Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

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

David Thomson

Published Jan 31, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

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).

DOI
10.5281/zenodo.18446423

Related papers

Event Density and the Double-Slit Experiment

Allen Proxmire

The double-slit experiment is recast within the Event Density (ED) program, a 13-primitive generative substrate ontology, as the structural composition of four substrate-level mechanisms acting on a single chain C: (i) multi-channel participation below the P12 ED-threshold, with one chain distributing bandwidth across slit-A, slit-B, and downstream channels per P02 + P04 + P07 + Paper_072 — no splitting, no duplication; (ii) coherent V1 propagation (Paper_089) preserving the substrate phase difference Δπ(x); (iii) the detection-plane participation distribution ρ^C(x) = |Σ_K P_K(x)|², whose constructive/destructive structure gives the fringe pattern as the per-trial commitment-probability density (Paper_003 Born frequency limit + Paper_005 projector); (iv) threshold-driven collapse with which-path-as-V5-injection: V5 cross-channel coupling (Paper_063, Paper_090) to a path-distinguishing environment transfers substrate event-density into C, raising local ED above Θ_ED and triggering single-channel commitment before the participation field reaches the detector. Delayed-choice carries no retrocausality: threshold-crossing is local in time and follows V5 coupling at the moment any path-distinguishing apparatus engages the chain. The ED account replaces wave-particle duality with single-chain multi-channel participation, epistemic collapse with V5-driven substrate ED injection above Θ_ED, and retrocausal pilot-wave with local-in-time threshold-crossing. Verdict per Paper_095: M3 (form-IDENTIFIED + value-INHERITED). Form IDENTIFIED: the interference pattern as participation distribution; binary collapse at Θ_ED; visibility loss under V5 coupling; locality-in-time of delayed-choice. Value INHERITED: fringe spacing Δx = λL/d, λ = h/p, the apparatus-specific value of Θ_ED, the visibility-vs-coupling curve. Sharpest falsifier (F1): a quantum carrier whose local ED demonstrably exceeds Θ_ED yet sustains multi-channel interference at the detector — refutes the P12 + P11 + Paper_005 commitment composition. The paper does not claim derivation of λ = h/p, fringe geometry, or the decoherence curve from substrate primitives, nor closed-proof reconstruction in the Hardy / CDP / Coecke-Kissinger sense; its substantive content is the substrate-side composition that lets the double-slit experiment be read as one chain, one commitment per trial, no wave-particle duality required.

•May 16, 2026•0 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.

•Mar 21, 2026•0 citations

A Resonant-Cavity Interpretation of the Double-Slit Experiment Without Wavefunction Collapse or Nonlocality

Riccardino, Paolo Lorenzo

The double-slit experiment is typically presented as evidence for the non-classical nature of microscopic particles, especially when performed in the single-particle regime. However, the interference pattern that emerges on the detection screen is generated by wave propagation through two structured apertures, each acting as a narrow resonant cavity supporting longitudinal modes of a scalar field. In this work we derive the outgoing fields from the slits directly from boundary conditions and show that their superposition yields the standard far-field intensity profile of diffraction theory. The remaining aspect of the experiment — namely discrete, localized detection events — is accounted for by a minimal discrete-event model in which the continuous classical field drives quantized energy transfers at the detector. This approach is fully classical, requires no collapse postulate or nonlocality, and remains compatible with all known data. It clarifies which features of the experiment arise from field propagation and which arise from the discrete nature of detection.

•Nov 24, 2025•0 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.

•Dec 28, 2025•0 citations

Interference or Occupancy at a Double-Slit Dark Fringe: Aperture Transmission and Downstream Detection

Alan Roberto Sebastián Lagunas

This paper presents the 2013 double-slit experiment "Particle Solution to the Double Slit Experiment" (University of Arizona), together with a more rigorous 2026 reconstruction of the same test. Part I reproduces the original study verbatim. A slit was cut at a dark fringe on Screen 1 and the light was measured on Screen 2 behind it. The detector current behind the dark fringe was 1.4 mA, equal to the 1.4 mA laser-off noise. The result was interpreted as supporting the particle view. Part II specifies a high-precision modular protocol designed to discriminate between dark-fringe occupancy and interference: a common baseline (Module 0), the Screen-1 dark-fringe profile (A), an aperture-width series (B), Screen-2 profiles behind dark and bright apertures (C), an offset scan (D), and a closure map (E). The standard optical-field prediction is frozen before acquisition. If no light is observed on Screen 2 behind the dark-fringe aperture while the bright control transmits, the particle view is supported. If two fringes appear, matching the frozen template, the wave view is supported. Status: Part I includes the original 2013 detector readings. Part II is a prospective protocol; no data have been acquired under it. Files: manuscript (PDF), LaTeX source, supplementary forward model (double_slit_field_model.py), and example configuration (asbuilt_example.json), which reproduces the illustrative values in Section II.12.

