General Transfer-of-State Model (GTOSM) Double-Slit Timeline Evaluation at Π_R,el (Standard QM) — Numerical simulation with time and resolution-aware recombination-plane, Fraunhofer far-field baseline comparison
This work does not claim to replace or modify quantum mechanics. This record demonstrates, with an explicit timeline separation and execution, fixed declared geometry and operational resolution, the double-slit detected distribution on Π_D can be reproduced either by (i) evaluating standard QM upstream on a resolution-aware recombination plane Π_R,el and mapping forward, or (ii) evaluating the standard far-field screen expression directly on Π_D. Core principles made explicit: (1) measurement is defined relative to an experimental discipline via declared operational resolution (Δz, Δx) and a separated evaluation plane Π_R,el versus detection plane Π_D; (2) timeline management is explicit—distribution formation occurs on an η=0 pre-measurement window, while recorded outcomes occur only at Π_D; (3) measurement definition (“where/when/what”) is realized by the Π_R,el (distribution formation) / Π_D (registration) separation; and (4) in the GTOSM dictionary context, collapse is localized and associated with a fermionic non-optimal transfer (η=1) at Π_D (not a screen-wide contraction). A companion DOI applies the GTOSM elastic-recombination (direction-bundle) construction at the same Π_R,el under the same declared geometry and resolution.Companion: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18251608 Dictionary: Symbol definitions for Π_R,el and η=0/η=1 are specified in the GTOSM Transition paper (Zenodo record: https://zenodo.org/records/18236842).Reproducibility: Run qm_doi_qm_primary_two_methods_ALL_IMAGES.py to regenerate all figures/CSVs included in this record.Standalone follow-up work on: Necsanu, R. (2025). General Transfer-of-State Model (GTOSM): A Minimum Structural Reconstruction of Quantum Mechanics, Gravitation, and Cosmology.Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17992660ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1281-9180GTOSM Fundamentals(definitions): Necsanu, R. (2026). General Transfer-of-State Model (GTOSM): Foundations of Physics – Fundamentals From Continuous Fields to Discrete Update Mechanics. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18166795
This work does not claim to replace or modify quantum mechanics. This record demonstrates, with an explicit timeline separation and execution, fixed declared geometry and operational resolution, the double-slit detected distribution on Π_D can be reproduced either by (i) evaluating standard QM upstream on a resolution-aware recombination plane Π_R,el and mapping forward, or (ii) evaluating the standard far-field screen expression directly on Π_D. Core principles made explicit: (1) measurement is defined relative to an experimental discipline via declared operational resolution (Δz, Δx) and a separated evaluation plane Π_R,el versus detection plane Π_D; (2) timeline management is explicit—distribution formation occurs on an η=0 pre-measurement window, while recorded outcomes occur only at Π_D; (3) measurement definition (“where/when/what”) is realized by the Π_R,el (distribution formation) / Π_D (registration) separation; and (4) in the GTOSM dictionary context, collapse is localized and associated with a fermionic non-optimal transfer (η=1) at Π_D (not a screen-wide contraction). A companion DOI applies the GTOSM elastic-recombination (direction-bundle) construction at the same Π_R,el under the same declared geometry and resolution.Companion: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18251608 Dictionary: Symbol definitions for Π_R,el and η=0/η=1 are specified in the GTOSM Transition paper (Zenodo record: https://zenodo.org/records/18236842).Reproducibility: Run qm_doi_qm_primary_two_methods_ALL_IMAGES.py to regenerate all figures/CSVs included in this record.Standalone follow-up work on: Necsanu, R. (2025). General Transfer-of-State Model (GTOSM): A Minimum Structural Reconstruction of Quantum Mechanics, Gravitation, and Cosmology.Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17992660ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1281-9180GTOSM Fundamentals(definitions): Necsanu, R. (2026). General Transfer-of-State Model (GTOSM): Foundations of Physics – Fundamentals From Continuous Fields to Discrete Update Mechanics. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18166795
