Experiment to Test Elastic Solid / Aether Theory

Experiment 1

Double-slit, same field, different detector microstructure

• Illuminate a double-slit with a highly stable monochromatic beam (laser) attenuated so detection events are rare (so pattern builds up dot-by-dot).

• Use two detector types in identical geometry and flux:

• A continuous absorber / imaging plane (thick photochemical emulsion or CCD with many atoms per pixel).

• A sparse, strongly discrete detector: e.g., an array of individually addressable trapped atoms/ions or well-spaced quantum dots (where inter-absorber spacing is comparable to or larger than atomic dimensions).

• Keep everything else identical (wavelength, slit separation, exposure time).

Why

• The paper argues the interference/dot accumulation arises because a continuous EM field excites discrete atoms according to a local excitation probability (Monte-Carlo model shown in the doc). The detection statistics should therefore depend on the microscopic characteristics of the detector (atomic spacing, excitation cross-section, lifetime, exposure time) used in the accumulation model.

Predictions

• Classical-field + discrete-matter theory: The fine-grained (single-event) accumulation pattern — e.g., variance of counts per fringe, correlation of inter-dot spacing — will vary with detector discreteness (sparser detectors show different shot patterns even when normalized by average intensity). Timing dependence (exposure/τ) affects the per-atom excitation probability and therefore dot statistics.

• Standard QED (photons): When flux and detector quantum efficiency are the same, the statistical distribution of detection events across the interference pattern (after normalization) should be independent of the detector microstructure (aside from overall efficiency, added noise, and spatial resolution). That is, the same interference probability density.

How to read results

• If normalized, high-resolution statistical features (e.g., second-order spatial correlations, pixel-to-pixel variance beyond Poisson expectations) change systematically when swapping detector microstructure (beyond resolution/efficiency effects), that supports the document’s detector-driven mechanism. If nothing changes apart from trivial scaling/noise, that disfavors the classical-detector explanation.

Suggested parameters/apparatus

• Wavelength: 600–800 nm (easy lasers and detectors).

• Slit spacing: choose D/λ ≈ 10–50 to get multiple clear fringes.

• Detectors: scientific CCD/EMCCD (many-atom pixel) vs sparse quantum-dot arrays or trapped-atom fluorescence imaging. Keep geometric PSF equalized.

Experiment 2

This idea disagrees with the previous idea mentioning that "real QED already account for detector quantum efficiency variations, atomic-level detection probabilities and material properties affecting absorption cross-sections.

Hence a better idea would be instead of comparing different detectors, use one detector and testing the time-dependence prediction:

1. Fixed setup: Double-slit, single detector type, constant weak flux

2. Vary exposure time τ from very short to very long

3. Measure: Fringe visibility V as function of accumulated counts

Rashkovskiy predicts: V should decrease as V ∝ [1 - exp(-τb)]⁻¹ for longer τ

Standard QED predicts: V constant (when normalized by total counts), limited only by Poisson statistics

This would be a cleaner test because it isolates the claimed τ-dependence without confounding variables from different detector materials.

Experiment 3

Vary exposure time / intensity at low flux; test the Born-rule/τ dependence

• Reproduce the Monte-Carlo excitation idea: hold geometry fixed, vary the exposure time τ (or equivalently, the time window before reset of detectors) while keeping mean intensity low.

• Measure detection probability vs local field intensity at many positions across fringe maxima/minima.

The paper shows excitation probability P_exc = 1-exp(−I·τ) (their exctprop function) and argues Born’s rule emerges for small τ (linear regime) .

Predictions

• Classical-field + discrete-matter: Detection probability vs intensity will show deterministic deviations from linear (Born) scaling as τ increases: specifically saturation effects (P->1) in high-intensity/long-exposure, and nonlinear mapping that depends on τ.

• QED / standard Born rule: The Born rule gives detection probability proportional to intensity (for single-photon/low-intensity regimes). Saturation due to detector physics is recognized, but the dependence on exposure time (as an intrinsic mapping from classical intensity to detection clicks) beyond known detector saturation would be evidence for the alternative view.

Reading the results

• Demonstrate whether the observed I -> P mapping at low intensity deviates from the linear Born expectation in a way explained only by detector saturation (known detector models) or requires a new τ-dependent fundamental model.

Intensities down to single-photon equivalent rates; variable exposure windows 10 ns to seconds; use detectors with well-known dead-time and dynamic range.