A Proposed Null Test of Surface Passivity in Double-Slit Interference

Allen Ward Rosin

Published Jan 14, 2026• 0 citations

Abstract

In electron and photon interference experiments, detectors often display fringe patterns and coarse banding whose detailed appearance varies with material, exposure history, coherence, flux, and vacuum conditions — raising questions about the assumption that detection screens are strictly passive recorders of incident intensity. Though previous experiments used every known rigorously controlled procedure to minimize surface interactions, the passivity of those surfaces has yet to be explicitly tested. This paper proposes a set of empirical tests to assess whether coherence-sensitive, detector-local dynamics — including charge redistribution, gradual structural deformation, local heating, reversible trap occupancy, and surface contamination — contribute measurably to observed interference patterns. Specifically, it introduces a speculative, classical mechanism — the Emergent Attractor Model (EAM) — in which mask-edge-seeded coherence correlations are amplified through a multi-field cascade of history-dependent processes on the detector surface, modulating local absorption probabilities over multiple timescales. The primary purpose of the model is to null test as many contributing variables as possible. In EAM, emergent attractors form on conductive surfaces under grazing incidence. A single surface (such as a mask edge) can generate visible fringes via self-organized lateral excitations. In double-slit configurations, both the mask edge and detector surface contribute, with the detector amplifying mask-seeded correlations through impact-driven multi-field feedback. The proposed model reproduces key features of both single- and double-slit patterns, including blurred envelopes with banding, high-contrast fringe trains, long-term evolution of pattern contrast, flux-dependent visibility, and vacuum/history effects, without invoking free-space wave interference at the screen. It offers a concrete, falsifiable framework for testing the Apparatus Passivity Assumption and exploring whether EAM-like dual-site effects are present in real systems. Several qualitative predictions and diagnostic experiments are outlined to probe material dependence, coherence sensitivity, exposure history, flux, vacuum conditions, and reset protocols. These tests aim not to revise quantum mechanics, but to clarify the role of the detector in shaping observed patterns — and to determine whether EAM-like effects are present in real systems. The surface is a physical object governed by condensed matter physics, and diagnosing its complexity might complement decades of existing work in quantum interference. EAM is one possible detector-side mechanism among many, and every null result could still be informative for understanding detector physics. We propose testing this speculative model so that it can be conclusively falsified. Regardless of the final outcome, the field wins. Correspondence: rauwolfa@gmail.com

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18249476

Related papers

Proposed Null Tests for a Coherence-Organized Quasi-Periodic Reflection Grating in Double-Slit Interference

Allen Ward Rosin

Oct 14, 20260 citations

The Double-Slit Experiment in the Aether Physics Model (APM): Transfer Operators, Gate Coherence, and QMU Predictions

David Thomson

Jan 31, 20260 citations

The Double‑Slit Experiment as a Dissipative Phase Transition: An Operator‑Based Model of Interference and Measurement

Durhan Yazir

Mar 21, 20260 citations

Paper 60B: Double-Slit Interference as a Radial-Coherence Regime Paraxial QM Baseline with Paper-60 Phase-Edge Admissibility Gating

Michael John Sarnowski

Dec 28, 20250 citations

Quantum Measurement and Interference in Mixed Systems: Investigating the Cross-Effect of Observation on Different Particle Types

Nikita Neverovich

Jun 25, 20250 citations

A Local Ontological Model of Double-Slit Fringes via Moiré Sampling and Non-Linear Detection

Baykal Sarioglu

Jun 21, 20260 citations

A Proposed Null Test of Surface Passivity in Double-Slit Interference

Allen Ward Rosin

Published Jan 14, 2026• 0 citations

Publisher

Abstract

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18249476

Related papers

Proposed Null Tests for a Coherence-Organized Quasi-Periodic Reflection Grating in Double-Slit Interference

