We show that, in the unified field theory (UFT) previously proposed by the author, the material dependence of the double slit is the most easily observable and falsifiable prediction. In the UFT, the deflection angle of a particle due to the non-equilibrium force from the slit wall is θ = (y + z)M1Dc2 (r 2 − (y 2 + z 2)) FPl , where M1 = mslit −qslitme/e is the effective mass of the slit wall, y is the projected radius of the slit, z is the particle radius, D is a dimensionless coupling constant, and FPl is the Planck force. Changing the material changes mslit, qslit, B2, y, and Dlocal, and hence changes θ. Therefore, even for the same slit geometry, the position of the interference fringes shifts when the material is changed. In standard quantum theory, on the other hand, the material does not affect the position of the interference fringes. This opposition has a clear falsifiability structure: whichever result is observed, one of the two theories is falsified. We present an experimental protocol and propose tests varying the material, charge, magnetic field, density, and distance.
We show that, in the unified field theory (UFT) previously proposed by the author, the material dependence of the double slit is the most easily observable and falsifiable prediction. In the UFT, the deflection angle of a particle due to the non-equilibrium force from the slit wall is θ = (y + z)M1Dc2 (r 2 − (y 2 + z 2)) FPl , where M1 = mslit −qslitme/e is the effective mass of the slit wall, y is the projected radius of the slit, z is the particle radius, D is a dimensionless coupling constant, and FPl is the Planck force. Changing the material changes mslit, qslit, B2, y, and Dlocal, and hence changes θ. Therefore, even for the same slit geometry, the position of the interference fringes shifts when the material is changed. In standard quantum theory, on the other hand, the material does not affect the position of the interference fringes. This opposition has a clear falsifiability structure: whichever result is observed, one of the two theories is falsified. We present an experimental protocol and propose tests varying the material, charge, magnetic field, density, and distance.
In the unified field theory (UFT), the position of the interference fringes in the double-slit experiment is determined by the self-consistent composition of three elements: deflection by the slit wall, radial dispersion, and deflection by the screen. The deflection angle due to the slit wall is θslit = (y + z)M1Dc2 (r 2 − (y 2 + z 2))FPl , and the deflection angle due to the screen is θscreen = (ys + z)MsDc2 (r 2 s − (y 2 s + z 2))FPl , where M1 = mslit − qslitme/e and Ms = ms − qsme/e are the effective masses of the slit wall and the screen, respectively. The distance to the screen rs depends on the arrival position of the photon, and the arrival position depends on θslit; hence θscreen is a function of θslit. Because of this self-consistency, photons are not all deflected into the same region but are selectively scattered. As a result, a non-uniformity arises in the photon density, forming bright and dark fringes. We present the most falsifiable prediction derived from this picture: changing the material (density) of the slit changes the position of the interference fringes, and changing the density of the screen also changes the position of the interference fringes. In standard quantum theory, neither density affects the position of the interference fringes. This opposition therefore has an ideal falsifiability structure. We present an experimental protocol and propose tests varying material, density, distance, charge, and magnetic field.
We present a quantitative, falsifiable prediction of the unified field theory (UFT): in the double-slit experiment, the position of the interference fringes shifts systematically with the material of the slit wall and the screen. From the photon equation of motion dp/dt = −H, we derive the deflection angle θ = (y + z)MDc2 (r 2 − (y 2 + z 2))FPl , where M = m − qme/e is the effective mass, y is the projected radius of the source, z is the photon radius, r is the center-to-center distance, D is the unified field coupling constant, and FPl is the Planck force. For identical slit geometry, the fringe shift relative to aluminum is ∆θi θAl = ρi − ρAl ρAl , yielding concrete predictions: tungsten +615%, copper +230%, iron +193% (plus magnetic correction), glass −7.4%, plastic −55.6%. Standard quantum theory predicts zero material dependence. The opposition provides an ideal falsifiability structure. We propose a minimal experimental protocol using existing equipment.