This work does not claim to replace or modify quantum mechanics. This record demonstrates, with an explicit timeline separation and execution, fixed declared geometry and operational resolution, that the double-slit detected distribution on Π_D can be reproduced either by (i) evaluating the GTOSM elastic-recombination (direction-bundle) construction upstream on a resolution-aware recombination plane Π_R,el and mapping forward, or (ii) evaluating the standard far-field screen expression directly on Π_D. Core principles made explicit: (1) measurement is defined relative to an experimental discipline via declared operational resolution (Δz, Δx) and a separated evaluation plane Π_R,el versus detection plane Π_D; (2) timeline management is explicit—distribution formation occurs on an η=0 pre-measurement window, while recorded outcomes occur only at Π_D; (3) measurement definition (“where/when/what”) is realized by the Π_R,el (distribution formation) / Π_D (registration) separation; and (4) in the GTOSM context, collapse is localized and associated with a fermionic non-optimal transfer (η=1) at Π_D (not a screen-wide contraction). A companion DOI evaluates the same Π_R,el construction using standard QM under the same declared geometry and resolution, enabling like-for-like comparison of Π_D distributions under identical operational assumptions.Companion: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18250723 Dictionary: Symbol definitions for Π_R,el and η=0/η=1 are specified in the GTOSM Transition paper (Zenodo record: https://zenodo.org/records/18236842).Reproducibility: Run GTOSM_doi_qm_primary_two_methods_ALL_IMAGES.py to regenerate all figures/CSVs included in this record. Standalone follow-up work on: Necsanu, R. (2025). General Transfer-of-State Model (GTOSM): A Minimum Structural Reconstruction of Quantum Mechanics, Gravitation, and Cosmology.Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17992660ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1281-9180 GTOSM Fundamentals (definitions): Necsanu, R. (2026). General Transfer-of-State Model (GTOSM): Foundations of Physics – Fundamentals From Continuous Fields to Discrete Update Mechanics.Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18166795
This manuscript is the core mathematical reference that makes GTOSM operational as a closed, tick-by-tick update system and a strict translation layer to and from standard physics. It is deliberately non-narrative: it contains only primitives (with explicit symbolic forms and units), a fully specified one-tick state update map with ownership semantics, and a bidirectional dictionary that rewrites standard quantities (time, energy, momentum, phase, temperature, gravity images, etc.) in GTOSM primitives on declared coarse-graining windows. Two operative objects drive the document: Measurement as a physical registrar event: measurement is defined as a fermionic non-optimal transfer (η=1) at a boundary corridor, with explicit bookkeeping consequences (forced completion, constraint replacement, exported-bias deposition, and dimensional-adjustment accounting). Pre-measurement evolution is treated separately on η=0 windows via a unitary ledger representation where appropriate. Suppression of infinities by construction: continuum divergences are eliminated through a constrained replacement calculus that substitutes ill-posed limit expressions (UV integrals, δ-sources, denominator blowups, and strong-field singularities) with finite, bounded lattice surrogates, yielding computable error bounds and audit-ready conservation bookkeeping. The document closes the loop by stating correspondence theorems with checkable hypotheses (Born-rule emergence under a fixed hazard coupling, causal locality/no superluminal signalling, Schrödinger correspondence on η=0 windows, weak-field gravity images under calibrated closure, and thermodynamic-limit consistency). The result is a publication-grade, implementation-ready “dictionary-and-dynamics” standard: translate in, evolve under fixed rules, translate out—without per-phenomenon tuning.Standalone follow-up work on: Necsanu, R. (2025). General Transfer-of-State Model (GTOSM): A Minimum Structural Reconstruction of Quantum Mechanics, Gravitation, and Cosmology. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17992660ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1281-9180GTOSM Fundamentals(definitions): Necsanu, R. (2026). General Transfer-of-State Model (GTOSM): Foundations of Physics – Fundamentals From Continuous Fields to Discrete Update Mechanics. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18166795