Allen Ward Rosin

This is a follow-up to my earlier Quantum Speculations paper on detector-surface passivity. It assembles two classical surface effects—geometric micro-arc steering at real slit edges (R ≈ 50–300 nm) and self-organized charge-mound electrostatic steering—into one hypothesized five-step causal chain that can generate or modulate fringe-like angular bands under high coherence. The chain is strictly local to the slit edge and its near field (decay ≲ 1 µm); once a particle leaves that zone, free-space propagation is standard. The quantitative relations (channel law, dwell-time proxy, mound period/amplitude, deflection estimate) are provisional bookkeeping only. The 18 null tests in Appendix A are the procedure that would fix, reject, bound, or refine them—not a confirmation exercise for formulas already assumed true. The paper is offered as a calibration tool for high-coherence experiments: positive results would indicate measurable classical surface contributions at the classical–quantum interface; consistent nulls would tighten bounds on such effects. Comments and criticism are welcome.This is a follow-up to my earlier Quantum Speculations paper on detector-surface passivity. It assembles two classical surface effects—geometric micro-arc steering at real slit edges (R ≈ 50–300 nm) and self-organized charge-mound electrostatic steering—into one hypothesized five-step causal chain that can generate or modulate fringe-like angular bands under high coherence. The chain is strictly local to the slit edge and its near field (decay ≲ 1 µm); once a particle leaves that zone, free-space propagation is standard. The quantitative relations (channel law, dwell-time proxy, mound period/amplitude, deflection estimate) are provisional bookkeeping only. The 18 null tests in Appendix A are the procedure that would fix, reject, bound, or refine them—not a confirmation exercise for formulas already assumed true. The paper is offered as a calibration tool for high-coherence experiments: positive results would indicate measurable classical surface contributions at the classical–quantum interface; consistent nulls would tighten bounds on such effects. Comments and criticism are welcome.

Oct 14, 20260 citations

The Double-Slit Experiment in the Aether Physics Model (APM): Transfer Operators, Gate Coherence, and QMU Predictions

