces are proposed, and no experimental results are challenged. Instead, Logica Quanta I organizes existing physics into a coherent logical framework that highlights continuity, causality, and wave-based interaction as already present features of physical law. The work serves as a conceptual foundation for subsequent formal and experimental investigations.
Quantum mechanics predicts nature with extraordinary accuracy, yet it leaves one question unresolved: how do multiple possibilities become a single observed outcome? Logica Quanta: Logical Reasoning and the Formulation of Quantum Mechanics approaches this question through logical structure rather than interpretational preference. Instead of advocating for a particular interpretation, the work maps the finite set of logically admissible explanations—Many Worlds, stochastic collapse, epistemic models, hidden variables, superdeterminism, and physical collapse—and examines the conceptual cost associated with each. This book introduces a constraint-based framework built on two core tools: a Decision Tree that organizes the logical space of explanations, and a Cost Matrix that makes explicit what each approach preserves and sacrifices, including realism, determinism, explanatory completeness, and testability. Written from the perspective of a systems thinker with a background in financial markets, the work draws parallels between quantum measurement and complex-system transitions such as hysteresis, accumulation, and threshold-driven regime shifts. While not asserting equivalence between physics and economics, it highlights structural similarities in how systems evolve from possibility to outcome. A key argument developed in the book is that if collapse is a real physical process, its signatures may be difficult to isolate in macroscopic environments due to pervasive interference and rapid decoherence. This raises the possibility that lower-interference regimes, including controlled mesoscopic systems or space-based environments, may offer clearer conditions for testing collapse dynamics. The book does not claim to solve the measurement problem. Instead, it provides a logically structured map of the available explanatory landscape and invites skeptical examination of whether a physical, law-governed collapse mechanism—such as those explored within the Total Wave Modified Schrödinger Equation (TWMSE) framework—may remain a viable candidate after careful comparison of alternatives. This Zenodo entry accompanies the publication of the book and is intended as an accessible introduction to its conceptual foundations. 📘 Book link:https://a.co/d/0djmg6ZJ
This work presents a unified, interpretive account of quantum interference and delayed-choice experiments that applies equally to photons and massive particles. Rather than invoking spacetime trajectories, wave–particle duality, retrocausality, or collapse postulates, the paper locates quantum interference in the coherent evolution of internal, pre-geometric degrees of freedom defined over classical spacetime. Within this framework, “which-path” questions are not merely unanswered but fundamentally ill-posed: interference arises from global coherence of an internal field subject to experimental boundary conditions, while spacetime itself remains single-valued and classical at laboratory scales. The approach reproduces all standard quantum-mechanical predictions without modification and is explicitly interpretive rather than predictive. A central result is a unified explanation of why interference occurs across disparate physical systems—photons, electrons, atoms, and molecules—while decoherence manifests through system-dependent physical mechanisms. Photons and massive particles differ in how internal coherence is lost (e.g., electromagnetic absorption versus collisional and thermal interactions), but not in the underlying principle. Delayed-choice experiments are reinterpreted without paradox: changes to the apparatus modify boundary conditions for the internal field rather than retroactively altering particle histories. By removing spacetime paths from the fundamental ontology, the framework offers a consistent, path-free account of interference, decoherence, and localized detection that preserves the empirical success of quantum mechanics while clarifying its conceptual foundations.
This paper serves as an orientation document for the book Logica Quanta – The Evasive Logic of Quantum Physics. It clarifies the purpose, scope, and methodological stance of the work before readers engage with the full text. Rather than advancing a new interpretation through rhetorical argument, Logica Quanta adopts a constraint-based approach to quantum measurement. It treats the existence of single, definite outcomes as a hard empirical boundary and maps the minimal logical branches compatible with that constraint. The book is written as an archive: recording experiments, logical consequences, and theoretical costs without appealing to persuasion. This Zenodo record does not summarize results or extend the technical trilogy of Logica Quanta papers. Instead, it establishes the book’s posture — what it attempts to do, what it refuses to do, and how it should be read. The objective is clarity rather than consensus. Kindle edition of the book:https://a.co/d/01YG3el8
This record contains version 2 of the preprint “Identifiability Limits in Experimental Tests of Quantum Collapse.” It supersedes the conceptually broader first version deposited under DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19617199 and substantially revises the framing, formal results and experimental analysis. The paper formulates experimental tests of objective-collapse dynamics as an operational identifiability problem. It shows that finite accessible CPTP process statistics cannot uniformly distinguish fundamental nonunitarity from an unrestricted unitary-environment dilation. It then separates visibility loss, record formation and global measurement access, and derives a nuisance-profiled Fisher-information criterion for determining when complementary measurement channels jointly identify a shared collapse-parameter vector. A four-arm matched-control architecture is proposed that combines baseline stability, coherent reversibility, calibrated decoherence, durable-record formation and at least one independent side-effect channel. The result is a falsifiable experimental decision framework and a boundary on what accessible data can establish; it is not presented as an ontological solution of the quantum measurement problem. A major technical revision is available as version 3 under DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22072199. This record contains version 2 of the preprint “Identifiability Limits in Experimental Tests of Quantum Collapse.” It supersedes the conceptually broader first version deposited under DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19617199 and substantially revises the framing, formal results and experimental analysis. The paper formulates experimental tests of objective-collapse dynamics as an operational identifiability problem. It shows that finite accessible CPTP process statistics cannot uniformly distinguish fundamental nonunitarity from an unrestricted unitary-environment dilation. It then separates visibility loss, record formation and global measurement access, and derives a nuisance-profiled Fisher-information criterion for determining when complementary measurement channels jointly identify a shared collapse-parameter vector. A four-arm matched-control architecture is proposed that combines baseline stability, coherent reversibility, calibrated decoherence, durable-record formation and at least one independent side-effect channel. The result is a falsifiable experimental decision framework and a boundary on what accessible data can establish; it is not presented as an ontological solution of the quantum measurement problem. Files in this record:1. Main preprint PDF.2. Reproducibility package containing the journal-neutral source, editable manuscript, original figures, deterministic calculation and figure-generation code, machine-readable results, citation metadata and SHA-256 checksums. The included calculations are deterministic mathematical and synthetic checks; they are not experimental validation.