A Reproducible Method for Checking Earlier Events and Later Choices in Quantum Experiments QDL Research Program — Paper 11 | Version V1.0.0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23261100 Overview Quantum experiments can produce surprising results. Sometimes, an event is recorded first, and a measurement choice is made later. If these two events appear connected, an important question arises: Is this connection supported by the experimental data, or could it be explained by statistical variation, event selection, or measurement conditions? This paper presents a clear and reproducible method for investigating that question. It combines real experimental data, exact statistical calculations, source verification, and computer-based testing. The main goal is simple: make quantum-data calculations easier to understand, repeat, and independently check. What Does This Paper Study? The study examines how researchers can correctly compare an earlier recorded event with a later measurement setting. It focuses on five important questions: Were the earlier events and later settings correctly identified? Were all eligible events included using the original experimental rules? Do the observed numbers show a meaningful statistical relationship? Could selection effects, detection differences, or data-matching errors explain the result? Can another researcher reproduce the same calculations using the available sources? The paper provides mathematical formulas, numerical examples, source checks, and reproducible software for these questions. Three Main Research Applications 1. Munich Event-Ready Bell Experiment The first application studies data from a published quantum Bell experiment involving entangled atoms. The published dataset contains 55,568 events. We independently recalculated four-sector statistics from the published count tables. The main results are: Measurement Odds Ratio Fisher p-value Lab 1 0.997122 0.8653 Lab 2 0.980578 0.2486 These results do not provide stable evidence of an association between the selected variables in the full published counts. We also analyzed original event-level records from two experimental runs in April and June 2016. These files contain 20,403 valid paired events. By applying the original selection rule of 5,000 events per Bell-state class, we exactly reproduced the historical results. All 16 published sector counts matched, with zero differences. This demonstrates why correct event selection and source verification are important for reliable scientific calculations. 2. Photonic Quantum-Switch Experiment The second application examines published data from a 2026 photonic quantum-switch experiment. The original study reported a Bell-like causal-inequality value of approximately 1.8090 ± 0.0024, compared with a fixed-order bound of 1.75. We independently recalculated the relevant quantity using 256 published probability entries. Our calculated value was: 1.808954375 This agrees with the reported result at its published precision. We also examined six statistical comparisons involving measurement settings and marginal probabilities. These checks help distinguish an experimental causal-inequality result from a possible statistical relationship between an earlier event and a later setting. The two questions are different and should not be confused. 3. Testing the Method with 80,000 Synthetic Trials The third application uses 80,000 computer-generated trials, divided into four controlled scenarios. The scenarios represent: A system with no inserted effect. A system with a deliberately inserted statistical difference. A system affected by detection-efficiency differences. A system with information leakage before the earlier result was fully recorded. The software reproduced the expected numerical results for all four scenarios. These tests show how the method can identify known statistical patterns and distinguish them from possible experimental artifacts. The synthetic trials are software-validation data, not new laboratory observations. Main Contributions This paper brings together several important elements in one reproducible research workflow. 1. Clear event identification It defines which event happened earlier, which setting was chosen later, and how the records should be matched. 2. Exact statistical calculations It uses four-sector count tables, odds ratios, log-affinity measures, uncertainty estimates, and Fisher's exact tests. 3. Original-data verification It demonstrates how the correct historical event-selection rule can reproduce published results exactly. 4. Independent source comparisons It uses different quantum datasets without incorrectly treating their measurements as equivalent. 5. Reproducible software It provides a computational framework for repeating the calculations, checking results, and recording source limitations. Why Is This Work Useful? Scientific results become more valuable when other researchers can independently verify them. This paper offers a practical way to investigate complex quantum-data questions without depending only on interpretations or assumptions. The method can help researchers: Recheck published quantum experiments. Find problems caused by event selection or data matching. Compare statistical results across experimental runs. Separate real experimental measurements from simulated examples. Design more reliable tests for future quantum experiments. Understand which conclusions are supported by the available evidence. Scientific Scope This work is primarily about statistical verification, experimental-data