The Measurement Questions (structural framing) Any complete account of quantum measurement must answer four logically distinct questions: What is measuredWhich physical identity component is registered in the measurement event? Pre-measurement evolution(context for the target measurement)What interactions occur between initial preparation and the designated target measurement, and how do they reshape or constrain the admissible evolution of the wavefunction? Where is it measuredAt which spatial location does the registrar event occur? When is it measuredAt which lattice tick does the registrar event occur? These questions are independent in definition but coupled in prediction: prior to realization, specifying one of {where, when} necessarily leaves the other probabilistic. Scope of this work This work resolves Question (1): what is measured. We show that: Bosons cannot be measured directly. A “boson measurement” is always the measurement of a fermionic non-optimal transfer induced by bosonic interaction. All registered outcomes are fermionic registrar events. Bosonic wave–particle duality is therefore not fundamental, but an artifact of fermionic detection. Questions (2), (3), and (4) — including explicit space–time prediction and pre-measurement evolution (e.g. elastic recombination) — are deferred to follow-up work. Standalone follow-up work on: Necsanu, R. (2025). General Transfer-of-State Model (GTOSM): A Minimum Structural Reconstruction of Quantum Mechanics, Gravitation, and Cosmology.Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17992660ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1281-9180
We introduce the Quantum Measurement Timeline Framework (QMTF): an operational, target-relative account of quantum measurement that is timeline-complete and probability-correct. Core idea Declare a measurement target explicitly: what is registered, where it is registered, and when it is admitted as “the measurement,” at stated finite resolutions. Treat “measurement” as a localized quantum instrument, not as “anything that interacts.” Pipeline Target frame: 𝒟* = { (x_i, t_j) } (declared spacetime bins on which the measurement is admitted). Pre-measurement output: a sub-normalized joint spacetime support f_xt(x_i,t_j) = Tr(ρ E_(x_i,t_j)) p_surv = Σ_(x,t)∈𝒟* f_xt(x,t) Prediction layers (explicitly separated): Per-run (unconditional): P_abs over 𝒟* ∪ {∅} Conditional (given survival): P_cond defined only when p_surv > 0 Null handling (explicit): Includes a null outcome ∅ and a null decomposition (missed target vs reporting shortfall). Formal guarantees (in Appendix A) Formation→detection plane equivalence (“timeline equivalence”): evaluate at a formation plane and propagate, or evaluate directly at detection—predictions agree (up to discretization). No-signalling for localized instruments (operational locality). Finite-resolution stability via coarse-graining: predictions are stable under binning and converge under refinement. Worked constructions + artifacts Double slit benchmark (standard screen statistics) with a resolution-aware recombination/formation plane. Which-slit variant using an explicit instrument, with a tunable decoherence factor. Photon baseline (no intervening interactions) to show the same target logic in the simplest case. Runnable computational artifacts are released alongside the manuscript, with quality gates for verification. Positioning QMTF is interpretation-neutral: it does not assume any ontology for ψ. It is compatible with time-of-event POVMs and dilation (as an optional compatibility note, not a required ingredient).
