Does wavefront blurring from holographic foam scale differently with photon energy than Lorentz-violating dispersion predicts?

Your question asks whether wavefront blurring from holographic quantum foam follows a different energy scaling than standard Lorentz-violating dispersion predictions. This is a sharp, well-posed question about how quantum-gravity effects might show up in observations.

The key tension

The core issue is that wavefront blurring and energy-dependent time delays are *related but distinct* phenomena. Standard Lorentz-violating dispersion relations predict that photon velocity varies with energy—typically as a power law, like $v \propto E^n$ for some exponent $n$ [AG-2025.08-289]. This energy dependence naturally accumulates time delays over cosmological distances.

Wavefront blurring, however, describes the *spreading* of a point image due to accumulated path-length uncertainties from quantum foam. In holographic quantum-foam models, these uncertainties scale with the Planck length and accumulate along the propagation path [AG-2026.03-430]. The crucial observation is GRB221009A: an exceptionally bright, multi-TeV gamma-ray burst that was observed across the entire spectrum from infrared to X-rays [AG-2025.02-084]. If wavefront blurring accumulated as steeply with energy as naive foam models predicted, such high-energy photons should arrive smeared or defocused. They didn't.

Where the scalings diverge

In generic Lorentz-violating models with modified dispersion, the shower-formation length (how an energetic photon develops into a cascade in the atmosphere) changes significantly with the modification [AG-2025.08-1025]. String-inspired foam models, by contrast, can preserve the *kinematics* of shower formation even while introducing subluminal photon velocities. The blurring effect scales differently—it does not necessarily destroy the coherence needed for detection [AG-2025.08-1016].

Specifically: string-foam models avoid the "drastic changes on the formation length for the cascade development" that plague other Lorentz-violating approaches, suggesting that wavefront blurring in that scenario decouples from the shower constraints. This is not true of all Lorentz-violation schemes [AG-2025.08-1016].

The observational verdict

The fact that GRB221009A arrived sharp enough to be multi-messenger-detected at TeV energies is in tension with the simple prediction that foam-induced blurring should grow with both distance and energy [AG-2025.02-084]. String-inspired foam models (involving D-branes as spacetime defects) naturally evade some of these constraints, suggesting that the energy scaling of blurring in those scenarios is weaker or fundamentally different from generic Lorentz-violation dispersion [AG-2025.08-289, AG-2025.05-523].

Bottom line: Yes, holographic-foam blurring does scale differently than naïve Lorentz-violating dispersion would predict—but the details depend on which specific quantum-gravity model (string foam vs. generic LSV vs. LQG) you're comparing. The archive does not yet give a formula for that scaling difference.