David Thomson

The double-slit experiment is often framed as evidence that microscopic objects are “both waves and particles,” or that a wavefunction “collapses” upon measurement. This paper gives a QMU-native, apparatus-centric explanation in the Aether Physics Model (APM) by separating the experiment into three operational layers: (1) Transport layer (space): Light is treated as a conserved transport content, denoted here as $\mathrm{ligt}$ , distributed over expanding photon fronts. The measurable quantity in space is the delivered areal density (intensity) $\mathrm{lint}(\nu;\mathbf{r})$ . Interference is asserted at this transport layer: two outgoing channels can superpose and form stable bright and dark regions in $\mathrm{lint}$ at the screen plane before any detection event occurs. (2) Boundary layer (aperture): The slit-mask is modeled as a transfer operator $T$ acting on the incident delivery density: $\mathrm{lint}_{\mathrm{out}}(\nu;\mathbf{r}) = T\,\mathrm{lint}_{\mathrm{in}}(\nu;\mathbf{r}).$ For a double slit, the outgoing density is produced by two transfer channels, $T_1$ and $T_2$ , whose superposition yields an intensity-level interference form $\mathrm{lint}_{\mathrm{tot}}(P)=\mathrm{lint}_1(P)+\mathrm{lint}_2(P)+2\sqrt{\mathrm{lint}_1(P)\mathrm{lint}_2(P)}\cos\Delta\phi(P).$ The phase difference is written in QMU-normalized form using the chronovibration identity and the dimensionless cadence: $c = F_q \lambda_C,\qquad \nu^*=\frac{\nu}{F_q},\qquad \lambda=\frac{\lambda_C}{\nu^*},$ so that $\Delta\phi(P)=2\pi\frac{\Delta \ell(P)}{\lambda}=2\pi\,\nu^*\,\frac{\Delta \ell(P)}{\lambda_C}.$ In the far-field approximation with slit separation $d$ , screen distance $L$ , and transverse coordinate $x$ , $\Delta\ell(x)\approx d x/L$ , giving $\Delta\phi(x)\approx 2\pi\,\nu^*\,\frac{d}{L}\,\frac{x}{\lambda_C}.$ This emphasizes that the fringe map is a geometric count in units of $\lambda_C$ scaled by the dimensionless cadence $\nu^*$ . (3) Detection layer (matter): Detection is a discrete resonance gate event in matter, not a continuous “field readout.” The receiver is represented by a binary acceptance function $G(\nu^*,\text{alignment})\in\{0,1\},$ and the event-rate density follows the gated effective drive $\mathrm{lint}_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathbf{r})=\int G(\nu^*,\text{alignment})\,R(\nu^*)\,\mathrm{lint}(\nu;\mathbf{r})\,d\nu,\qquad\dot N_e(\mathbf{r})\propto \mathrm{lint}_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathbf{r}).$ Single-particle hits therefore build the fringe pattern because discrete events sample a pre-existing transport interference pattern in $\mathrm{lint}$ . Coherence window and a falsifiable fringe condition The paper introduces a receiver coherence window $\tau_g$ and its QMU-normalized form $\tau_g^* = F_q\tau_g$ . This produces a detector gate coherence length $L_g = c\,\tau_g = \lambda_C\,\tau_g^*,$ and a direct, falsifiable interference condition $\Delta \ell(P)\lesssim \lambda_C\,\tau_g^*.$ A key operational refinement is the \emph{minimum law} for the observed visibility rolloff length: $L_{\mathrm{rolloff}} \approx \min(L_c,\,L_g),$ where $L_c$ is a transport coherence length set by source bandwidth / wavefront quality, and $L_g$ is the detector’s gate coherence length. This predicts two distinct regimes and a detector-dependent saturation plateau when $L_c$ is increased beyond $L_g$ . Which-path marking as controlled timing-jitter injection Which-path devices are treated as measurable degradations (timing/phase jitter, alignment scrambling, or mode partitioning), not metaphysical collapse. A minimal quantitative model treats marking as injecting an RMS delay $\sigma_t$ between channels, with QMU-normalized jitter $\sigma_t^* = F_q\sigma_t$ . For Gaussian jitter, the visibility obeys $V = V_0 \exp\!\left[-2\pi^2(\nu^*)^2(\sigma_t^*)^2\right],$ yielding a clean functional form for tunable weak-to-strong marking protocols. Slit-edge participation and QMU surface knobs (including qsfo) To make boundary participation experimentally reportable, the slit transfer operator is decomposed as $T = T_{\mathrm{geom}} + T_{\mathrm{surf}},$ where $T_{\mathrm{surf}}$ captures mask material / coating / roughness / polarization-sensitive surface channels. The paper introduces QMU-native surface oscillation knobs: $\mathrm{qsfo} := \frac{c^3}{\lambda_C} = {\lambda_C}^2 {F_q}^3,\qquad \mathrm{qsfi}:=\frac{\lambda_C}{c^3}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{qsfo}},$ and defines a dimensionless surface-participation ratio $\Pi_{\mathrm{surf}} := \Omega_{\mathrm{surf}}\;\mathrm{qsfi},$ so that “edge effects” are reported as measured QMU parameters rather than qualitative caveats. What this upload contains This Zenodo upload includes the full paper (PDF) written in the QADI template style, with: (i) a transport/boundary/detection decomposition, (ii) QMU-normalized fringe geometry, (iii) a detector-dependent coherence-window prediction ( $\tau_g^*$ and $L_g$ ), (iv) the minimum-law saturation test, (v) a timing-jitter which-path reduction law, and (vi) QMU surface-mode reporting via $\mathrm{qsfo}$ / $\mathrm{qsfi}$ . The appendix provides SI bridges and explicitly states that numerical anchors are reported using the MKS (SI) version of the QMU conversion tables. Suggested citation Thomson III, D. W. The Double-Slit Experiment in the Aether Physics Model (APM): Transfer Operators, Gate Coherence, and QMU Predictions. