Optical experiments have produced reliable and diverse records of spatial distributions, localized detection, energy exchange, and conditional statistics. This paper accepts those records and does not attribute the predictive success of quantum theory to cognitive error. Its aim is to audit the reasoning chain from experimental conditions, signal conversion, and instrument records to judgments about wave–particle ontology. The method separately defines source state, process action, process signal, observation signal, recorded data, statistical computation, and model interpretation, then revisits selected cases in that order and recalculates parameters from an atomic wave-packet scattering experiment published in 2025. Period analysis begins with the frequency of a specified signal mode and distinguishes carrier period, wave-packet duration, pulse repetition interval, detector time resolution, event interval, quantum-state occupation, and an observer’s temporal integration. The case audits show that localized clicks and accumulated interference distributions constrain different statistical levels; conditional subsamples in path-marking experiments do not replace the unsorted ensemble; and coherent fractions and path information in atomic wave-packet scattering depend on explicit model mappings. The evidence supports a limited conclusion: experimental records alone do not uniquely entail that light switches between two mutually exclusive ontological identities. Moving from model comparison to a universal ontological judgment requires additional argument. This paper does not claim that signal-identification bias caused the historical development of wave–particle duality, nor does it aim to eliminate quantum probability. The Discussion briefly introduces a candidate process picture in which continuous transmission and localized records coexist. Evidence reliability, scope, and limitations are summarized at the end. The paper closes the logic of the experimental inference chain; it does not provide quantitative constitutive closure for the candidate explanation.
Optical experiments have produced reliable and diverse records of spatial distributions, localized detection, energy exchange, and conditional statistics. This paper accepts those records and does not attribute the predictive success of quantum theory to cognitive error. Its aim is to audit the reasoning chain from experimental conditions, signal conversion, and instrument records to judgments about wave–particle ontology. The method separately defines source state, process action, process signal, observation signal, recorded data, statistical computation, and model interpretation, then revisits selected cases in that order and recalculates parameters from an atomic wave-packet scattering experiment published in 2025. Period analysis begins with the frequency of a specified signal mode and distinguishes carrier period, wave-packet duration, pulse repetition interval, detector time resolution, event interval, quantum-state occupation, and an observer’s temporal integration. The case audits show that localized clicks and accumulated interference distributions constrain different statistical levels; conditional subsamples in path-marking experiments do not replace the unsorted ensemble; and coherent fractions and path information in atomic wave-packet scattering depend on explicit model mappings. The evidence supports a limited conclusion: experimental records alone do not uniquely entail that light switches between two mutually exclusive ontological identities. Moving from model comparison to a universal ontological judgment requires additional argument. This paper does not claim that signal-identification bias caused the historical development of wave–particle duality, nor does it aim to eliminate quantum probability. The Discussion briefly introduces a candidate process picture in which continuous transmission and localized records coexist. Evidence reliability, scope, and limitations are summarized at the end. The paper closes the logic of the experimental inference chain; it does not provide quantitative constitutive closure for the candidate explanation.
Abstract Modern physics contains celebrated foundational problems whose empirical foundations are exceptionally strong while some ontological narratives attached to them are less tightly constrained. This paper develops a local logic audit of individual inferential transitions from established empirical facts O and accepted formal constraints F to stronger physical or ontological conclusions P. Core Unit: A single inferential arrow: given O and F, does P follow? If (O AND F) does not entail P, P is not declared false; it is returned to the status of an additional premise. Methodology: Subtractive and prior to solution-building—before asking how a proposed process X occurs, the audit asks whether the declared O and F establish that X occurs at all. Adjudication: Once inputs are declared, adjudication is logical rather than interpretive. Factual primacy is epistemic rather than metaphysical: a formal derivation cannot supply its own empirical warrant, and a prediction must return to an independently acquired record before it can function as evidence. Domain-Specific Audits The method is applied through three domain-specific audits, with a transversal question-level audit operating within them rather than constituting a fourth domain: 1. The Double-Slit Experiment: Physical which-path interactions alter the relevant state without requiring any special causal role for conscious observation; sequential localized detections nevertheless accumulate into an interference distribution, while quantum-eraser protocols display conditioned correlations without retroactively changing an earlier local record. 2. Reflexive Born-Rule & Entanglement: Separates empirical success, formal derivation, and ontological explanation. The familiar question "what physically collapses the wavefunction?" is audited before it is answered: a formal state update does not by itself establish an ontic wavefunction undergoing a literal physical collapse. In entanglement, operational differentiation, spatial separation, and dynamical decoupling do not by themselves establish physical severance or exhaustive ontological decomposition; the same audit is applied to the EPR Reality Criterion and to narratives of nonlocal recoordination. Relativistic Physics & Quantum Gravity 3. Background Ontology: The third audit asks what background ontology quantum foundations actually require from relativistic physics. Clock relations and Lorentzian structure do not by itself entail time as an independently fundamental substance or four-dimensional spacetime as the uniquely fundamental ontology. Gravitational phenomena and the tested structure of general relativity likewise constrain any deeper account without uniquely fixing its ontology. The GPS Example: The distinction among ontology, physics, and engineering is made explicit through the GPS example: technological dependence on relativistic timing validates the physical relations required for operation while fundamental ontology remains a further question. Quantum-Gravity Audit: Asks what observation, prediction, or formal structure of established quantum theory presently fails in an empirically demonstrated way because gravity has not been made a fundamental quantum interaction, separating cross-framework consistency from prior commitment to one ontology of the deeper theory.
