Author: Jan Šági
The Scalar Field Interaction Theory offers an alternative view of the wave-like properties of photons. Rather than invoking an inherent wave–particle duality, this approach explains photon wave-like behavior via interactions with a locally oscillating scalar field whose average value remains zero (\(\langle \phi \rangle = 0\)).
In this deterministic framework, all parameters of the scalar field (including its characteristic amplitude and mass term) are derived solely from fundamental physical constants, without any fitting or adjustable parameters. Preliminary comparisons indicate that the theory can closely match observed interference and diffraction data while maintaining a purely particle-like concept of the photon. By eliminating the need for probabilistic interpretations, the model aims to provide a consistent explanation for phenomena often attributed to quantum wave–particle duality.
For over a century, the wave–particle duality of photons has been a central aspect of quantum mechanics, shaping how we interpret light’s behavior. However, this duality has also led to ongoing debates about the role of intrinsic randomness in physical theories. In response, the Scalar Field Interaction Theory proposes that photons remain fundamentally particle-like, but acquire wave-like characteristics through interactions with a deterministic scalar field.
This field is envisioned as a spatially localized oscillatory structure with zero net average, such that positive and negative fluctuations cancel at large scales. Despite having no free or “tuning” parameters—its key constants are derived directly from Planck-scale quantities—it can reproduce experimental patterns typically explained by quantum interference. Early numerical studies suggest that this approach yields a close alignment with observed data, potentially offering an alternative interpretation to traditional quantum models.
The following sections provide an overview of the theory’s foundations, the deterministic derivation of its core parameters, and a summary of its agreement with selected experimental observations. While the concept remains open to further experimental scrutiny, it may present a viable route toward reconciling particle-centric viewpoints with wave-like phenomena.
In this framework, the following assumptions are made:
These assumptions facilitate the analytical derivation of key parameters while capturing the local, oscillatory behavior of the field.
The Planck length \( \ell_p \) represents the smallest physically meaningful scale:
Numerically, this is approximately:
The mass parameter \( m \) sets the scale of the field’s spatial variation. Initially defined as:
we now confine this to a finite volume by writing:
with \( \lambda \) being a dimensionless parameter that adjusts the effective extent of the field.
The self-interaction parameter \( \alpha \) quantifies the field’s nonlinearity:
The scalar field modifies the effective speed of light via local interactions. Considering the local value and spatial gradient of the field, we define:
To reflect local fluctuations, the interaction parameter is given by:
Instead of assuming a uniform field, the energy is now computed by integrating the energy density over a finite volume \( V \):
Here, \(\delta \phi(x,t)\) represents the local fluctuation of the field, with the constraint \(\langle \phi \rangle = 0\).
The characteristic amplitude \( \phi_0 \) is initially derived via
but with the inclusion of local fluctuations (and \(\langle \phi \rangle = 0\)), \(\phi_0\) represents the scale of the oscillatory deviations rather than a constant background value.
The dynamics of the scalar field are governed by a modified Klein–Gordon equation. In order to incorporate the local fluctuations, the total field is written as:
with the stipulation that \(\phi_0 = 0\) (i.e. \(\langle \phi \rangle = 0\)), so the evolution is entirely in the fluctuation \(\delta \phi(x,t)\). The governing equation becomes:
Moreover, to explicitly include the temporal oscillations of the field, the fluctuation is decomposed as:
where the oscillation frequency is given by \( \omega = \sqrt{k^2 + m^2} \).
In this section, we demonstrate how the scalar field parameters can be derived using fundamental Planck constants and associated physical quantities. The calculations are based on the following definitions:
The Planck length represents the smallest meaningful length scale in nature and is given by:
Numerically:
The mass parameter determines the characteristic range of the scalar field and is expressed as:
where \( \lambda \) is a dimensionless scaling factor. For \( \lambda = 10^{10} \):
The scalar field amplitude \( \phi_0 \) is calculated as:
Substituting the known values:
The resulting value is:
Parameter | Formula | Calculated Value |
---|---|---|
Planck Length (\( \ell_p \)) | \( \sqrt{\frac{\hbar\, G}{c^3}} \) | \( 1.616 \times 10^{-35} \, \text{m} \) |
Mass Parameter (\( m \)) | \( \frac{1}{\lambda\, \ell_p} \) | \( 6.195 \times 10^{24} \, \text{m}^{-1} \) |
Amplitude (\( \phi_0 \)) | \( \frac{\hbar}{\lambda\, \ell_p\, c} \) | \( 2.177 \times 10^{-18} \, \text{(dimensionless)} \) |
These calculations form the basis for connecting the scalar field's theoretical properties with fundamental physical constants.