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18446424 Zenodo (Version 1.0).The double-slit experiment is often framed as evidence that microscopic objects are “both waves and particles,” or that a wavefunction “collapses” upon measurement. This paper gives a QMU-native, apparatus-centric explanation in the Aether Physics Model (APM) by separating the experiment into three operational layers: (1) Transport layer (space): Light is treated as a conserved transport content, denoted here as $\mathrm{ligt}$, distributed over expanding photon fronts. The measurable quantity in space is the delivered areal density (intensity) $\mathrm{lint}(\nu;\mathbf{r})$. Interference is asserted at this transport layer: two outgoing channels can superpose and form stable bright and dark regions in $\mathrm{lint}$ at the screen plane before any detection event occurs. (2) Boundary layer (aperture): The slit-mask is modeled as a transfer operator $T$ acting on the incident delivery density:\[\mathrm{lint}_{\mathrm{out}}(\nu;\mathbf{r}) = T\,\mathrm{lint}_{\mathrm{in}}(\nu;\mathbf{r}).\]For a double slit, the outgoing density is produced by two transfer channels, $T_1$ and $T_2$, whose superposition yields an intensity-level interference form\[\mathrm{lint}_{\mathrm{tot}}(P)=\mathrm{lint}_1(P)+\mathrm{lint}_2(P)+2\sqrt{\mathrm{lint}_1(P)\mathrm{lint}_2(P)}\cos\Delta\phi(P).\]The phase difference is written in QMU-normalized form using the chronovibration identity and the dimensionless cadence:\[c = F_q \lambda_C,\qquad \nu^*=\frac{\nu}{F_q},\qquad \lambda=\frac{\lambda_C}{\nu^*},\]so that\[\Delta\phi(P)=2\pi\frac{\Delta \ell(P)}{\lambda}=2\pi\,\nu^*\,\frac{\Delta \ell(P)}{\lambda_C}.\]In the far-field approximation with slit separation $d$, screen distance $L$, and transverse coordinate $x$, $\Delta\ell(x)\approx d x/L$, giving\[\Delta\phi(x)\approx 2\pi\,\nu^*\,\frac{d}{L}\,\frac{x}{\lambda_C}.\]This emphasizes that the fringe map is a geometric count in units of $\lambda_C$ scaled by the dimensionless cadence $\nu^*$. (3) Detection layer (matter): Detection is a discrete resonance gate event in matter, not a continuous “field readout.” The receiver is represented by a binary acceptance function\[G(\nu^*,\text{alignment})\in\{0,1\},\]and the event-rate density follows the gated effective drive\[\mathrm{lint}_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathbf{r})=\int G(\nu^*,\text{alignment})\,R(\nu^*)\,\mathrm{lint}(\nu;\mathbf{r})\,d\nu,\qquad\dot N_e(\mathbf{r})\propto \mathrm{lint}_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathbf{r}).\]Single-particle hits therefore build the fringe pattern because discrete events sample a pre-existing transport interference pattern in $\mathrm{lint}$. Coherence window and a falsifiable fringe condition The paper introduces a receiver coherence window $\tau_g$ and its QMU-normalized form $\tau_g^* = F_q\tau_g$. This produces a detector gate coherence length\[L_g = c\,\tau_g = \lambda_C\,\tau_g^*,\]and a direct, falsifiable interference condition\[\Delta \ell(P)\lesssim \lambda_C\,\tau_g^*.\]A key operational refinement is the \emph{minimum law} for the observed visibility rolloff length:\[L_{\mathrm{rolloff}} \approx \min(L_c,\,L_g),\]where $L_c$ is a transport coherence length set by source bandwidth / wavefront quality, and $L_g$ is the detector’s gate coherence length. This predicts two distinct regimes and a detector-dependent saturation plateau when $L_c$ is increased beyond $L_g$. Which-path marking as controlled timing-jitter injection Which-path devices are treated as measurable degradations (timing/phase jitter, alignment scrambling, or mode partitioning), not metaphysical collapse. A minimal quantitative model treats marking as injecting an RMS delay $\sigma_t$ between channels, with QMU-normalized jitter $\sigma_t^* = F_q\sigma_t$. For Gaussian jitter, the visibility obeys\[V = V_0 \exp\!\left[-2\pi^2(\nu^*)^2(\sigma_t^*)^2\right],\]yielding a clean functional form for tunable weak-to-strong marking protocols. Slit-edge participation and QMU surface knobs (including qsfo) To make boundary participation experimentally reportable, the slit transfer operator is decomposed as\[T = T_{\mathrm{geom}} + T_{\mathrm{surf}},\]where $T_{\mathrm{surf}}$ captures mask material / coating / roughness / polarization-sensitive surface channels. The paper introduces QMU-native surface oscillation knobs:\[\mathrm{qsfo} := \frac{c^3}{\lambda_C} = {\lambda_C}^2 {F_q}^3,\qquad \mathrm{qsfi}:=\frac{\lambda_C}{c^3}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{qsfo}},\]and defines a dimensionless surface-participation ratio\[\Pi_{\mathrm{surf}} := \Omega_{\mathrm{surf}}\;\mathrm{qsfi},\]so that “edge effects” are reported as measured QMU parameters rather than qualitative caveats. What this upload contains This Zenodo upload includes the full paper (PDF) written in the QADI template style, with: (i) a transport/boundary/detection decomposition, (ii) QMU-normalized fringe geometry, (iii) a detector-dependent coherence-window prediction ($\tau_g^*$ and $L_g$), (iv) the minimum-law saturation test, (v) a timing-jitter which-path reduction law, and (vi) QMU surface-mode reporting via $\mathrm{qsfo}$/$\mathrm{qsfi}$. The appendix provides SI bridges and explicitly states that numerical anchors are reported using the MKS (SI) version of the QMU conversion tables. Suggested citation Thomson III, D. W. The Double-Slit Experiment in the Aether Physics Model (APM): Transfer Operators, Gate Coherence, and QMU Predictions. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18446424 Zenodo (Version 1.0).