Quantum interpretations differ in ontology, dynamics, and the meaning of quantum states, but these differences become empirical alternatives only when they yield different records for a com-mon experiment. Two worked comparisons establish where discrimination succeeds and fails. In a trapped-particle arrival-time model, paired spin ensembles have identical density operators but detector-free first-entry laws separated by an exactly calculable total-variation distance. A common quantum instrument nevertheless gives them identical record laws, with a sharp obstruction to re-producing both free-arrival distributions. A second comparison places universal unitary evolution and genuine collapse in the same coherent-memory experiment. An echo removes constant detuning but leaves ordinary Markov dephasing exactly confounded with collapse when their total rates co-incide. Independent noise and readout bounds yield a discrimination gap, an optimal observation time for equal trial cost, and a finite-sample guarantee. Comparisons involving GRW ontologies, relational quantum mechanics, and QBism clarify the roles of record formation and conditioning. Recent nanoparticle-interference and spontaneous-radiation experiments constrain specified collapse dynamics without uniquely favoring an ontology. A Bayesian analysis separates these constraints from posterior comparisons and from theoretical preferences based on scope, economy, and definite out-comes. It identifies the conditional case for Everett alongside the relevant Bohmian counterpoints. The resulting assessment permits unequal empirical support without claiming either universal equivalence or an experimentally established ranking of the surviving interpretations.
Diffraction and interference fringes are stable and reproducible objective phenomena in optical experiments. Mainstream quantum mechanics puts forward the ontological interpretation of wave particle duality. It holds that the material ontology of micro particles such as photons inherently possesses both particle and wave properties, and attributes diffraction and interference phenomena directly to the intrinsic matter wave behavior of particles. This interpretation stays at the level of observational appearance and avoids underlying ontological dynamic mechanisms. It represents a research approach that deduces the intrinsic properties of material ontology merely from external observations. Within the framework of the light ontology theory, a photon is an energy state object. Energy and motion at the speed of light form an inseparable whole and are permanently bound together and cannot be separated. In the real universe, no photon with energy that does not travel at the speed of light has ever been observed. Nor has any object moving at the speed of light without energy been detected. The two cannot exist independently from one another. A photon has no physical volume but possesses inherent fixed transverse trembling property. At the moment a photon is generated, it acquires a definite trembling angle within a 360 degree spatial plane perpendicular to its propagation direction. This transverse trembling orientation remains unchanged without physical collision interaction. When the transverse trembling of a photon can reach the slit wall, absorption and reradiation secondary scattering will occur. Massive secondary photons superpose statistically to form bright and dark diffraction and interference fringes. Slit walls are stacked by large numbers of atoms. Their spatial scale is hundreds of thousands to tens of millions times larger than the scale of photon transverse trembling. For photons, slit walls constitute huge physical barriers and can produce significant interactions with trembling photons. The wave function is only a mathematical tool for fitting experimental data. Good fitting performance of a mathematical model does not mean its corresponding physical interpretation equals objective physical reality. This paper proposes a new set of comparative decisionmaking experiments. The key innovation is to place a linear polarizer in front of the slit. Before photons contact the slit, the transverse trembling orientation of photons is pre screened. The transverse trembling direction of transmitted photons is made parallel to the orientation of vertical slit walls to suppress oscillation components perpendicular to slit walls and make it difficult for photons to hit slit walls. Polarizers with different grating line widths can be replaced to observe the influence of the grating scale of polarizers on experimental results. According to the physical mechanism of slit wall scattering, characteristic diffraction and interference fringes will be greatly attenuated and only the central direct light spot will remain. Non ideal device characteristics will bring a small amount of stray scattering background, but complete bright and dark diffraction and interference structures will not appear. According to the traditional ontological interpretation of wave particle duality, the geometric parameters of slits remain completely unchanged. Only polarization orientation screening is conducted and the intrinsic matter wave of particle ontology is not affected. Therefore diffraction and interference fringes should be fully preserved. The two theories produce mutually exclusive observable predictions. This experiment can test whether the ontological interpretation of wave particle duality holds true. This paper does not deny objective diffraction and interference phenomena, nor does it deny the practical value of wave function as an engineering calculation tool.
