This note proposes a simple, falsifiable interferometric test for structured deviations from standard two-path interference. In conventional interference, the observed intensity is described by a single effective phase parameter: \[ I(\phi) = P_1 + P_2 + 2\sqrt{P_1 P_2}\cos\phi, \] and deviations are typically attributed to visibility loss or phase offset. The present protocol tests for a different class of behaviour: phase-locked deviations that depend on the internal structure of the phase profile applied to one arm of the interferometer. A controlled phase modulation of the form ϕ(x)=n⋅f(x)\phi(x) = n \cdot f(x) ϕ(x)=n⋅f(x) is introduced in one arm, where nn n indexes the complexity of the imposed phase structure. The resulting interference signal is measured as a function of the global phase and decomposed into quadrature components: \[ I_n(\phi) = C_n + V_n\!\left[A_n\cos\phi + B_n\sin\phi\right]. \] A deviation metric is defined relative to the baseline (flat-phase) case: \[ \Delta_n = \sqrt{(A_n - A_0)^2 + (B_n - B_0)^2}. \] The testable prediction is that, if structured phase-dependent effects are present, then: the baseline satisfies Δ0≈0\Delta_0 \approx 0 Δ0≈0; the deviation Δn\Delta_n Δn increases systematically with the imposed phase structure, and the deviation remains phase-locked in the quadrature basis and cannot be absorbed into a simple phase offset. The protocol includes explicit control conditions to distinguish such behaviour from conventional effects: symmetric modulation of both arms should eliminate the deviation; random phase noise should reduce visibility but not produce systematic scaling in Δn\Delta_n Δn; and phase referencing is required to resolve the quadrature structure. The outcome is binary. If no structured deviation is observed, the hypothesis is falsified. If a phase-locked, structure-dependent deviation is observed, then the standard interference model is incomplete under these conditions. This proposal is intentionally model-independent. While motivated by broader work on structured phase transport in discrete systems, the experimental test does not rely on that framework and can be evaluated directly.
This note proposes a simple, falsifiable interferometric test for structured deviations from standard two-path interference. In conventional interference, the observed intensity is described by a single effective phase parameter: [ I(\phi) = P_1 + P_2 + 2\sqrt{P_1 P_2}\cos\phi, ] and deviations are typically attributed to visibility loss or phase offset. The present protocol tests for a different class of behaviour: phase-locked deviations that depend on the internal structure of the phase profile applied to one arm of the interferometer. A controlled phase modulation of the form ϕ(x)=n⋅f(x)\phi(x) = n \cdot f(x) ϕ(x)=n⋅f(x) is introduced in one arm, where nn n indexes the complexity of the imposed phase structure. The resulting interference signal is measured as a function of the global phase and decomposed into quadrature components: [ I_n(\phi) = C_n + V_n!\left[A_n\cos\phi + B_n\sin\phi\right]. ] A deviation metric is defined relative to the baseline (flat-phase) case: [ \Delta_n = \sqrt{(A_n - A_0)^2 + (B_n - B_0)^2}. ] The testable prediction is that, if structured phase-dependent effects are present, then: the baseline satisfies Δ0≈0\Delta_0 \approx 0 Δ0≈0; the deviation Δn\Delta_n Δn increases systematically with the imposed phase structure, and the deviation remains phase-locked in the quadrature basis and cannot be absorbed into a simple phase offset. The protocol includes explicit control conditions to distinguish such behaviour from conventional effects: symmetric modulation of both arms should eliminate the deviation; random phase noise should reduce visibility but not produce systematic scaling in Δn\Delta_n Δn; and phase referencing is required to resolve the quadrature structure. The outcome is binary. If no structured deviation is observed, the hypothesis is falsified. If a phase-locked, structure-dependent deviation is observed, then the standard interference model is incomplete under these conditions. This proposal is intentionally model-independent. While motivated by broader work on structured phase transport in discrete systems, the experimental test does not rely on that framework and can be evaluated directly.
This work presents a minimal, experimentally testable deviation from standard two-path interference. The deviation arises from an underlying discrete phase structure and appears as a small first-harmonic bias in the interference fringe. The predicted effect does not introduce higher harmonics or alter the qualitative form of the fringe. Instead, it manifests as a coupled visibility rescaling and phase offset that can be absorbed into standard sinusoidal fits. For this reason, the deviation is not directly visible at the level of fringe shape alone. To distinguish the effect from conventional systematics, a phase-cycling discriminator is introduced. Under controlled quarter-phase shifts, the residual is predicted to exhibit a structured quadrature rotation that is not generically reproduced by noise, detector imbalance, or calibration drift. A set of null-control conditions is provided to isolate this behavior experimentally. A characteristic magnitude for the effect is estimated under a class of structural assumptions, yielding a candidate scale on the order of 10−410^{-4}10−4, with a more strongly suppressed regime near 10−710^{-7}10−7. These values lie near the sensitivity threshold of high-precision interferometric measurements. The result is a concrete, falsifiable prediction: either a stable first-harmonic residual with the specified phase-cycling structure is observed, or the corresponding parameter regime is constrained. This document isolates the observable prediction and experimental test, independent of the broader theoretical framework from which it is derived.