Jan 31, 20260 citations

The Double‑Slit Experiment as a Dissipative Phase Transition: An Operator‑Based Model of Interference and Measurement

Durhan Yazir

The double‑slit experiment epitomizes the wave–particle duality of quantum mechanics. In standard treatments, the interference pattern follows from superposition, while measurement of “which path” destroys coherence. The precise mechanism that turns a coherent superposition into a localized detection event remains an open question. We propose an operator‑based model within the open‑quantum‑system framework that describes the entire process through seven effective Lindblad generators: fluctuating diffusion (initial wavepacket spreading), cyclic reset (quantum Zeno effect), spatial‑mode splitting (simultaneous excitation of both slits), free evolution (interference formation), liminal projection (threshold‑activated measurement), irreversible loss (detector inefficiency), and subspace mapping (projection onto a definite detection outcome). Unlike standard quantum mechanics, the model introduces a nonlinear decoherence rate that depends on the spatial spread of the wavefunction, capturing environment back‑action through a feedback‑controlled coupling. This dependence leads to a small but testable reduction of fringe visibility with increasing particle flux or wavepacket width, even in the absence of explicit which‑path measurement. The measurement activation is modeled as a smooth threshold function, giving a sharp transition in detection probability as the system reaches the screen. Analytical expressions for visibility and the critical Zeno frequency are derived, and numerical simulations are presented. The predictions are accessible with current experimental technology (weak measurements, controlled decoherence, cavity‑QED systems). The framework suggests that wave–particle duality can be understood as a dissipative phase transition, bridging foundational quantum theory with practical open‑system control.The double‑slit experiment epitomizes the wave–particle duality of quantum mechanics. In standard treatments, the interference pattern follows from superposition, while measurement of “which path” destroys coherence. The precise mechanism that turns a coherent superposition into a localized detection event remains an open question. We propose an operator‑based model within the open‑quantum‑system framework that describes the entire process through seven effective Lindblad generators: fluctuating diffusion (initial wavepacket spreading), cyclic reset (quantum Zeno effect), spatial‑mode splitting (simultaneous excitation of both slits), free evolution (interference formation), liminal projection (threshold‑activated measurement), irreversible loss (detector inefficiency), and subspace mapping (projection onto a definite detection outcome). Unlike standard quantum mechanics, the model introduces a nonlinear decoherence rate that depends on the spatial spread of the wavefunction, capturing environment back‑action through a feedback‑controlled coupling. This dependence leads to a small but testable reduction of fringe visibility with increasing particle flux or wavepacket width, even in the absence of explicit which‑path measurement. The measurement activation is modeled as a smooth threshold function, giving a sharp transition in detection probability as the system reaches the screen. Analytical expressions for visibility and the critical Zeno frequency are derived, and numerical simulations are presented. The predictions are accessible with current experimental technology (weak measurements, controlled decoherence, cavity‑QED systems). The framework suggests that wave–particle duality can be understood as a dissipative phase transition, bridging foundational quantum theory with practical open‑system control.

