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

Integrating Temporal Double-Slit Diffraction into the Photonic Observers Family: A First-Principles Leap in Retrocausal Chronophotonics

David Mastrianni

Published Mar 30, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

AbstractI am excited to share that the 2023 temporal double-slit experiment from Imperial College London provides the exact laboratory confirmation I have been seeking for the Photonic Observers Family. Light interfering with its own past through femtosecond time slits directly validates the core mechanisms of my Flickering Photonic Observers (FPOs) and the full Retrocausal Chronophotonic Orbital Mesh. This is not a minor addition — it is the bridge that takes my work from compelling theory into practical, buildable hardware.In this paper I integrate the experiment fully into my framework and lay out the deep benefits that emerge. Scientists around the world are already downloading my Zenodo papers. I believe this integration opens immediate pathways to ultra-efficient chronophotonic circuits, temporal computing, secure global networks, and sensing technologies — including massive improvements in speed and storage density through frequency-domain encoding that bypasses traditional spatial limitations.

DOI
10.5281/zenodo.19325822

Related papers

The Entangled Photonic Observers (ENTANGLEPOs): Myelin-Sheath-Inspired Non-Local Coherence as a New Behavioral Attribute in the Photonic Observers Family

David Mastrianni

AbstractThe rigid forward-only arrow of time remains the deepest bottleneck in computa-tion. Building directly on the foundational Retrocausal Chronophotonic Orbital Meshand the parent Flickering Photonic Observers (FPOs), this paper introduces EntangledPhotonic Observers (ENTANGLEPOs) as a new behavioral attribute integrated intothe Photonic Observers Family of modes.ENTANGLEPOs draw their operational principle from the 2024 Shanghai Univer-sity study published in Physical Review E, which demonstrates that the myelin sheathsurrounding neurons functions as a microscopic electromagnetic cavity. This cavitygenerates pairs of entangled photons through coherent vibrations of carbon-hydrogenbonds, enabling ultra-precise, non-local synchronization of neural signals across macro-scopic distances. Read full paper below. Email: mastrianni@proton.me

•Mar 31, 2026•0 citations

New Applications of Integrated Optics in Quantum Photonics and Machine Learning

Luigi Di Lauro, Stefania Sciara, Abdul Rahim Aadhi +13 more

We utilize integrated photonic platforms, performing multiple high-speed operations simultaneously in a compact footprint, to demonstrate classical signal processing supported by machine learning, as well as quantum information processing at telecom wavelengths. © 2023 The Author(s)

International Conference on Optical Fiber Sensors (OFS)•Jan 1, 2023•0 citations

THE DOUBLE-SLIT BEFORE EMISSION: A Wave-and-Particle Ontology of the Photon and the Discrete Transition Across a Null Interval

ἀλήθεια

I sometimes wonder why physics itself doesn’t deal directly with physical ontology, since ‘ontology’ is philosophy. Nonetheless, in the realm of the philosophy of physics, I’d like to bring up for our reasoning the possibility of a fractal universe guided, obviously, by the same fundamental laws across scales. Take the atom as the the initial example: it has a ‘solid’ core which accounts for more than 99% of its mass and an electron shell; the solar system has a star which accounts for the majority of the mass; galaxies orbits massive black holes. Therefore, perhaps the “wave versus particle” might not be the right approach. The photon itself could have a “particle” AND (not OR) a “wavy”. The "wavy body (W)" would be arranged from the quantum vacuum in the lag period in between the atom’s excitation and the emission of its delta particle (Δ). Its "wavy body (W)" moves towards the possible absorption sites and the “particle (Δ)” makes its discreet transition (as the electron leaps through atomic orbitals). Take this thought to the double slit experiment: the "wavy body" passes through both slits but the discrete transition of the particle core does not divide itself (since it’s theoretically indivisible, as Einstein’s Noble Prize suggests) — and each photon indeed leaves only one mark and not two half-marks on the screen. With the “observer” (a physical forced interaction), what was once a single photonic event from emission to absorption becomes another event from the slits forward. Also from 1905 Einstein’s annus mirabilis — Special Relativity — one of the theories best tested and confirmed, yet it does not provide the ontological answer for the photon’s own inertial referential. My argumentation here is not against the theory itself, evidently, but I see the nonexistent referential as an ontological clue rather than a mathematical issue. Taking it to cosmology, applying the same fundamental principles across scales, between the state of excitation to emission, for the massive inertial references from emission to absorption, the wavy body of the photon would be felt by the ~300.000 Km/s, however, from the own perspective of the photon, emission and absorption would be the “same time” because its particle (Δ) does a discrete transition from within its "wavy body". That would preserve both locality and reality, and, especially from the Quantum Mechanics theoretical framework, would, apparently, preserve its experimental validity. Nevertheless, it all is "just philosophy".