This record presents TA21 (Experimental Quadrature Extraction Protocol), part of the Q5 Transport Architecture Series developed under the Zero-Point Hypothesis framework. TA20 identified the three-part diagnostic signature for Q5 depth-mode leakage: monotone mode scaling, smooth-mode null, and phase-locked quadrature deviation. TA21 converts this control logic into a concrete operational protocol specifying preparation steps, measurement procedure, fitting procedure, and control experiments. The depth coordinate arising in the Q5 framework from the 320-slot transport graph structure does not have a direct laboratory counterpart. The protocol, therefore, works with a structural analog: depth modes of frequency n are simulated by inserting a phase modulator in one arm of a standard two-path interferometer and driving it with a structured phase profile equal to n times a fixed reference profile. The modulation frequency n plays the role of the depth-mode index, with n equal to zero giving a flat constant phase corresponding to the smooth gate-aligned mode, and increasing n giving increasing phase oscillation corresponding to higher depth modes. The protocol tests mode-dependent transport sensitivity rather than literal realization of the depth coordinate. The spectral scaling of leakage with modulation frequency is the object under test, not the geometric origin of that scaling. The measurement procedure scans the global inter-arm phase and records the interference intensity as a function of phase for each modulation frequency. The intensity pattern is fit to a quadrature form, extracting coefficients A_n and B_n. The deviation magnitude is then computed as the square root of the sum of squares of A_n minus one and B_n, providing a scalar observable that can be plotted against n. The TA20 signature is tested by checking three conditions. First, smooth-mode null: the deviation magnitude at n equal to zero should vanish or be negligible. Second, monotone scaling: the deviation magnitude should show a trend-level monotonic increase with n up to experimental uncertainty, with the stronger model-dependent form predicting scaling as eta times n squared. Third, phase-locked quadrature: the deviation must remain in the cosine-phi and sine-phi basis rather than appearing as random fringe drift, amplitude noise, or uncontrolled phase wandering. Three control experiments provide false-positive rejection. Power variation changes beam intensity without changing phase structure and should leave the deviation magnitude unchanged, ruling out intensity artifacts. Noise injection adds random phase noise and should reduce visibility without producing clean n-dependent scaling, ruling out noise-driven drift. Symmetric modulation applies identical phase modulation to both arms and should suppress the deviation to near zero, because the symmetric modulation cancels in interference. The symmetric modulation control is the strongest of the three because it directly tests whether asymmetry is essential to the signal, which matches the leakage architecture. The measurement machinery is standard: two-path interferometry and quadrature extraction are established experimental techniques. The interpretation is not standard and is classified separately. The mapping from phase modulation to depth-mode analog is a structural analogy, not a formal derivation. The TA18 through TA19 depth-leakage model is falsified at the protocol level if the deviation magnitude shows no n-dependence, if the deviation is random or phase-unlocked, or if the symmetric control fails to suppress the deviation. A positive result compatible with all three conditions does not constitute proof of the Q5 mechanism but constitutes a result consistent with it. The theorem chain progressively derives the structure of the effective transport generator Geff=PiYGPiY+K†BK, from which observable phase, leakage, decoherence, and residual correction emerge as structural consequences of projected transport closure on Q5.