Mar 21, 20260 citations

Paper 60B: Double-Slit Interference as a Radial-Coherence Regime Paraxial QM Baseline with Paper-60 Phase-Edge Admissibility Gating

Michael John Sarnowski

Paper 60B develops a unified Holosphere account of the double-slit experiment while keeping interference loss, measurement, and stable outcome formation conceptually separate. The paper begins with standard slit-resolved paraxial propagation and shows that a coherent two-slit pattern contains a cross term that is absent from the incoherent sum of the two single-slit diffraction patterns. Which-path detection is modeled through the overlap of path-dependent detector states. As those detector states become more distinguishable, fringe visibility decreases continuously and reaches the incoherent limit when the path records are fully distinguishable. The Holosphere interpretation treats a coherence corridor as a physical relation among the source, carrier, aperture, detector, environment, and readout boundary. The apparatus therefore helps determine whether the two paths remain part of one coherence-supporting structure. Boundary incompatibility separates path-conditioned corridors, while later interface competition and pointer-basin capture may select and stabilize a detector record. Physical recoil and apparatus relaxation remain causal, and no faster-than-light signal or strict determinism is required. A separate downstream phase-edge gate produces a modest, symmetric, and resolution-surviving change in the screen distribution. The numerical suite also verifies symmetry, attenuation accounting, slit-field linearity, detector-overlap behavior, and the conditioned quantum-eraser identity.Paper 60B develops a unified Holosphere account of the double-slit experiment while keeping interference loss, measurement, and stable outcome formation conceptually separate. The paper begins with standard slit-resolved paraxial propagation and shows that a coherent two-slit pattern contains a cross term that is absent from the incoherent sum of the two single-slit diffraction patterns. Which-path detection is modeled through the overlap of path-dependent detector states. As those detector states become more distinguishable, fringe visibility decreases continuously and reaches the incoherent limit when the path records are fully distinguishable. The Holosphere interpretation treats a coherence corridor as a physical relation among the source, carrier, aperture, detector, environment, and readout boundary. The apparatus therefore helps determine whether the two paths remain part of one coherence-supporting structure. Boundary incompatibility separates path-conditioned corridors, while later interface competition and pointer-basin capture may select and stabilize a detector record. Physical recoil and apparatus relaxation remain causal, and no faster-than-light signal or strict determinism is required. A separate downstream phase-edge gate produces a modest, symmetric, and resolution-surviving change in the screen distribution. The numerical suite also verifies symmetry, attenuation accounting, slit-field linearity, detector-overlap behavior, and the conditioned quantum-eraser identity.

Dec 28, 20250 citations

Quantum Measurement and Interference in Mixed Systems: Investigating the Cross-Effect of Observation on Different Particle Types

Nikita Neverovich

This work proposes a novel variation of the double-slit experiment in which two different types of quantum particles — for example, electrons and photons — pass simultaneously through a shared double-slit apparatus. The primary objective is to test the hypothesis that the act of measurement may not only collapse the wave function of the observed particle, but could also influence the interference pattern of an unmeasured, co-propagating particle of a different type. In the proposed configuration, photons and electrons are emitted in synchrony and directed through the same set of slits. Immediately after the slits, a path-detecting measurement apparatus is applied only to one type of particle (e.g., photons), while the interference pattern of the other type (e.g., electrons) is recorded on a distant screen. The experiment is designed to explore whether the destruction of coherence through measurement is strictly local, or whether it can propagate to other particles through a shared medium, entangled fields, or an unknown interaction. If the unmeasured particle continues to display interference, this would support the locality of measurement effects. Conversely, if interference vanishes for both, it could indicate a more global or field-level decoherence process. This investigation aims to contribute new insights into the nature of quantum measurement, the role of observation, and the interdependence of coherent systems involving distinct particle species.This work proposes a novel variation of the double-slit experiment in which two different types of quantum particles — for example, electrons and photons — pass simultaneously through a shared double-slit apparatus. The primary objective is to test the hypothesis that the act of measurement may not only collapse the wave function of the observed particle, but could also influence the interference pattern of an unmeasured, co-propagating particle of a different type. In the proposed configuration, photons and electrons are emitted in synchrony and directed through the same set of slits. Immediately after the slits, a path-detecting measurement apparatus is applied only to one type of particle (e.g., photons), while the interference pattern of the other type (e.g., electrons) is recorded on a distant screen. The experiment is designed to explore whether the destruction of coherence through measurement is strictly local, or whether it can propagate to other particles through a shared medium, entangled fields, or an unknown interaction. If the unmeasured particle continues to display interference, this would support the locality of measurement effects. Conversely, if interference vanishes for both, it could indicate a more global or field-level decoherence process. This investigation aims to contribute new insights into the nature of quantum measurement, the role of observation, and the interdependence of coherent systems involving distinct particle species.