interpretation, and reproducibility. It does not establish backwards-time signalling or a new fundamental physical law. The Munich published-count analysis and the two recovered original runs have different levels of source access. The quantum-switch experiment measures a different physical quantity. The synthetic trials are used only to test the software. These distinctions are maintained throughout the study. Data and Software Availability The calculations are supported by QDL Research Suite, a Python-based scientific software package containing tools for reproducible mathematical and statistical analysis. QDL Research Suite — All Versions: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22952901 QDL Research Suite v1.10.0 — Version Used: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23256494 The software provides calculation modules, reproducibility tools, automated tests, and verification outputs. The study also identifies the original experimental publications and available source datasets so that the calculations can be checked against their sources. Conclusion The central contribution of Paper 11 is a clear, source-linked method for checking quantum experimental data. It combines published experimental results, original event records, exact statistical methods, and controlled software tests. The work shows how careful data selection, transparent calculations, and independent verification can improve confidence in scientific analysis. Its purpose is to help make complex quantum research more understandable, reproducible, and reliable, while keeping mathematical results, experimental evidence, and physical interpretations clearly separated. Author: Roshankumar Chandaliya Research Program: Quantum Diverter Loop (QDL) Paper: 11 Version: V1.0.0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23261100
A Reproducible Method for Checking Earlier Events and Later Choices in Quantum Experiments QDL Research Program — Paper 11 | Version V1.0.0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23261100 Overview Quantum experiments can produce surprising results. Sometimes, an event is recorded first, and a measurement choice is made later. If these two events appear connected, an important question arises: Is this connection supported by the experimental data, or could it be explained by statistical variation, event selection, or measurement conditions? This paper presents a clear and reproducible method for investigating that question. It combines real experimental data, exact statistical calculations, source verification, and computer-based testing. The main goal is simple: make quantum-data calculations easier to understand, repeat, and independently check. What Does This Paper Study? The study examines how researchers can correctly compare an earlier recorded event with a later measurement setting. It focuses on five important questions: Were the earlier events and later settings correctly identified? Were all eligible events included using the original experimental rules? Do the observed numbers show a meaningful statistical relationship? Could selection effects, detection differences, or data-matching errors explain the result? Can another researcher reproduce the same calculations using the available sources? The paper provides mathematical formulas, numerical examples, source checks, and reproducible software for these questions. Three Main Research Applications 1. Munich Event-Ready Bell Experiment The first application studies data from a published quantum Bell experiment involving entangled atoms. The published dataset contains 55,568 events. We independently recalculated four-sector statistics from the published count tables. The main results are: Measurement Odds Ratio Fisher p-value Lab 1 0.997122 0.8653 Lab 2 0.980578 0.2486 These results do not provide stable evidence of an association between the selected variables in the full published counts. We also analyzed original event-level records from two experimental runs in April and June 2016. These files contain 20,403 valid paired events. By applying the original selection rule of 5,000 events per Bell-state class, we exactly reproduced the historical results. All 16 published sector counts matched, with zero differences. This demonstrates why correct event selection and source verification are important for reliable scientific calculations. 2. Photonic Quantum-Switch Experiment The second application examines published data from a 2026 photonic quantum-switch experiment. The original study reported a Bell-like causal-inequality value of approximately 1.8090 ± 0.0024, compared with a fixed-order bound of 1.75. We independently recalculated the relevant quantity using 256 published probability entries. Our calculated value was: 1.808954375 This agrees with the reported result at its published precision. We also examined six statistical comparisons involving measurement settings and marginal probabilities. These checks help distinguish an experimental causal-inequality result from a possible statistical relationship between an earlier event and a later setting. The two questions are different and should not be confused. 3. Testing the Method with 80,000 Synthetic Trials The third application uses 80,000 computer-generated trials, divided into four controlled scenarios. The scenarios represent: A system with no inserted effect. A system with a deliberately inserted statistical difference. A system affected by detection-efficiency differences. A system with information leakage before the earlier result was fully recorded. The software reproduced the expected numerical results for all four scenarios. These tests show how the method can identify known statistical patterns and distinguish them from possible experimental artifacts. The synthetic trials are software-validation data, not new laboratory observations. Main Contributions This paper brings together several important elements in one reproducible research workflow. 