The Elementary Quantum E_min and the Double-Slit Experiment: Single-Photon Interference as a Composite Transfer Process / Il quanto elementare E_min e l'esperimento della doppia fenditura
Previous work established that the ratio n_acts = E/E_min, where E_min = 6.62607015x10^-34 J is the elementary quantum of energy transfer, places on a single line of slope 1 electromagnetic radiation across 30 orders of magnitude (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20671071) and matter with atomic structure (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21279830). The present work applies the same quantity to the double-slit experiment in the single-photon regime. The photon employed in the first experiment with certified single photons (Grangier, Roger and Aspect, 1986; radiative cascade of calcium, lambda = 422.7 nm) corresponds to n_acts = 7.0923x10^14 elementary acts. The two experimental facts that define the experiment, the formation of the interference fringes and the invariably integral delivery of the energy at each detection, are read as properties of a transfer process composed of a very large number of identical elementary acts: during transit the process distributes itself in space and traverses both slits; at detection it completes as a unit, delivering the total energy at a single point. The constancy of c provides a causal reading of the fringe pattern: the bands are the map of the points of synchronous recomposition, their positions given by the synchrony condition, their intensity and shading by the partition of the paths between free transit and deflection at the slit edges. The corpuscular and undulatory behaviours correspond to the energetic and spatial faces of the same process, bound by the identity n_acts x lambda = c. The interpretation is declared as such and is empirically bound to the cited data; every numerical value is reproducible from published constants and published data. Version 2: technical clarifications on the experimental apparatus (Mach-Zehnder interferometer in the 1986 experiment; lithographic slits in modern single-photon setups) and dimensional closure of the identity with the reference frequency ν_0 = 1 Hz.
Previous work established that the ratio n_acts = E/E_min, where E_min = 6.62607015x10^-34 J is the elementary quantum of energy transfer, places on a single line of slope 1 electromagnetic radiation across 30 orders of magnitude (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20671071) and matter with atomic structure (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21279830). The present work applies the same quantity to the double-slit experiment in the single-photon regime. The photon employed in the first experiment with certified single photons (Grangier, Roger and Aspect, 1986; radiative cascade of calcium, lambda = 422.7 nm) corresponds to n_acts = 7.0923x10^14 elementary acts. The two experimental facts that define the experiment, the formation of the interference fringes and the invariably integral delivery of the energy at each detection, are read as properties of a transfer process composed of a very large number of identical elementary acts: during transit the process distributes itself in space and traverses both slits; at detection it completes as a unit, delivering the total energy at a single point. The constancy of c provides a causal reading of the fringe pattern: the bands are the map of the points of synchronous recomposition, their positions given by the synchrony condition, their intensity and shading by the partition of the paths between free transit and deflection at the slit edges. The corpuscular and undulatory behaviours correspond to the energetic and spatial faces of the same process, bound by the identity n_acts x lambda = c. The interpretation is declared as such and is empirically bound to the cited data; every numerical value is reproducible from published constants and published data. Version 2: technical clarifications on the experimental apparatus (Mach-Zehnder interferometer in the 1986 experiment; lithographic slits in modern single-photon setups) and dimensional closure of the identity with the reference frequency ν_0 = 1 Hz.
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, distributed over expanding photon fronts. The measurable quantity in space is the delivered areal density (intensity) lint(ν;r). Interference is asserted at this transport layer: two outgoing channels can superpose and form stable bright and dark regions in 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:lintout(ν;r)=Tlintin(ν;r).For a double slit, the outgoing density is produced by two transfer channels, T1 and T2, whose superposition yields an intensity-level interference formlinttot(P)=lint1(P)+lint2(P)+2lint1(P)lint2(P)cosΔϕ(P).The phase difference is written in QMU-normalized form using the chronovibration identity and the dimensionless cadence:c=FqλC,ν∗=Fqν,λ=ν∗λC,so thatΔϕ(P)=2πλΔℓ(P)=2πν∗λCΔℓ(P).In the far-field approximation with slit separation d, screen distance L, and transverse coordinate x, Δℓ(x)≈dx/L, givingΔϕ(x)≈2πν∗LdλCx.This emphasizes that the fringe map is a geometric count in units of λC scaled by the dimensionless cadence 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 functionG(ν∗,alignment)∈{0,1},and the event-rate density follows the gated effective drivelinteff(r)=∫G(ν∗,alignment)R(ν∗)lint(ν;r)dν,N˙e(r)∝linteff(r).Single-particle hits therefore build the fringe pattern because discrete events sample a pre-existing transport interference pattern in lint. Coherence window and a falsifiable fringe condition The paper introduces a receiver coherence window τg and its QMU-normalized form τg∗=Fqτg. This produces a detector gate coherence lengthLg=cτg=λCτg∗,and a direct, falsifiable interference conditionΔℓ(P)≲λCτg∗.A key operational refinement is the \emph{minimum law} for the observed visibility rolloff length:Lrolloff≈min(Lc,Lg),where Lc is a transport coherence length set by source bandwidth / wavefront quality, and Lg is the detector’s gate coherence length. This predicts two distinct regimes and a detector-dependent saturation plateau when Lc is increased beyond Lg. 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 between channels, with QMU-normalized jitter σt∗=Fqσt. For Gaussian jitter, the visibility obeysV=V0exp[−2π2(ν∗)2(σt∗)2],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 asT=Tgeom+Tsurf,where Tsurf captures mask material / coating / roughness / polarization-sensitive surface channels. The paper introduces QMU-native surface oscillation knobs:qsfo:=λCc3=λC2Fq3,qsfi:=c3λC=qsfo1,and defines a dimensionless surface-participation ratioΠsurf:=Ωsurfqsfi,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∗ and Lg), (iv) the minimum-law saturation test, (v) a timing-jitter which-path reduction law, and (vi) QMU surface-mode reporting via qsfo/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.