Jun 25, 20250 citations

A Local Ontological Model of Double-Slit Fringes via Moiré Sampling and Non-Linear Detection

Baykal Sarioglu

Abstract Feynman’s classic exposition of the double-slit experiment asserts that no local, particle-only ontology can reproduce quantum interference fringes without invoking wave-particle duality or nonlocal communication. We re-examine the implicit assumptions of this paradigm by constructing a strictly local, counterfactual-definite sampling model. The framework relies on four components: (i) an oscillating detector substrate that modulates single-particle detection efficiency; (ii) a geometric moir´e (beat) pattern emerging from independent slit trajectories; (iii) a finite detector relaxation memory that provides a non-linear readout; and (iv) source-detector phase coherence. We demonstrate that while linear averaging over the sub-wavelength carrier landscape washes out the signal (the “Addition Problem”), a non-linear detector memory successfully extracts the macroscopic quantum envelope, yielding an r ≈ 0.89 Pearson correlation with the Born-rule intensity profile in Monte Carlo simulations across multiple detection functions. This work isolates the passivedetection assumption as a critical, unstated premise in traditional quantum impossibility arguments and provides an operational, local-causal alternative for single-particle interference statistics.Abstract Feynman’s classic exposition of the double-slit experiment asserts that no local, particle-only ontology can reproduce quantum interference fringes without invoking wave-particle duality or nonlocal communication. We re-examine the implicit assumptions of this paradigm by constructing a strictly local, counterfactual-definite sampling model. The framework relies on four components: (i) an oscillating detector substrate that modulates single-particle detection efficiency; (ii) a geometric moir´e (beat) pattern emerging from independent slit trajectories; (iii) a finite detector relaxation memory that provides a non-linear readout; and (iv) source-detector phase coherence. We demonstrate that while linear averaging over the sub-wavelength carrier landscape washes out the signal (the “Addition Problem”), a non-linear detector memory successfully extracts the macroscopic quantum envelope, yielding an r ≈ 0.89 Pearson correlation with the Born-rule intensity profile in Monte Carlo simulations across multiple detection functions. This work isolates the passivedetection assumption as a critical, unstated premise in traditional quantum impossibility arguments and provides an operational, local-causal alternative for single-particle interference statistics.

Jun 21, 20260 citations

\mathrm{ligt}

, distributed over expanding photon fronts. The measurable quantity in space is the delivered areal density (intensity)

\mathrm{lint}(\nu;\mathbf{r})

. Interference is asserted at this transport layer: two outgoing channels can superpose and form stable bright and dark regions in

\mathrm{lint}

at the screen plane before any detection event occurs. (2) Boundary layer (aperture): The slit-mask is modeled as a transfer operator

T

acting on the incident delivery density:

\mathrm{lint}_{\mathrm{out}}(\nu;\mathbf{r}) = T\,\mathrm{lint}_{\mathrm{in}}(\nu;\mathbf{r}).

For a double slit, the outgoing density is produced by two transfer channels,

T_1

and

T_2

, whose superposition yields an intensity-level interference form

\mathrm{lint}_{\mathrm{tot}}(P)=\mathrm{lint}_1(P)+\mathrm{lint}_2(P)+2\sqrt{\mathrm{lint}_1(P)\mathrm{lint}_2(P)}\cos\Delta\phi(P).

The phase difference is written in QMU-normalized form using the chronovibration identity and the dimensionless cadence:

c = F_q \lambda_C,\qquad \nu^*=\frac{\nu}{F_q},\qquad \lambda=\frac{\lambda_C}{\nu^*},

so that

\Delta\phi(P)=2\pi\frac{\Delta \ell(P)}{\lambda}=2\pi\,\nu^*\,\frac{\Delta \ell(P)}{\lambda_C}.

