Per rule 9, could you provide a source for your interpretation of the double slit experiment, specifically that “there is no sort of wave collapse” and “the photons absorbed by film or eyes were just not impacting the surface because they were absorbed elsewhere, causing less friction between the photons and changing the patterns on the surface.”?

This appears contradictory to the standard quantum mechanical explanation for the interference pattern, which is that the wavefunction of the photons passes through both slits, interfering with itself and changing the probability of detection or interaction at specific points along the film/sensor.

The effect isn’t unique to photons and has been observed with electrons, atoms, and even large molecules. As long as the slit size and spacing are comparable to the wavelength of the particle wavefunction it’ll work.

The photon wavefunction being a superposition of position states that self-interact, and then collapse into a single state/location when interacting with a non-quantum object are fundamental to quantum mechanics, and are part of the reason this experiment is such a great introduction to QM. The many worlds interpretation of wavefunction collapse is not fundamental- it’s one of many interpretations for what the math of QM means and not even the most popular amongst theorists (that’d be the Copenhagen Interpretation).