We present a hypothetical approach to the formation of double-slit interference fringes and their disappearance upon measurement within the unified field theory (UFT) previously proposed by the author, without assuming particle–wave duality. In the UFT, the force is given by F = −H ×M2/Mp, where H is the unified energy function. Between a photon and a slit wall, Hnon-self ̸= 0 and a finite non-equilibrium force arises. The deflection angle of the photon is θ = (y + z)MDc2 (r 2 − (y 2 + z 2)) FPl , where M = m − qme/e is the effective mass of the slit wall, y is the projected radius of the slit, z is the photon radius, D is a dimensionless coupling constant, and FPl is the Planck force. First, we estimate the value of D required for interference fringes to form under realistic slit parameters, obtaining D ≳ 1024. Second, we describe the mechanism by which the radial dispersion from the two slits overlaps to produce regions of high and low photon density, i.e., bright and dark fringes. Finally, we show that when a detector is placed at the slit, a new non-equilibrium force arises between the photon and the detector, disturbing the differential force from the left and right walls, so that the radial dispersion is disrupted and the interference pattern disappears. This is a deterministic picture that explains interference and measurement without invoking wave-function collapse or the complementarity principle. This paper presents a hypothesis and specifies experimental tests.
We present a hypothetical approach showing that the unified field theory (UFT) previ- ously proposed by the author may deterministically include quantum theory. In the UFT, the force is given by F = −H × M2/Mp, where H is the unified energy function. Between a photon and a slit wall, Hnon-self ̸= 0, and the deflection angle of the photon is θphoton = (y + z)M1Dc2 (r 2 − (y 2 + z 2)) FPl . For an electron, the self-term does not vanish, and the deflection angle becomes θelectron = (y + z)M1Dc2 (r 2 − (y 2 + z 2)) FPl − 2M2c 2 zFPl , where M1 = mslit − qslitme/e is the effective mass of the slit wall, M2 = 2me is the effective mass of the electron, y is the projected radius of the slit, z is the particle radius, D is a dimensionless coupling constant, and FPl is the Planck force. The overlap of the radial dispersions from the two slits produces regions of high and low particle density, reproducing the interference pattern. Thus, wave nature can be explained as the statistical con- sequence of the non-equilibrium force from the slit walls. Furthermore, from the photon–electron force derived in the Compton scattering preprint, ∆F = − h(ν − ν ′ ) re , ∆t = re c , ∆p = − h(ν − ν ′ ) c , the relation ∆x ∆p ∼ h can be derived, suggesting that the uncertainty principle may also emerge from the non-equilibrium force and interaction time of the UFT. This paper presents the hypothesis that the UFT deterministically includes quantum theory, and specifies experimental tests.
We present a hypothetical approach to the double-slit problem within the unified field theory (UFT) previously proposed by the author, in which interference and measurement are described without assuming the quantum-mechanical duality of particle and wave. In the UFT, the force is given by F = −H × M2/Mp, where H is the unified energy function. For two photons, H = 0 and the force vanishes (equilibrium). Between a photon and a slit wall, however, Hnon-self ̸= 0 and a finite non-equilibrium force arises. Defining the deflection angle by θ = −H/FPl, where FPl is the Planck force, a photon passing through the slit experiences different 1/r forces from the left and right walls depending on its transverse position, and is dispersed radially. The statistical distribution of θi over many photons may reproduce the interference pattern on the screen. Furthermore, when a detector is placed at the slit, a new non-equilibrium force arises between the photon and the detector, disturbing the radial dispersion and destroying the interference pattern. This is a deterministic picture that explains the disappearance of interference upon measurement without invoking wave- function collapse or the complementarity principle. This paper presents a hypothesis and specifies experimental tests.
We present a hypothetical approach to the mechanism of the detector in quantum mea- surement within the unified field theory (UFT) previously proposed by the author, describing it as a non-equilibrium force. In the UFT, the force is given by F = −H ×M2/Mp, where H is the unified energy function. Between a photon and a detector, Hphoton-detector ̸= 0 and a finite non-equilibrium force arises. The detector is treated as a body with mass m3, charge q3, magnetic field B3, and projected radius y3. The deflection angle of the photon is given by θdetector = (y3 + z)M3Dc2 (r 2 − (y 2 3 + z 2)) FPl , where M3 = m3 − q3me/e is the effective mass of the detector, z is the photon radius, D is a dimensionless coupling constant, and FPl is the Planck force. When a detector is placed at the slit, the photon experiences non-equilibrium forces not only from the slit walls but also from the detector, and the differential force from the left and right walls is disturbed. As a result, the radial dispersion is disrupted and the interference pattern disappears. This is a deterministic picture that explains the disappearance of interference upon measure- ment without invoking wave-function collapse or the complementarity principle. This paper presents a hypothesis and specifies experimental tests varying the detector mass, position, and magnetic field.