•Oct 3, 2026•0 citations

The Double-Slit Experiment Reinterpreted: Matter-Wave Propagation and the Physical Mechanism of Quantum Interference

YOUNG HO GOH

The double-slit experiment has stood for a century as the paradigmatic demonstration of quantum superposition: the standard interpretation holds that a particle passes through both slits simultaneously, existing in a superposition of two spatially separated states. This paper proposes a physically distinct alternative: the particle's matter wave — a real physical wave propagating through space in accordance with de Broglie's relation λ = h/p — passes through both slits, while the particle itself (matter) remains in an undetermined state until a constructive interference maximum is formed at the detection screen. The particle does not simultaneously occupy two locations; the wave does. This distinction eliminates the need for superposition as an ontological commitment while fully reproducing the observed interference pattern. We further show that the disappearance of the interference pattern upon which-path measurement is explained without invoking wavefunction collapse: the measurement interaction redirects the matter wave to a single-slit geometry, eliminating the two-wave interference condition. Three experimentally testable predictions distinguish this framework from the standard interpretation: (1) weak-measurement trajectory reconstruction should reveal single particle paths inconsistent with simultaneous two-slit passage; (2) diffraction fringe spacing should depend on the mass density of the slit material, because denser slit edges generate a steeper refractive-index gradient for the matter wave; (3) the fringe pattern should exhibit a density-dependent phase shift measurable with current matter-wave interferometry technology. This reinterpretation requires no new mathematical formalism — the Schrödinger equation and Born's rule are retained — but replaces the ontological claim of simultaneous multi-location existence with the physically consistent picture of matter-wave propagation through an undetermined-state particle.