In the far-field approximation with slit separation

d

, screen distance

L

, and transverse coordinate

x

\Delta\ell(x)\approx d x/L

, giving

\Delta\phi(x)\approx 2\pi\,\nu^*\,\frac{d}{L}\,\frac{x}{\lambda_C}.

This emphasizes that the fringe map is a geometric count in units of

\lambda_C

scaled by the dimensionless cadence

\nu^*

. (3) Detection layer (matter): Detection is a discrete resonance gate event in matter, not a continuous “field readout.” The receiver is represented by a binary acceptance function

G(\nu^*,\text{alignment})\in\{0,1\},

and the event-rate density follows the gated effective drive

\mathrm{lint}_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathbf{r})=\int G(\nu^*,\text{alignment})\,R(\nu^*)\,\mathrm{lint}(\nu;\mathbf{r})\,d\nu,\qquad\dot N_e(\mathbf{r})\propto \mathrm{lint}_{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathbf{r}).

Single-particle hits therefore build the fringe pattern because discrete events sample a pre-existing transport interference pattern in

\mathrm{lint}

. Coherence window and a falsifiable fringe condition The paper introduces a receiver coherence window

\tau_g

and its QMU-normalized form

\tau_g^* = F_q\tau_g

. This produces a detector gate coherence length

L_g = c\,\tau_g = \lambda_C\,\tau_g^*,

and a direct, falsifiable interference condition

\Delta \ell(P)\lesssim \lambda_C\,\tau_g^*.

A key operational refinement is the \emph{minimum law} for the observed visibility rolloff length:

L_{\mathrm{rolloff}} \approx \min(L_c,\,L_g),

where

L_c

is a transport coherence length set by source bandwidth / wavefront quality, and

L_g

is the detector’s gate coherence length. This predicts two distinct regimes and a detector-dependent saturation plateau when

L_c

is increased beyond

L_g

. Which-path marking as controlled timing-jitter injection Which-path devices are treated as measurable degradations (timing/phase jitter, alignment scrambling, or mode partitioning), not metaphysical collapse. A minimal quantitative model treats marking as injecting an RMS delay

\sigma_t

between channels, with QMU-normalized jitter

\sigma_t^* = F_q\sigma_t

. For Gaussian jitter, the visibility obeys

V = V_0 \exp\!\left[-2\pi^2(\nu^*)^2(\sigma_t^*)^2\right],

yielding a clean functional form for tunable weak-to-strong marking protocols. Slit-edge participation and QMU surface knobs (including qsfo) To make boundary participation experimentally reportable, the slit transfer operator is decomposed as

T = T_{\mathrm{geom}} + T_{\mathrm{surf}},

where

T_{\mathrm{surf}}

captures mask material / coating / roughness / polarization-sensitive surface channels. The paper introduces QMU-native surface oscillation knobs:

\mathrm{qsfo} := \frac{c^3}{\lambda_C} = {\lambda_C}^2 {F_q}^3,\qquad \mathrm{qsfi}:=\frac{\lambda_C}{c^3}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{qsfo}},

and defines a dimensionless surface-participation ratio

\Pi_{\mathrm{surf}} := \Omega_{\mathrm{surf}}\;\mathrm{qsfi},

so that “edge effects” are reported as measured QMU parameters rather than qualitative caveats. What this upload contains This Zenodo upload includes the full paper (PDF) written in the QADI template style, with: (i) a transport/boundary/detection decomposition, (ii) QMU-normalized fringe geometry, (iii) a detector-dependent coherence-window prediction (

\tau_g^*

and

L_g

), (iv) the minimum-law saturation test, (v) a timing-jitter which-path reduction law, and (vi) QMU surface-mode reporting via

\mathrm{qsfo}

\mathrm{qsfi}

. The appendix provides SI bridges and explicitly states that numerical anchors are reported using the MKS (SI) version of the QMU conversion tables. Suggested citation Thomson III, D. W. The Double-Slit Experiment in the Aether Physics Model (APM): Transfer Operators, Gate Coherence, and QMU Predictions. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18446424 Zenodo (Version 1.0).