T79 completes the Q5 interferometric falsification framework by introducing a structured null-control protocol for quadrature-cycling residuals. Earlier theorems established the residual form, the Z4 quadrature-cycling structure, statistical thresholds, magnitude estimates, and systematics discrimination criteria. T79 addresses the final degeneracy problem: the cycling defectIQ5=∑k=03∣vk+1−Jvk∣2can vanish trivially when all quadrature vectors are zero. The theorem, therefore, establishes the joint operational requirementIQ5≈0and∣vk∣≈0,ensuring that the detected structure corresponds to nontrivial quadrature transport rather than the simple absence of signal. The theorem then defines four explicit null-control experiments designed to isolate ordinary instrumental artifacts from candidate Q5-consistent cycling structure. These include blocked-path operation, detector-only measurements, intentional laser-power modulation, and a classical phase-reference channel. Each control specifies a concrete pass condition under which stable, nonzero quarter-cycle transport behaviour must disappear or fail to persist. In particular, blocked-path operation forces P1P2=0, eliminating the interference residual derived in T72, while detector-only and reference-channel measurements test whether the observed cycling behaviour originates from instrumentation rather than coherent transport structure. T79 reframes the experimental objective as layered falsification rather than direct proof. A candidate signal survives only if coherent two-path interference exhibits nonzero stable quadrature vectors satisfying the quarter-cycle rotation law, while all null controls fail to reproduce the same structured behaviour. The theorem, therefore, converts the earlier invariant framework into a hardened experimental protocol capable of rejecting broad classes of ordinary systematic effects without claiming definitive proof of Q5 transport itself. Passing the protocol establishes only that the observed cycling behaviour survives the identified null controls and remains structurally consistent with the Q5 quadrature-transport prediction. Status: solid for the joint nontriviality condition IQ5≈0 together with ∣vk∣≈0; solid for the blocked-path null implied by the T72 interference structure; solid that the four null controls define experimentally testable falsification operations; conditional on whether the listed controls exhaust all relevant systematic classes for a given experimental platform; not a claim that passing the full null-control protocol would uniquely establish Q5 transport physics.
This manuscript presents a deterministic boundary-phase model of the double-slit experiment. In this framework, particles follow continuous, definite trajectories while interference arises from structured curvature induced by slit boundary microstructure. The wavefunction is treated as a mathematical representation of a real boundary-generated field rather than a physical matter wave.The model preserves established interference results while introducing a falsifiable experimental prediction: coherent fringe displacement scaling with engineered slit roughness. For a baseline electron configuration (100 eV beam energy, 1 m screen distance, 1 µm slit separation), a measurable 2 µm fringe shift requires a relative phase offset of approximately 0.10 radians, corresponding to the coupling condition β_eff(δ/r) ≈ 0.10.A quantitative δ-sweep prediction is provided along with explicit experimental control requirements necessary to distinguish coherent boundary-phase displacement from conventional scattering or electrostatic effects. If the predicted scaling is observed under controlled conditions, the double-slit paradox can be resolved deterministically without invoking intrinsic randomness or wavefunction collapse.This work is presented as a falsifiable experimental proposal in quantum foundations and electron interferometry.
Experimental Signatures and Falsifiability of Phase Ontology: How a Phase-Primary Framework Can Be Tested (Phase Ontology — Part VII) completes the Phase Ontology series by translating its core claims into concrete, falsifiable expectations. While Parts I–VI argue that phase coherence is physically real and that spacetime is an emergent projection of stable phase relations, this paper makes the scientific demand explicit: the framework must constrain what should be observed in the laboratory—not merely reinterpret existing results. The paper outlines a set of testable signatures that should appear if measurement is genuinely a phase-locking process, if coherence is a physical resource that can be preserved or dispersed, and if detectors and environments are active material participants rather than generic sources of noise. Key experimental arenas include: (1) detector-dependent phase-locking thresholds (e.g., interferometry where small, controlled detector-material changes produce disproportionate shifts in localization/fringe behavior), (2) coherence capacity and delayed classicality (engineered environments that produce non-linear regime changes rather than only smooth decoherence), (3) entanglement under structured phase environments (sensitivity to structured phase modulation beyond standard loss/noise parameters), (4) precision clocks as phase probes (searching for residual coherence-environment dependencies beyond known systematics), and (5) macroscopic coherence bridge regimes in superconducting and mesoscopic networks where topology and coupling geometry should matter in structured ways. Crucially, the paper states what falsification would look like in practice: if across multiple platforms detector variations yield no structured threshold effects, coherence isolation produces only fully predictable smooth behavior, entanglement responds solely to standard channel parameters, and precision clocks show no reproducible residual coherence-structure dependence, then Phase Ontology remains an interpretation but loses its claim to be an empirically distinct physical framework. A staged experimental program is proposed, moving from tabletop interferometry to progressively more demanding coherence and clock tests.
Quantum mechanics takes the phase of a state to lie on a continuous U(1), with relative phases varying smoothly and no preferred value. This paper formulates and bounds a minimal departure: a discrete ℤₙ substructure marking N preferred directions, encoded in one parameter p that vanishes for standard theory. To first order, a two-branch interferometer scanned in relative phase φ develops sidebands at (N−1)φ and (N+1)φ of relative amplitude p/2N, locked to a fixed frame — an N-fold fringe anisotropy, a broken phase-rotation symmetry. Its isotropic part is a visibility loss, degenerate with decoherence; the anisotropic harmonics are falsifiable. The most precise phase metrology reads a freely winding phase in which the modulation averages away and is blind to p; the bound comes instead from Josephson current–phase sinusoidality and matter-wave phase linearity, giving p ≲ 10⁻¹. A dedicated fixed-frame search could improve this by orders of magnitude.