•Jul 31, 2026•0 citations

Development of a Camera-Based Photonic Quantum Emulator with Optical Signal Analysis for Engineering Education and Algorithm Validation

udayana ananth kumar

This paper was originally published in the Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR), Volume 13, Issue 8, August 2026 (Paper ID: JETIR2608050)

Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research•Aug 6, 2026•0 citations

THE DOUBLE-SLIT BEFORE EMISSION: A Wave-and-Particle Ontology of the Photon and the Discrete Transition Across a Null Interval

ἀλήθεια

I sometimes wonder why Physics itself doesn’t deal directly with physical ontology, since ‘ontology’ is philosophy.Nonetheless, in the realm of the philosophy of physics, I’d like to bring up for our reasoning the possibility of a fractal universe guided, obviously, by the same fundamental laws across scales. Take the atom as the the initial example: it has a ‘solid’ core which accounts for more than 99% of its mass and an electron shell; the solar system has a star which accounts for the majority of the mass; galaxies orbits massive black holes.Therefore, perhaps the “wave versus particle” might not be the right approach.The photon itself could have a “particle” AND (not OR) a “wavy body”. The "wavy body (W)" would be arranged from the quantum vacuum in the lag period in between the atom’s excitation and the emission of its delta particle (Δ).Its "wavy body (W)" moves towards the possible absorption sites and the “particle (Δ)” makes its discreet transition (as the electron leaps through atomic orbitals). Take this thought to the double slit experiment: the "wavy body" passes through both slits but the discrete transition of the particle core does not divide itself (since it’s theoretically indivisible, as Einstein’s Noble Prize suggests) — and each photon indeed leaves only one mark and not two half-marks on the screen.With the “observer” (a physical forced interaction), what was once a single photonic event from emission to absorption becomes another event from the slits forward. Also from 1905 Einstein’s annus mirabilis — Special Relativity — one of the theories best tested and confirmed, yet it does not provide the ontological answer for the photon’s own inertial referential.My argumentation here is not against the theory itself, evidently, but I see the nonexistent referential as an ontological clue rather than a mathematical issue. Taking it to cosmology, applying the same fundamental principles across scales, between the state of excitation to emission, for the massive inertial references from emission to absorption, the wavy body of the photon would be felt by the ~300.000 Km/s, however, from the own perspective of the photon, emission and absorption would be the “same time” because its particle (Δ) does a discrete transition from within its "wavy body". That would preserve both locality and reality, and, especially from the Quantum Mechanics theoretical framework, would, apparently, preserve its experimental validity.Nevertheless, it all is "just philosophy".

•Aug 1, 2026•0 citations

Very-fast photon sources and detectors

Shayan Mookherjea

Most quantum experiments are based on repeated “trials”. We present a roadmap based on integrated photonics for “very fast” sources and detectors to achieve a large improvement in the speed at which such trials can be performed.