Operational theorem package: R′ (resolution), T′ (common-mode invariance), C′ (sub-bin curvature irrelevance), D′ (near-null registrar trivialization), H′ (horizon implementability) This record contains the final manuscript and supporting materials for a strictly operational analysis of quantum measurement in spacetime. Following the introduction of Quantum Measurement Timeline Framework (QMTF), in which a measurement is defined as a POVM statement on a declared spacetime target frameD* = R* × T* at finite resolution (Δx, Δt). An event is the realization of a single POVM effect E_U on one spacetime bin U; all dynamical relations among alternatives—including gravitational influence—belong to pre-event evolution. Within this orthodox setting, we prove a five-part operational theorem package: R′ (resolution). Finite operational resolution is derived, not assumed, from the metrological chain quantum Fisher information → Bures/Fidelity → total variation distance, yielding explicit Δx_min and Δt_min at any discrimination threshold ε_disc. T′ (common-mode invariance). Uniform time dilation or global phases are probability-irrelevant for any POVM; only differential phases can affect outcome statistics. C′ (sub-bin curvature irrelevance). Curvature variations confined below the declared resolution cannot change single-bin event probabilities beyond ε_disc. After Hadamard-controlled spatial and temporal smearing, such effects are common-mode or strictly sub-threshold. D′ (near-null registrar trivialization). With finite information rate, the boundTVD ≤ √(F / 8) · τ implies that no nontrivial discrimination is possible as the registrar’s proper-time budget τ → 0. H′ (horizon implementability). An exterior laboratory cannot implement POVM effects localized strictly in the interior algebra of a black-hole spacetime; interior bins have zero operational support for exterior observers. Together, these results close “gravity at the event” in the single-run semiclassical domain: gravity can only shape pre-event phases and support via proper time and cannot appear as an event-internal degree of freedom at any finite operational resolution. Each theorem is stated with explicit inequalities and clean falsifiers (sub-resolution curvature tests, near-null discrimination limits, and exterior-only interior implementability), ensuring refutability. The framework uses no assumptions beyond standard quantum mechanics (POVMs and instruments) and general relativity (proper time and locality) and is consistent with interferometric observations such as COW neutron interferometry and Kasevich–Chu atom interferometers, where gravity appears exclusively through differential pre-event phases. Keywords: POVM measurement; operational quantum measurement; quantum Fisher information; distinguishability bounds; Unruh–DeWitt detector; Hadamard states; proper time; semiclassical quantum mechanics and general relativity; algebraic quantum field theory; interferometry, QMTF. Author: R. Necsanu ORCID: 0009‑0009‑1281‑9180 Reference record (QMTF): Necsanu (2026), Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.18262158
Preprint: This work is a preprint, has not undergone peer review, and is made publicly available to establish a public scientific record. This publication presents operational one-dimensional scaling tests of the Dynamical Information Geometry (DIG) framework using the Twin-Test protocol. Dynamical Information Geometry assigns an effective, state-dependent geometry to quantum many-body dynamics based on the spatial organization of mutual information. Earlier parts of the DIG series established the theoretical framework, provided numerical validation, introduced hardened operational definitions, and clarified regime structure and necessity. The present work, DIG Part VI, does not introduce new theory, new observables, or new numerical modeling. Its role is strictly operational. It documents how the Twin-Test protocol behaves under controlled one-dimensional scaling variations along two independent axes: system-size increase in a simulator implementation and circuit-depth increase in a quantum hardware implementation. Both scaling axes are evaluated within the same operational framework, using the mandatory audit logic defined in DIG Part IV. No attempt is made to relate or map these axes onto one another. The analysis is restricted to structural sign behavior, audit classification (marker-stable versus marker-transfer), and the identification of an operational robustness limit (defect) at increased depth. No universal scaling laws are proposed. No fitting, extrapolation, or cross-platform amplitude matching is performed. All operational definitions and decision rules are stated explicitly in the manuscript. The accompanying dataset implements these rules verbatim and enables deterministic third-party reproduction without interpretation. Related works (for reference and context): DIG Part I (theoretical framework):https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17983399 DIG Part II (numerical validation):https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17982058 DIG Part III (hardware validation):https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18100057 DIG Part IV (regime structure and operational necessity):https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18202656 DIG Part V (multidimensional formulation):https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18210315 DIG Part VI Data Set: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18226272 DIG Part VII Dynamical Information Geometry:Two-Dimensional Twin-Sign Validation under Fixed Audit and Regime Constraintshttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18313460 DIG — N1 (definitions, scope, and non-equivalences):https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18001179 Correspondence regarding this work may be directed to:kaya@cab-film.com