Q.C. Zhang Twistor Configuration Geometry
← All papers foundations

Null-Boundary Response

Predictive companion to BDNC: a no-signaling-preserving antisymmetric correction to coincidence statistics with a six-feature experimental fingerprint. Linear angular envelope f(α_A, α_B) = α_A − α_B as primary ansatz. v2 adds a §6.3 control-case discussion of the Angulo et al. negative-excitation-time experiment, emphasizing that NBR's predictive content must be sharper than ordinary weak-value anomalies.

Published
DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20090734

Abstract

The boundary-defined null connection (BDNC) framework identifies unsorted-marginal stability as the diagnostic location where any predictively distinct extension of standard quantum mechanics would have to depart, but stops short of supplying a BDNC-specific predictive law: a generic future-state weighting ansatz amounts to a no-signaling violation rather than a BDNC-specific signature. This paper supplies one candidate.

We propose the Null-Boundary Response postulate: in experiments with multiple coherent null alternatives and a future absorber boundary that partitions the channels, the joint source-absorber probability differs from standard quantum mechanics by a small response term proportional to the boundary-sensitive imaginary coherence between alternatives, antisymmetric across complementary absorber channels. The antisymmetry forces mΔPm=0\sum_m \Delta P_m = 0 by construction, so no-signaling is preserved exactly: BDNC predicts no raw marginal violation.

We derive that the imaginary-coherence form Im[ΨAΨB]\mathrm{Im}[\Psi_A^*\Psi_B] falls out of a first-order expansion under a future-boundary-dependent path-dependent phase twist, and that the natural distinguishability window from the marker-induced reduction is W(D)=D1D2W(D) = D\sqrt{1-D^2}, peaking at D=1/2D = 1/\sqrt{2}.

The experimental signature is a small in-quadrature phase-shift residual in the coincidence-difference fringe pattern of a phase-scanned delayed-choice quantum eraser, antisymmetric across complementary post-selection channels and invisible in the unsorted marginal. The signature carries a six-feature fingerprint that distinguishes it from generic no-signaling violation, ordinary decoherence, detector bias, and standard two-state-vector imaginary weak values.

We sketch the experimental protocol, identify basis-calibration as the principal systematic, and discuss what would constitute genuine confirmation versus confounding.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20090734