1. Clear event identification It defines which event happened earlier, which setting was chosen later, and how the records should be matched. 2. Exact statistical calculations It uses four-sector count tables, odds ratios, log-affinity measures, uncertainty estimates, and Fisher's exact tests. 3. Original-data verification It demonstrates how the correct historical event-selection rule can reproduce published results exactly. 4. Independent source comparisons It uses different quantum datasets without incorrectly treating their measurements as equivalent. 5. Reproducible software It provides a computational framework for repeating the calculations, checking results, and recording source limitations. Why Is This Work Useful? Scientific results become more valuable when other researchers can independently verify them. This paper offers a practical way to investigate complex quantum-data questions without depending only on interpretations or assumptions. The method can help researchers: Recheck published quantum experiments. Find problems caused by event selection or data matching. Compare statistical results across experimental runs. Separate real experimental measurements from simulated examples. Design more reliable tests for future quantum experiments. Understand which conclusions are supported by the available evidence. Scientific Scope This work is primarily about statistical verification, experimental-data interpretation, and reproducibility. It does not establish backwards-time signalling or a new fundamental physical law. The Munich published-count analysis and the two recovered original runs have different levels of source access. The quantum-switch experiment measures a different physical quantity. The synthetic trials are used only to test the software. These distinctions are maintained throughout the study. Data and Software Availability The calculations are supported by QDL Research Suite, a Python-based scientific software package containing tools for reproducible mathematical and statistical analysis. QDL Research Suite — All Versions: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22952901 QDL Research Suite v1.10.0 — Version Used: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23256494 The software provides calculation modules, reproducibility tools, automated tests, and verification outputs. The study also identifies the original experimental publications and available source datasets so that the calculations can be checked against their sources. Conclusion The central contribution of Paper 11 is a clear, source-linked method for checking quantum experimental data. It combines published experimental results, original event records, exact statistical methods, and controlled software tests. The work shows how careful data selection, transparent calculations, and independent verification can improve confidence in scientific analysis. Its purpose is to help make complex quantum research more understandable, reproducible, and reliable, while keeping mathematical results, experimental evidence, and physical interpretations clearly separated. Author: Roshankumar Chandaliya Research Program: Quantum Diverter Loop (QDL) Paper: 11 Version: V1.0.0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23261100
Overview This work presents a practical framework for testing whether an already recorded earlier binary outcome can show a genuine dependence on a newly generated later intervention. The main aim is to separate a potentially meaningful fresh-later effect from ordinary explanations such as postselection, setting-dependent loss, readout effects, hidden-variable ambiguity, incomplete trial inclusion, feedback, or other conventional causal paths. Main Contributions The paper develops and combines: a baseline-independent binary interaction measure based on the quarter-log odds ratio; an exact complete-nonselection benchmark showing that, under definite causal order and a later trace-preserving operation, an already finalized earlier marginal remains unchanged; an exact decomposition of observed interaction into true interaction and selection-induced interaction; a constructive demonstration that postselection can reproduce any strictly positive binary conditional table; a latent-selector model showing why a marginal interaction alone does not uniquely identify an underlying mechanism; independent-calibration methods that can turn an ambiguous fit into a testable forward prediction; sharp symmetric and asymmetric bounds for selection effects; systematic-aware effect-size and sample-size planning rules; and an eleven-gate eligibility framework covering chronology, fresh later choice, complete inclusion, readout stability, nonselection, conventional-path exclusion, inference, contamination control, and replication. Scientific Scope This paper provides a framework for decisive testing, not a claim that a nonstandard fresh-later physical effect has already been observed. Existing experiments are used as design and methodology benchmarks. The mathematical results do not by themselves establish retrocausality, future-to-past signalling, a universal physical law, or a unique microscopic mechanism. Reproducibility The work is supported by QDL Research Suite. All software versions are represented by the Zenodo Concept DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22952901 Paper 8 was specifically validated using QDL Research Suite v1.7.0, permanently archived at: 10.5281/zenodo.23112372 Included Files Main manuscript PDF Supporting Information PDF SHA256 checksum file for integrity verification Paper 8 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.23114300
