My reaction to this is, that Tom's description of "the system" is probably not accurate, though many of the ideas might be valid. It doesn't seem to me that this is more "hacking" than the diffraction pattern itself, which isn't "supposed" to be revealed as it "breaks belief" in the world.
Where does light go in the "troughs"? It disappears, but when you move the screen it appears again. When you stand in a trough, it is impossible to know light is "going through" you.
There are similar quantum mysteries with light involving polaroid filters.
I was thinking of hacking as along the lines of using a technology in an "off label" application, digging below the granularity of the specs, and that the system seems to not be able to hide itself, or more likely, leaves this jewel there to be found, with intention
in small physics speak, the two apparent wave forms pass through each other, and half the time they are partially or fully cancelling each other out, and half the time they are combining with each other - curiously...I actually did the interference experiment with water through 2 slits in high school physics
of course, there is no opportunity to apply the quantum eraser here... as a water wave is really a wave
so, a darkness trough is just one wave up and one wave down, at the same point, adding to zero (darkness), creating the appearance of energy flowing through an unknown medium, just like a water wave
at a certain point of fine granularity, we start to see this apparent light wave at the particle level, so the big computer switches the scenario for conciousness perceiving particle behavior - like ordering a sandwich at a deli..."is that a number 32 or 46 Jerry?" or a set change between acts in a play
perhaps I am overreacting, but part of the local ruleset, which Ted enforces, is that we do not insult Ted or Tom unnecessarily. Saying Tom's model is not likely true, will likely attract uncomfortable attention, and this would be remedied by being more specific.
most likely, you are reacting to my poor representation of the model in this regard...and might have a different impression from spending more time with source works
as open scepticism is paramount, such a blanket statement without focused and detailed argumentation will likely be dismissed as unhelpful, or attract an uncomfortable Ted probing, which often leads to ejection, depending on how you respond.
In the past, Ted has been quite strict in this regard, especially regarding how we speak of Tom in his forum house.
This is not guru worship, just focused professionalism.