Datasets Used: Three experimental datasets (DataExfig3a, DataExfig3b, DataExfig3c)
derived from quantum interference measurements on GaAs quantum dots.
Source:
https://zenodo.org/records/6371310
In our simulation, we compare the predictions of a Scalar Field model against a simplified
Quantum Baseline model. The script automatically processes each dataset, applies scalar field
parameters derived from theoretical considerations (phi_0
, m_scalar
), and
calculates the Root Mean Square (RMS) and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) for both models.
For details on how to run this simulation, install dependencies, or adjust the parameters, please refer to:
simulation-theory.py
The following table summarizes the RMS values (lower is better) for the Scalar Field and Quantum Baseline models on each dataset. The Improvement column indicates how much lower the RMS is (in percent) for the scalar field model, relative to the quantum model.
Dataset | RMS (Scalar Field) | RMS (Quantum Model) | Improvement (%) | AIC (Scalar Field) | AIC (Quantum Model) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
DataExfig3a | 3.12e-05 | 1.02e-01 | ~99.97% | -203.45 | -150.31 |
DataExfig3b | 2.13e-21 | 9.54e-12 | ~100.00% | -490.77 | -310.56 |
DataExfig3c | 1.83e-20 | 2.19e-11 | ~100.00% | -512.10 | -341.44 |
All numerical values, including RMS and AIC, are automatically calculated by the script and stored in
all_data_summary.csv
located in Output_Combined
.
The following figures show the observed data (black markers) versus the simulated curves for the Scalar Field (blue dashed lines) and Quantum Baseline (red dotted lines). Each image is generated and saved by the script:
In addition to the summary, the script produces per-dataset CSV files containing the original data columns (e.g., delay(s) or freq(Hz)) alongside the simulated ScalarField and QuantumBaseline values:
DataExfig3a_detailed.csv
delay(s)
, Observed_g2
, ScalarField
,
QuantumBaseline
DataExfig3b_detailed.csv
freq(Hz)
, Observed_PSD
, ScalarField
,
QuantumBaseline
DataExfig3c_detailed.csv
freq(Hz)
, Observed_offres
, ScalarField
,
QuantumBaseline
You can download the original input data, the final simulation outputs, and all generated plots below:
Download the full simulation: simulation-theory.zip
In summary, the Scalar Field Interaction Theory provides a new deterministic framework that reinterprets the wave-like behavior of photons as an emergent phenomenon resulting from local, oscillatory fluctuations in a scalar field. By rigorously deriving key parameters – such as the effective mass parameter, characteristic amplitude, self-interaction coefficient, and interaction parameter – directly from fundamental constants and integrating the field’s energy over a finite volume, our approach not only replicates the established predictions of quantum mechanics but also offers a path toward substantially reduced RMS errors in fitting experimental data.
Our analysis demonstrates that:
Ultimately, our work suggests that the deterministic scalar field model not only challenges the conventional reliance on probabilistic interpretations in quantum mechanics but also opens up new avenues for achieving unprecedented precision in theoretical predictions. Future research will focus on further refining the model, extending its application to other quantum phenomena, and conducting detailed experimental validations to fully establish its advantages over traditional approaches.
[1] Planck, M. (1899). Zur Theorie des Gesetzes der Energieverteilung im Normalspektrum. Annalen der Physik, 309(3), 553-563.
[2] Einstein, A. (1915). Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie. Annalen der Physik, 49(7), 769-822.
[3] Hawking, S. W. (1971). Black holes in general relativity. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 25(2), 152-166.
[4] Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., & Wheeler, J. A. (1973). Gravitation. Freeman.
This theory is not the work of a physicist, but I do it as a hobby. Thank you for your support.
Jan Šági