This technical report develops and tests TWMSE Candidate Equation 4A, a phenomenological, threshold-activated model of observer-induced quantum collapse formulated to preserve Born weights and operational no-signalling while producing experimentally distinguishable dynamics. Candidate Equation 4A introduces a branch-sensitive Lindblad term whose activation depends on whether an operationally defined observer record exceeds a specified threshold. The report evaluates the equation’s mathematical consistency, including trace preservation, positivity, Born-weight preservation and operational no-signalling. It also examines individual stochastic trajectories, ensemble behaviour, synthetic count-level parameter recovery, statistical power and the consequences of model misspecification. A retrospective analysis is performed using published fitted GHZ decoherence-rate summaries from two superconducting-qubit studies. This is not an analysis of original laboratory shot-level data. The combined profile analysis finds no robust positive signal for Candidate Equation 4A. Instead, it establishes provisional, threshold-dependent upper limits on the additional collapse rate. Across the report’s primary threshold range of R* = 1–9, the largest pointwise one-sided 95% upper limit is approximately 7.3 × 10³ s⁻¹, while the tightest limit is approximately 3.0 × 10³ s⁻¹ at R* = 8. These are pointwise limits and do not constitute a simultaneous confidence band. The retrospective results therefore constrain but do not favour Candidate Equation 4A. Standard quantum mechanics remains sufficient to describe the analysed GHZ summaries and does so with fewer parameters. Candidate Equation 4A survives this preliminary confrontation only in the limited scientific sense that portions of its parameter space remain unexcluded. This non-exclusion is not evidence that the candidate is correct. The report consequently specifies a dedicated amplify–hold–erase experiment using matched record-forming and coherent-control circuits. The proposed test varies observer-record size, conditional record strength and dwell time while collecting count-level measurement outcomes and contemporaneous calibrations of conventional noise. The protocol is designed to distinguish a threshold-activated observer-record contribution from smooth, conventional decoherence and other experimental effects. A preregistration template, empirical-data schema and data dictionary are supplied so that the proposed experiment can be performed and analysed as an independently reproducible and falsifiable test. The accompanying ZIP archive is the complete, self-contained reproducibility package for the results reported here. It contains the code, simulation data, published GHZ rate summaries used as inputs, derived numerical outputs, documentation, software requirements and integrity checks required to reproduce the reported computational analyses and verify the packaged results. The archive contains: • the complete report in PDF, DOCX and Markdown formats;• deterministic Python reproduction scripts;• results from 500 density-matrix consistency trials;• 250,000 simulated stochastic trajectories;• 14,336 synthetic count-level circuit rows;• synthetic parameter-recovery and statistical-power results;• model-misspecification tests;• the published fitted GHZ rate summaries used in the retrospective analysis;• individual and joint GHZ profile-likelihood results;• prediction grids and report figures;• an empty 37-column template for future empirical raw data;• a data dictionary and preregistration template;• software-environment requirements and citation metadata; and• a SHA-256 manifest for package-integrity verification. The simulated trajectories and synthetic circuit counts are computational data rather than laboratory observations. The included GHZ inputs are published fitted rate summaries and are not original experimental shot counts. No new laboratory data are included, and no empirical discovery claim is made. Successful reproduction verifies that the supplied code generates the reported mathematical checks, simulations and retrospective statistical results. It does not establish that nature follows Candidate Equation 4A, demonstrate observer-induced collapse, or show that TWMSE is empirically preferred over standard quantum mechanics. The physical ideas, TWMSE framework, research direction and scientific interpretation are those of the author. Computational assistance was used for mathematical checking, simulation, statistical analysis, document preparation and reproducibility auditing. The author directed the research and accepts responsibility for the methodology, scientific claims, interpretations and conclusions. Candidate Equation 4A should therefore be understood as an explicit, internally testable and falsifiable phenomenological candidate that has passed the reported mathematical and computational consistency checks, remains compatible with the limited published summaries examined, and now requires the proposed dedicated raw-data experiment for a meaningful empirical test.
