Author: Jan Šági
Contact: sagiphp@gmail.com
For more than a century, light (photons) has been described as exhibiting “wave–particle duality.” In some experiments, it behaves like a wave (producing interference and diffraction patterns), while in others it behaves like a particle (as seen in the photoelectric effect). Although quantum mechanics explains these phenomena well, it does so by introducing concepts of probability and the collapse of the wave function during measurement.
My Scalar Field Interaction Theory proposes an alternative mechanism: photons might be purely particle-like, with their apparent wave properties arising from interactions with a separate, oscillating scalar field that permeates space. In this deterministic view, the “randomness” of quantum events stems from our incomplete knowledge of this hidden field.
I envision a scalar field as an all-pervading layer with one crucial property: its overall average value is zero. This means that any positive fluctuation in one region is balanced by a negative fluctuation elsewhere. Nonetheless, local variations in the field can subtly influence the paths of particles passing through it.
By coupling to photons, this field can produce interference-like patterns without requiring that each photon behaves as a wave. Instead, the field’s "hills" and "valleys" deterministically guide the photon’s path. However, if we do not know the exact configuration of the field, the outcomes appear probabilistic.
In standard quantum mechanics, interference patterns emerge because a photon is described by a wave function that seems to pass through multiple slits simultaneously. In my scalar field theory, the photon remains a single particle, but the local fluctuations of the scalar field determine its trajectory. This can result in the same interference fringes observed on a detector.
In other words, the wave patterns we observe are not because the photon is a wave, but because the particle responds to the complex structure of the underlying field.
This theory is based on well-known fundamental constants of physics: the Planck length (ℓₚ), the speed of light (c), and the reduced Planck constant (ħ). These constants allow us to estimate the oscillation rate and typical strength (amplitude) of the scalar field.
A key equation for the amplitude of the scalar field is:
φ₀ ≈ ħ / (λ · ℓₚ · c)
Here, λ is a dimensionless factor. This equation shows that the properties of the field are derived directly from fundamental physics.
Scientific notation is a way of writing very large or very small numbers in a compact form. For example, the number 1.602 × 10–19 means 1.602 multiplied by 10 raised to the power of –19. In decimal form, this is approximately 0.0000000000000000001602. This method makes it easier to work with extreme values without writing out many zeros.
The key scalar field parameters are as follows:
These values are derived from well-known fundamental constants. For example, the electron’s reduced Compton wavelength is given by:
and the Planck length is defined as:
The ratio \(\frac{\lambda_e}{\ell_p}\) turns out to be enormous. In our theory, the scaling parameter λ is related to this ratio (possibly raised to a specific power), yielding a value on the order of 1010.
Once λ is determined, the scalar amplitude φ₀ follows from the relation:
where the Planck mass is defined by:
Rearranging, we obtain:
With \(m_P \approx 2.18 \times 10^{-8}\) kg and λ ≈ 9.98 × 109, we get:
Thus, the seemingly arbitrary numbers for the scalar field parameters actually emerge naturally from the fundamental constants.
I have tested my model against experimental interference data from GaAs quantum dots. The scalar field approach reproduces the data with errors (measured by statistical metrics such as RMS) that are comparable to—or even lower than—those predicted by conventional quantum models. Although further tests are required, these initial results are very promising.
In this section, we show how to derive some of the key fundamental constants using simple arithmetic steps (multiplication and division). All values are presented in full scientific notation along with their approximate decimal equivalents for clarity.
The Gravitational Constant expresses the strength of the gravitational force between masses. We use the equation:
G = (ħ · c) / (mP)²
Where the constants are given as:
Steps:
Thus, G ≈ 6.67 × 10–11 m³/(kg·s²), which is consistent with the measured value.
The Fine Structure Constant quantifies the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. Its equation is:
α = e² / (4π · ε₀ · ħ · c)
Where:
Steps:
Therefore, α ≈ 0.00730, which aligns with the accepted value of approximately 1/137.
The Bohr Magneton represents the magnetic moment of the electron and is defined as:
μB = (e · ħ) / (2 · me)
Where:
Steps:
This value is consistent with the measured Bohr Magneton.
Q1: What are fundamental constants?
Fundamental constants are numbers that describe the basic properties of nature – for example, the speed of light, Planck’s constant, and the elementary charge. They form the foundation of physical laws and determine how forces and particles interact throughout the universe.
Q2: How were these constants traditionally obtained, and how does this theory change that?
Traditionally, the values of these constants were determined solely through precise experimental measurements. They were accepted as given parameters of nature without an underlying explanation for why they had those specific values. This theory offers a way to derive these constants from more fundamental relationships, suggesting that their values are not arbitrary. Instead, they emerge from deeper principles that were previously overlooked, thus providing a more unified view of the physical laws.
Q3: Why are these constants important?
The constants determine the strength of gravity, the behavior of electromagnetic interactions, and the properties of elementary particles. They are essential for understanding the structure and dynamics of our universe. This theory emphasizes that our universe is not finely tuned by random chance but is governed by profound, underlying relationships. Importantly, while quantum mechanics remains a robust and successful framework, this theory extends some of its aspects—providing additional insight into why these constants have their observed values. It is analogous to the way Einstein’s theory of relativity expanded on Newtonian mechanics by revealing deeper insights into gravity.
This theory is not the work of a professional physicist, but I pursue it as a hobby.
Jan Šági