To make sure one isn't setting up a straw man argument, that is, making up an opponent's position so it can be easily refuted, one has to find out what theists actually mean by "omniscience". The theist must define this, not the atheist. Given a quotable definition, the atheist can then try to find a logical flaw with that definition.
Wikipedia provides a basic definition that can be used as a starting point:
Omniscience...mainly in religion, is the capacity to
know everything that there is to know.
To get more specific, William Lane Craig, a theistic philosopher, defines omniscience in "#164 The Trinity and God’s Omni- Attributes" as
The property of omniscience is the property of knowing that p, for any
true proposition p, and not believing not-p, or, in other words, the
property of knowing only and all true propositions.
Consider the atheistic argument presented by the OP:
- If an omniscient being exists, there exists knowledge about the location and momentum of every particle in the universe.
- When Young's classic double-slit experiment is performed, an interference pattern is produced.
- This indicates that no knowledge exists about the path the photons take.
- Therefore, an omniscient being does not exist.
Clearly there is a conflict between premises 1 and 3. In premise 1 there exists knowledge about the behavior of a photon that does not exist in premise 3. However, there is no quote from a theist justifying that premise 1 is what theists actually believe. This raises the possibility that premise 1 is set up to attack a straw man.
Consider the general Wikipedia definition of "omniscience" as "the capacity to know everything that there is to know". Note that premise 3 states "that no knowledge exists about the path the photons take". By this definition, one should not expect an omniscient being to know something for which "no knowledge exists". There is nothing there to know.
To get more specific, consider the definition Craig provided. Does there exist a true proposition about "the path the photons take"? According to premise 3 "no knowledge exists", that is, no such propositions exist. According to Craig's definition of omniscience there is also no contradiction.
This is not to say that some theists don't have definitions of omniscience that lead to a contradiction when coupled with premise 3. They might. However, the definitions from Wikipedia and Craig show that they can easily avoid this contradiction.
The OP has a further question:
Can someone point me to writings about arguments like this one?
The logical problem of evil presents something similar. The existence of evil given an omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent God was claimed to be contradictory. Alvin Plantinga provided his "Free Will Defense" to resolve that apparent logical contradiction.