STATUS (18 October 2026). The physics programme that motivated this work was concluded in October 2026 and its claim of a unified derivation withdrawn. The results in this paper do not depend on that programme and stand as stated. Can an exact account of recorded events also determine what happens next? We examine this question in a finite quantum model with 48 preparations and an apparatus with ten distinguishable outcomes. Two reversible evolution rules reproduce exactly the same first-use specification but predict different results when the apparatus is used again. A separate example fixes one evolution rule: two possible histories then have identical counts of reads, commits and service events, yet different probabilities for the next outcome. Counts alone are therefore insufficient for prediction in this model. What remains visible depends on the observation. At eight preparations, even the complete individual-read distributions agree between the two rules, while correlations between the reads distinguish them. We classify two explicitly specified families of observations and determine exact ranges for the simpler family, showing both how distinctions are lost and how they can survive. The results separate event accounting, the choice of evolution, retained memory and the conversion of records into measured responses. They are conditional finite-model results, not a derivation of a physical dynamics or a measured coupling. The contribution is a set of exact counterexamples and classifications, rather than new principles of quantum theory. Exact computations and explicit proofs identify the additional response, weighting and sampling choices that a predictive physical interpretation must supply. Version 0.2 incorporates corrections following an author-requested preprint review. The deposit supplies the PDF, editable LaTeX with three TikZ figures, bibliography, exact fixture data for 96 two-read processes over 48 preparations, and a portable Python/SymPy verifier. The revised verifier passes 2,926 exact assertions. These are conditional finite-model results; no physical law, bridge, weighting or sampling measure is selected. The unchanged historical audit sources are available in a separately linked companion archive. Frozen audit sources and INT99 result dossier: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22541080.
This record contains version 2 of the preprint “Identifiability Limits in Experimental Tests of Quantum Collapse.” It supersedes the conceptually broader first version deposited under DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19617199 and substantially revises the framing, formal results and experimental analysis. The paper formulates experimental tests of objective-collapse dynamics as an operational identifiability problem. It shows that finite accessible CPTP process statistics cannot uniformly distinguish fundamental nonunitarity from an unrestricted unitary-environment dilation. It then separates visibility loss, record formation and global measurement access, and derives a nuisance-profiled Fisher-information criterion for determining when complementary measurement channels jointly identify a shared collapse-parameter vector. A four-arm matched-control architecture is proposed that combines baseline stability, coherent reversibility, calibrated decoherence, durable-record formation and at least one independent side-effect channel. The result is a falsifiable experimental decision framework and a boundary on what accessible data can establish; it is not presented as an ontological solution of the quantum measurement problem. A major technical revision is available as version 3 under DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22072199. This record contains version 2 of the preprint “Identifiability Limits in Experimental Tests of Quantum Collapse.” It supersedes the conceptually broader first version deposited under DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19617199 and substantially revises the framing, formal results and experimental analysis. The paper formulates experimental tests of objective-collapse dynamics as an operational identifiability problem. It shows that finite accessible CPTP process statistics cannot uniformly distinguish fundamental nonunitarity from an unrestricted unitary-environment dilation. It then separates visibility loss, record formation and global measurement access, and derives a nuisance-profiled Fisher-information criterion for determining when complementary measurement channels jointly identify a shared collapse-parameter vector. A four-arm matched-control architecture is proposed that combines baseline stability, coherent reversibility, calibrated decoherence, durable-record formation and at least one independent side-effect channel. The result is a falsifiable experimental decision framework and a boundary on what accessible data can establish; it is not presented as an ontological solution of the quantum measurement problem. Files in this record:1. Main preprint PDF.2. Reproducibility package containing the journal-neutral source, editable manuscript, original figures, deterministic calculation and figure-generation code, machine-readable results, citation metadata and SHA-256 checksums. The included calculations are deterministic mathematical and synthetic checks; they are not experimental validation.