Photonics for Quantum (PfQ)•Aug 27, 2021•0 citations
AbstractI am excited to share that the 2023 temporal double-slit experiment from Imperial College London provides the exact laboratory confirmation I have been seeking for the Photonic Observers Family. Light interfering with its own past through femtosecond time slits directly validates the core mechanisms of my Flickering Photonic Observers (FPOs) and the full Retrocausal Chronophotonic Orbital Mesh. This is not a minor addition — it is the bridge that takes my work from compelling theory into practical, buildable hardware.In this paper I integrate the experiment fully into my framework and lay out the deep benefits that emerge. Scientists around the world are already downloading my Zenodo papers. I believe this integration opens immediate pathways to ultra-efficient chronophotonic circuits, temporal computing, secure global networks, and sensing technologies — including massive improvements in speed and storage density through frequency-domain encoding that bypasses traditional spatial limitations.
AbstractThe rigid forward-only arrow of time remains the deepest bottleneck in computa-tion. Building directly on the foundational Retrocausal Chronophotonic Orbital Meshand the parent Flickering Photonic Observers (FPOs), this paper introduces EntangledPhotonic Observers (ENTANGLEPOs) as a new behavioral attribute integrated intothe Photonic Observers Family of modes.ENTANGLEPOs draw their operational principle from the 2024 Shanghai Univer-sity study published in Physical Review E, which demonstrates that the myelin sheathsurrounding neurons functions as a microscopic electromagnetic cavity. This cavitygenerates pairs of entangled photons through coherent vibrations of carbon-hydrogenbonds, enabling ultra-precise, non-local synchronization of neural signals across macro-scopic distances. Read full paper below. Email: mastrianni@proton.me
I sometimes wonder why physics itself doesn’t deal directly with physical ontology, since ‘ontology’ is philosophy. Nonetheless, in the realm of the philosophy of physics, I’d like to bring up for our reasoning the possibility of a fractal universe guided, obviously, by the same fundamental laws across scales. Take the atom as the the initial example: it has a ‘solid’ core which accounts for more than 99% of its mass and an electron shell; the solar system has a star which accounts for the majority of the mass; galaxies orbits massive black holes. Therefore, perhaps the “wave versus particle” might not be the right approach. The photon itself could have a “particle” AND (not OR) a “wavy”. The "wavy body (W)" would be arranged from the quantum vacuum in the lag period in between the atom’s excitation and the emission of its delta particle (Δ). Its "wavy body (W)" moves towards the possible absorption sites and the “particle (Δ)” makes its discreet transition (as the electron leaps through atomic orbitals). Take this thought to the double slit experiment: the "wavy body" passes through both slits but the discrete transition of the particle core does not divide itself (since it’s theoretically indivisible, as Einstein’s Noble Prize suggests) — and each photon indeed leaves only one mark and not two half-marks on the screen. With the “observer” (a physical forced interaction), what was once a single photonic event from emission to absorption becomes another event from the slits forward. Also from 1905 Einstein’s annus mirabilis — Special Relativity — one of the theories best tested and confirmed, yet it does not provide the ontological answer for the photon’s own inertial referential. My argumentation here is not against the theory itself, evidently, but I see the nonexistent referential as an ontological clue rather than a mathematical issue. Taking it to cosmology, applying the same fundamental principles across scales, between the state of excitation to emission, for the massive inertial references from emission to absorption, the wavy body of the photon would be felt by the ~300.000 Km/s, however, from the own perspective of the photon, emission and absorption would be the “same time” because its particle (Δ) does a discrete transition from within its "wavy body". That would preserve both locality and reality, and, especially from the Quantum Mechanics theoretical framework, would, apparently, preserve its experimental validity. Nevertheless, it all is "just philosophy".
I sometimes wonder why Physics itself doesn’t deal directly with physical ontology, since ‘ontology’ is philosophy.Nonetheless, in the realm of the philosophy of physics, I’d like to bring up for our reasoning the possibility of a fractal universe guided, obviously, by the same fundamental laws across scales. Take the atom as the the initial example: it has a ‘solid’ core which accounts for more than 99% of its mass and an electron shell; the solar system has a star which accounts for the majority of the mass; galaxies orbits massive black holes.Therefore, perhaps the “wave versus particle” might not be the right approach.The photon itself could have a “particle” AND (not OR) a “wavy body”. The "wavy body (W)" would be arranged from the quantum vacuum in the lag period in between the atom’s excitation and the emission of its delta particle (Δ).Its "wavy body (W)" moves towards the possible absorption sites and the “particle (Δ)” makes its discreet transition (as the electron leaps through atomic orbitals). Take this thought to the double slit experiment: the "wavy body" passes through both slits but the discrete transition of the particle core does not divide itself (since it’s theoretically indivisible, as Einstein’s Noble Prize suggests) — and each photon indeed leaves only one mark and not two half-marks on the screen.With the “observer” (a physical forced interaction), what was once a single photonic event from emission to absorption becomes another event from the slits forward. Also from 1905 Einstein’s annus mirabilis — Special Relativity — one of the theories best tested and confirmed, yet it does not provide the ontological answer for the photon’s own inertial referential.My argumentation here is not against the theory itself, evidently, but I see the nonexistent referential as an ontological clue rather than a mathematical issue. Taking it to cosmology, applying the same fundamental principles across scales, between the state of excitation to emission, for the massive inertial references from emission to absorption, the wavy body of the photon would be felt by the ~300.000 Km/s, however, from the own perspective of the photon, emission and absorption would be the “same time” because its particle (Δ) does a discrete transition from within its "wavy body". That would preserve both locality and reality, and, especially from the Quantum Mechanics theoretical framework, would, apparently, preserve its experimental validity.Nevertheless, it all is "just philosophy".