@5incere5cience · Sincere Science · We Are the Champions 20 1 1 2 3 5 8 ... ∞AbstractWe re-examine the double-slit experiment under the ontology established in prior@5incere5cience work — discrete energy packets (Einstein 1905a), relative time with zeroproper time on null worldlines (Einstein 1905b), time as the sequence of discrete interactionevents in each packet's own frame, and agency as the direction of spin at the forced resolutionnode. Under these axioms, the difference between the 'no detector' (OFF) and 'which-pathdetector' (ON) regimes is a difference in the number of resolution events traversed by thepacket in its own history: two ticks versus three. The packet itself is the same discrete object inboth cases. What is traditionally called wave-particle duality dissolves as a linguistic artifactarising from the attempt to reconcile two statistical patterns by postulating a change of nature.Weak-measurement phenomenology is accounted for as population mixing of binaryindividual-packet histories, anchored by direct macroscopic observation in microscopy ofStructured Vesicular Entities (SVEs). The delayed-choice quantum eraser (Kim et al. 1999)dissolves its apparent retrocausality via the same separability-failure move previously used todissolve Bell nonlocality. The quantitative derivation of the OFF-regime interferencedistribution from first principles — the analog of the cos2(θ) derivation completed forpolarization in an earlier paper — is flagged explicitly as an open problem. All claims aremarked with epistemic status (observation, logical consequence, working hypothesis, postulate,open problem) so that readers can identify which parts of the construction are load-bearing,which are exploratory, and which invite refinement.
This review paper examines foundational quantum experiments—such as the double-slit experiment, quantum erasers, weak measurements, and decoherence studies—through the lens of relational temporality. Rather than interpreting wave–particle duality as evidence for two competing ontological states, the paper proposes a conceptual shift: experimental results are better understood as distinguishing between relational structures extended across time and localized events that emerge through temporal fixation during measurement. By treating time as a relational process and measurement as a temporally constitutive interaction, several well-known paradoxes in quantum foundations can be reinterpreted without modifying the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. The review integrates insights from quantum theory, dynamical systems, and relational models of time to propose a coherent framework in which interference phenomena reflect temporally distributed relational structures, while particle-like detections correspond to stabilized events. This perspective suggests that many conceptual difficulties in quantum mechanics arise not from the theory itself but from classical assumptions about objects, intrinsic properties, and time as a passive background.
This deposit contains the complete English translation of v1 (28 January 2026) of the preprint “Dualité onde-corpuscule, choix retardé et présentisme probabiliste”. Published French source and related work Published French v1: Zenodo 18404150 — DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18404150 Concept DOI for the French work: 10.5281/zenodo.18404149 Reference preprint on probabilistic presentism: 10.5281/zenodo.18207811 Scope. Wave–particle duality and delayed-choice experiments are often presented as if present choices could rewrite the past. This article develops an alternative reading within probabilistic presentism: only the present exists ontologically, while the future corresponds to a structured space of possibilities. Central distinction. The wave aspect describes a coherent structure of possibilities before actualization; the particle aspect describes a present fact in the form of a localized event. The “late choice” fixes the experimental context in which a fact becomes defined; it does not retroactively alter an already factual past. Experiments and constraints. The discussion covers Born's rule, interference, which-path information, decoherence, outcome uniqueness, no-signalling, the double slit, Wheeler's delayed choice, delayed-choice quantum erasers, and EPR/Bell correlations. Conditional interference patterns are treated as post-selected correlations and not as signals sent into the past. Status. This is a conceptual and exploratory preprint. Interpretive claims are identified as such, and the framework is not presented as an experimentally validated replacement for quantum mechanics. Translation fidelity. This English edition is a translation, not a revised scientific version. It preserves the argumentative structure, equations, references, links, limitations, and epistemic qualifications of the published French v1.