Paper 9 - Exact General-d Affinity Reversal and Contrast-Space Invariants introduces a compact mathematical framework for understanding a simple but important question: When an interaction is reversed, what changes, what stays the same, and how can that be measured exactly? The paper extends binary affinity to general d-state systems, derives an exact reversal law, and introduces the transformed coordinate Ξd, for which reversal becomes especially simple: ΞR=−ΞF. It also identifies reversal-stable quantities and extends the analysis from a single scalar to the full interaction matrix Θ=HTln(Z)H, allowing richer multi-state structure to be studied through singular values, rank, interaction strength, determinant magnitude, and effective participation. Exact_General_d_Affinity_Revers… Exact_General_d_Affinity_Revers… Why it is useful: the framework can help researchers compare forward and reversed interaction descriptions, study systems with more than two states, test whether a single summary is sufficient, and identify stable geometric features in complex interaction data. The paper includes qutrit, qubit, and many-body validation examples to demonstrate how the method can be used in practice. Exact_General_d_Affinity_Revers… Connected QDL Research This work is part of the broader Quantum Diverter Loop (QDL) research program. Earlier QDL papers develop complementary tools for exact permutation analysis, exact counting and tail probabilities, model identifiability, higher-order interactions, cumulant response, multimode affinity geometry, causal testing, and binary affinity analysis. The methods from Papers 1–9, together with compatibility support for Papers 17–19, are organized in the reproducible QDL Research Suite v1.8.0, making the calculations easier to repeat, test, compare, and independently verify. QDL Research Suite v1.8.0:DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.23161137 All QDL Research Suite versions:DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22952901 In simple terms, this paper adds a new multi-state reversal layer to a growing QDL toolkit for exact mathematics, reproducible computation, interaction analysis, and independent verification.
Whether financial data require a quantum-probabilistic description has been debated since Khrennikov proposed Bell-type and total-probability tests for markets, yet the field still lacks an instrument whose verdicts can be trusted in either direction. We first show that Bell-type and Leggett–Garg inequalities computed on passively recorded price data cannot establish non-classicality by violating a classical bound: by Fine's theorem, jointly recorded variables always admit a classical joint distribution, so apparent violations arise only from combining different conditioning contexts, which can test specific classical models but not the need for a quantum description. We then construct an alternative instrument within this boundary: a family of quantum-like models (a two-dimensional collapse chain and general hidden quantum Markov models of dimension two and three) is compared out of sample with a deliberately strong classical class (Moore and Mealy hidden Markov models with up to six states, including the classical limits of the quantum models, and an observation-driven GARCH-type model). A quantum member counts as evidence only if it beats every classical candidate. Before reading real data, we calibrate the instrument in both directions on synthetic data with known ground truth. On one year of 15-minute data it detects quantum structures matched to its members down to about 0.001 log-likelihood units per bar, while producing no false detections in 20 classical simulations read under the same rule, nor in 60 earlier ones under a less strict rule; the real-data conclusions survive a larger classical class and a doubled optimisation budget. Calibration also exposes five ways in which quantum advantage can be manufactured from classical data. Applied to seasonally adjusted gold and silver data at two time scales, the instrument detects no quantum-like advantage; every 95% upper bound is negative. A pre-registered out-of-sample test on 2026 gold data was likewise not supported. The contribution is a tested ruler with stated resolution, not a claim about the ontology of markets. Code, frozen measurement protocol and all results: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23449779 (version 1.1). Pre-registration: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23400902; results record: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23401850. This paper revises the author's earlier claim that the interference statistic κ indicates non-classicality in gold (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19456823).