Traditional quantum mechanics explains single-slit diffraction and double-slit interference based on wave-particle duality, claiming that photons possess both particle and wave properties and can self-interfere to form alternating light and dark fringes. This paper puts forward a new theory: photons travel in straight lines. Upon generation, each photon has a fixed transverse vibration direction that maintains a constant angle relative to its propagation axis. A single photon never undergoes random 360° omnidirectional vibration. The omnidirectional vibration observed in natural light is a macroscopic effect formed by the superposition of massive photons each carrying their own unique fixed vibration angles. The fringes observed in single-slit and double-slit experiments are macroscopic patterns formed by geometric amplification and statistical superposition of numerous photon trajectories. These trajectories are deflected and scattered when photons collide with slit walls due to their fixed-angle vibration. No fringes appear without baffles, nor when slits are excessively wide to avoid photon-wall collisions; fringes only emerge when slits are narrow enough to allow photons to collide with wall surfaces. When photons collide with atoms on slit walls, electrons absorb photon energy to jump to higher energy levels and release secondary light during energy-level transitions back to lower states. Superposition of secondary light rays traveling in different directions generates light and dark fringes. This paper retains the carbon nanotube light absorption/non-absorption control experiment and the receiving screen distance variation verification experiment, and adds three new groups of comparative experiments: front polarizer control experiment, gradient wall thickness slit control experiment, and multi-stage polarizer experiment for measuring photon vibration range. Multiple experiments form a complete logical closed loop. At present, there are no publicly available precise quantitative values for the amplitude of photon transverse vibration, and only the approximate variation range can be measured through optical path devices. Multiple experimental observations indicate that interpretations relying on wave-particle duality are untenable.
3.1 Interference of a Single Photon The kinds of study originally conducted by Thomas Young - in particular, the celebrated "double slit" experiment that we briefly examined in Chapter 1 (see Fig. 1) - provide a capacity to reveal far more than the wave nature of light, important as that is. True enough, the observed characteristic fringe pattern, when monochromatic light passes through two closely spaced slits onto a screen, appears to be simply explicable on the basis of waves from each slit undergoing constructive and destructive interference at different positions on the screen. Yet, astonishingly, these patterns of interference are still exhibited when individual photons of a low-intensity input beam reach the screen one at a time, showing that it cannot in fact be a matter of different photons having to interfere with each other. Indeed, Dirac enunciated the general principle that photons can never directly interact with each other. The double slit and other such experiments indicate that each photon interacts in a delocalized, wave-like manner with both slits at the same time. Successive experiments build interference patterns that conform to an exact mathematical distribution formula, but the position at which an individual photon is detected in any particular instance cannot be predicted; this is a quintessential illustration of quantum uncertainty. Using the path integral approach of quantum theory, the phenomenon is more accurately represented by introducing a summation over all possible routes between the source and the screen on which the pattern appears, signifying an entire "lifetime" for each photon involved in the experiment. This relates to the fact that the actual trajectory is unknown without an observation, and thus we only obtain the probabilities of the photon striking the screen at different positions and times; all trajectories (potentialities) must be considered in a superposition. Each route is considered equally probable, and the variation in phase produces quantum interference. The differences in phase of each trajectory, at varying positions on the screen, generates the fringe pattern. An intriguing variation on this experiment involves "marking" the photons so that the actual route of each photon to the screen is known. Remarkably, in such a case, the fringe patterns do not appear because quantum interference cannot occur. A consequence of the observation of the photon route is an effect that, in other quantum mechanical connections, is known as a collapse of the wavefunction. However, it is possible for the fringe patterns to reappear when information on the route of the photons is lost; this is known as a quantum eraser.
Young’s double-slit experiment was first demonstrated with light and was later extended to electrons and other particles. These experiments share a common geometry: something approaches the slits, passes through them, and produces an interference pattern afterward. However, monochromatic water waves, electrons, and photons are physically different, and their interactions with a real slit need not be the same. Most discussions of the double-slit experiment focus on the interference pattern collected on a screen after the slits. Some descriptions also consider what happens before the slits, including the role of an eraser or observer and the splitting of an electron or photon to interfere with itself. Much less attention is given to what happens while an electron or photon is passing through a real slit. A real slit has thickness and is made of matter. Its surfaces contain atoms, electrons, and nuclei and therefore provide an electromagnetic environment through which an electron or photon passes. An electron or photon enters the slit, travels between its surfaces, and leaves it. This raises a missing question: can an electron or photon interact with this electromagnetic environment while passing through the slit, and can such an interaction affect its motion, particularly its exiting direction? We examine experimental evidence together with geometrical and accumulated-count evidence, including the observed spacing of interference maxima, the nonlinear geometry of constant-path-difference loci, the finite number and different possible counts of interference fringes, and the accumulation of individual detection events. Figures derived from the corresponding experimental and geometrical constructions are used to make these distinctions explicit. These results motivate a global description of Young’s double-slit experiment in three physically connected regions: pre-slit, in-slit, and post-slit. We call this the global trilogy of Young’s double-slit experiment. The global trilogy places the physical slit and its electromagnetic environment explicitly between the familiar pre-slit and post-slit descriptions and provides a framework for investigating the complete process from source, through the slit, to interference and detection.