•Apr 22, 2026•0 citations
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 ligt\mathrm{ligt}ligt, distributed over expanding photon fronts. The measurable quantity in space is the delivered areal density (intensity) lint(ν;r)\mathrm{lint}(\nu;\mathbf{r})lint(ν;r). Interference is asserted at this transport layer: two outgoing channels can superpose and form stable bright and dark regions in lint\mathrm{lint}lint at the screen plane before any detection event occurs. (2) Boundary layer (aperture): The slit-mask is modeled as a transfer operator TTT 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, T1T_1T1​ and T2T_2T2​, 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 ddd, screen distance LLL, and transverse coordinate xxx, Δℓ(x)≈dx/L\Delta\ell(x)\approx d x/LΔℓ(x)≈dx/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 λC\lambda_CλC​ scaled by the dimensionless cadence ν∗\nu^*ν∗. (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 lint\mathrm{lint}lint. Coherence window and a falsifiable fringe condition The paper introduces a receiver coherence window τg\tau_gτg​ and its QMU-normalized form τg∗=Fqτg\tau_g^* = F_q\tau_gτg∗​=Fq​τg​. 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 LcL_cLc​ is a transport coherence length set by source bandwidth / wavefront quality, and LgL_gLg​ is the detector’s gate coherence length. This predicts two distinct regimes and a detector-dependent saturation plateau when LcL_cLc​ is increased beyond LgL_gLg​. 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 σt\sigma_tσt​ between channels, with QMU-normalized jitter σt∗=Fqσt\sigma_t^* = F_q\sigma_tσt∗​=Fq​σt​. 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 TsurfT_{\mathrm{surf}}Tsurf​ 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 (τg∗\tau_g^*τg∗​ and LgL_gLg​), (iv) the minimum-law saturation test, (v) a timing-jitter which-path reduction law, and (vi) QMU surface-mode reporting via qsfo\mathrm{qsfo}qsfo/qsfi\mathrm{qsfi}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 recast within the Event Density (ED) program, a 13-primitive generative substrate ontology, as the structural composition of four substrate-level mechanisms acting on a single chain C: (i) multi-channel participation below the P12 ED-threshold, with one chain distributing bandwidth across slit-A, slit-B, and downstream channels per P02 + P04 + P07 + Paper_072 — no splitting, no duplication; (ii) coherent V1 propagation (Paper_089) preserving the substrate phase difference Δπ(x); (iii) the detection-plane participation distribution ρ^C(x) = |Σ_K P_K(x)|², whose constructive/destructive structure gives the fringe pattern as the per-trial commitment-probability density (Paper_003 Born frequency limit + Paper_005 projector); (iv) threshold-driven collapse with which-path-as-V5-injection: V5 cross-channel coupling (Paper_063, Paper_090) to a path-distinguishing environment transfers substrate event-density into C, raising local ED above Θ_ED and triggering single-channel commitment before the participation field reaches the detector. Delayed-choice carries no retrocausality: threshold-crossing is local in time and follows V5 coupling at the moment any path-distinguishing apparatus engages the chain. The ED account replaces wave-particle duality with single-chain multi-channel participation, epistemic collapse with V5-driven substrate ED injection above Θ_ED, and retrocausal pilot-wave with local-in-time threshold-crossing. Verdict per Paper_095: M3 (form-IDENTIFIED + value-INHERITED). Form IDENTIFIED: the interference pattern as participation distribution; binary collapse at Θ_ED; visibility loss under V5 coupling; locality-in-time of delayed-choice. Value INHERITED: fringe spacing Δx = λL/d, λ = h/p, the apparatus-specific value of Θ_ED, the visibility-vs-coupling curve. Sharpest falsifier (F1): a quantum carrier whose local ED demonstrably exceeds Θ_ED yet sustains multi-channel interference at the detector — refutes the P12 + P11 + Paper_005 commitment composition. The paper does not claim derivation of λ = h/p, fringe geometry, or the decoherence curve from substrate primitives, nor closed-proof reconstruction in the Hardy / CDP / Coecke-Kissinger sense; its substantive content is the substrate-side composition that lets the double-slit experiment be read as one chain, one commitment per trial, no wave-particle duality required.
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 is typically presented as evidence for the non-classical nature of microscopic particles, especially when performed in the single-particle regime. However, the interference pattern that emerges on the detection screen is generated by wave propagation through two structured apertures, each acting as a narrow resonant cavity supporting longitudinal modes of a scalar field. In this work we derive the outgoing fields from the slits directly from boundary conditions and show that their superposition yields the standard far-field intensity profile of diffraction theory. The remaining aspect of the experiment — namely discrete, localized detection events — is accounted for by a minimal discrete-event model in which the continuous classical field drives quantized energy transfers at the detector. This approach is fully classical, requires no collapse postulate or nonlocality, and remains compatible with all known data. It clarifies which features of the experiment arise from field propagation and which arise from the discrete nature of detection.
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.
This paper presents the 2013 double-slit experiment "Particle Solution to the Double Slit Experiment" (University of Arizona), together with a more rigorous 2026 reconstruction of the same test. Part I reproduces the original study verbatim. A slit was cut at a dark fringe on Screen 1 and the light was measured on Screen 2 behind it. The detector current behind the dark fringe was 1.4 mA, equal to the 1.4 mA laser-off noise. The result was interpreted as supporting the particle view. Part II specifies a high-precision modular protocol designed to discriminate between dark-fringe occupancy and interference: a common baseline (Module 0), the Screen-1 dark-fringe profile (A), an aperture-width series (B), Screen-2 profiles behind dark and bright apertures (C), an offset scan (D), and a closure map (E). The standard optical-field prediction is frozen before acquisition. If no light is observed on Screen 2 behind the dark-fringe aperture while the bright control transmits, the particle view is supported. If two fringes appear, matching the frozen template, the wave view is supported. Status: Part I includes the original 2013 detector readings. Part II is a prospective protocol; no data have been acquired under it. Files: manuscript (PDF), LaTeX source, supplementary forward model (double_slit_field_model.py), and example configuration (asbuilt_example.json), which reproduces the illustrative values in Section II.12.
The double-slit experiment has stood for a century as the paradigmatic demonstration of quantum superposition: the standard interpretation holds that a particle passes through both slits simultaneously, existing in a superposition of two spatially separated states. This paper proposes a physically distinct alternative: the particle's matter wave — a real physical wave propagating through space in accordance with de Broglie's relation λ = h/p — passes through both slits, while the particle itself (matter) remains in an undetermined state until a constructive interference maximum is formed at the detection screen. The particle does not simultaneously occupy two locations; the wave does. This distinction eliminates the need for superposition as an ontological commitment while fully reproducing the observed interference pattern. We further show that the disappearance of the interference pattern upon which-path measurement is explained without invoking wavefunction collapse: the measurement interaction redirects the matter wave to a single-slit geometry, eliminating the two-wave interference condition. Three experimentally testable predictions distinguish this framework from the standard interpretation: (1) weak-measurement trajectory reconstruction should reveal single particle paths inconsistent with simultaneous two-slit passage; (2) diffraction fringe spacing should depend on the mass density of the slit material, because denser slit edges generate a steeper refractive-index gradient for the matter wave; (3) the fringe pattern should exhibit a density-dependent phase shift measurable with current matter-wave interferometry technology. This reinterpretation requires no new mathematical formalism — the Schrödinger equation and Born's rule are retained — but replaces the ontological claim of simultaneous multi-location existence with the physically consistent picture of matter-wave propagation through an undetermined-state particle.