Scalar Field Interaction Theory: A Layman’s Overview

For more than a century, light (photons) has been described as having a “wave–particle duality.” In some experiments, it behaves like a wave (interference and diffraction), while in others it behaves like a particle (photoelectric effect). Quantum mechanics brilliantly explains these effects but does so by introducing concepts of probability and the collapse of a “wave function” upon measurement.

My Scalar Field Interaction Theory suggests a different mechanism: photons might be purely particle-like, while their apparent wave features are caused by interactions with a separate, oscillating scalar field that fills space. In this deterministic view, the “randomness” of quantum events is replaced by our incomplete knowledge of this hidden field.

2. What Is a Scalar Field and Why Is It Crucial?

I envision a scalar field as an overarching “layer” present throughout the universe, with a crucial property: its average overall value is zero. This means any positive fluctuation in one region is balanced by a negative fluctuation elsewhere. Even so, local changes in the field can subtly affect the paths of particles passing through it.

By coupling to photons, this field can reproduce interference-like patterns without requiring that each photon itself acts like a wave. Instead, the field’s “hills” and “valleys” guide the photon’s path in a deterministic manner. However, if we do not know the exact structure of the field, we only see what appears to be random quantum probabilities.

3. Connecting It to Photon Behavior

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 background field fluctuations determine how the photon’s trajectory changes at each point. This can produce the same interference fringes on a detector.

In other words, the wave patterns we see on a screen can be explained not by the photon being a wave, but by the particle responding to a complex “landscape” of the scalar field.

4. Basic Building Blocks (Minimal Math)

My theory relies on well-known fundamental constants of physics: the Planck length (\(\ell_p\)), the speed of light (\(c\)), and the reduced Planck’s constant (\(\hbar\)). From these, one can estimate how rapidly the scalar field oscillates and its typical strength (amplitude).

A key equation (in a simplified form) for the amplitude of the scalar field is:

Here, \(\lambda\) is a dimensionless factor, and \(\ell_p\) is the Planck length, a very small scale (\(1.616\times10^{-35}\) m). This shows that the field’s properties come directly from fundamental physics rather than from arbitrary guesses.

5. Agreement With Experiments

I tested my model against experimental interference data from GaAs quantum dots, comparing it to standard quantum models. I found that my scalar field approach reproduced the data with errors (measured by statistical metrics like RMS) that were at least as low — and sometimes lower — than those predicted by typical quantum calculations. This is intriguing, though further tests are needed to confirm that the theory holds up under a wider range of phenomena (entanglement, many-particle systems, and so on).

6. Why Might This Theory Be Important?

7. Conclusion

In summary, my Scalar Field Interaction Theory provides a novel, deterministic way to explain photon interference. By positing a subtle, fluctuating field that interacts with photons, it reproduces interference without invoking wave–particle duality or intrinsic randomness. The theory’s parameters are closely tied to fundamental constants, reinforcing its physical motivation.

Future research will likely explore how well this theory can handle other quantum phenomena (like tunneling and entanglement) and whether it can survive in-depth experimental scrutiny. If it does, it could become an exciting alternative way of understanding the quantum world.

Extended Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What “paradoxes” are often associated with quantum mechanics?
Two famous examples are: Wave–particle duality, where photons/electrons seem to behave as both waves and particles, and the role of randomness/probabilities, where the outcome of a measurement appears fundamentally unpredictable until the wave function “collapses.”

Q2: Could a scalar field replace the “mysterious” wave function?
In my theory, the scalar field acts as a “hidden layer” that truly governs particle trajectories. Without knowledge of this field, all we can do is rely on probabilities and wave functions. The apparent “collapse” of the wave function might simply be a lack of information about how the field is guiding the particle.

Q3: How does the scalar field determine particle paths?
Imagine the field as an ever-shifting landscape of hills and valleys. Photons roll along these contours in a strictly determined way. If you know the shape of the landscape in detail, you could, in principle, predict exactly where a photon ends up—no collapse or randomness needed. But if you do not know the field’s details, you only see statistical outcomes.

Q4: Does this mean standard quantum mechanics is “wrong”?
Not necessarily. Quantum mechanics accurately predicts probabilities. My scalar field theory posits that those probabilities arise from incomplete information about a deeper, deterministic reality. Historically, “hidden-variable” theories like de Broglie–Bohm have explored similar ideas. Only time and further experiments can tell if my approach can rival or surpass the mainstream quantum theory.

Q5: How are interference patterns explained here?
In standard quantum mechanics, the photon’s wave function passes through both slits and interferes with itself. In my scalar field approach, the photon is still a single particle, but the scalar field’s oscillations cause it to deviate in a way that reproduces the same interference fringes on a detector. The difference lies in the underlying mechanism.

Q6: What if the scalar field simply doesn’t exist?
Then, quantum mechanics remains as we know it—hugely successful. This is one possible alternative explanation. If proven to handle all quantum experiments consistently (and perhaps even predict new phenomena), it might gain acceptance. Otherwise, it remains an interesting theoretical exploration.

Q7: How does Schrödinger’s Cat paradox or many-worlds view fit into this?
Schrödinger’s Cat is a classic illustration of quantum superposition: the cat in the box is often said to be “both alive and dead” until observed. In some interpretations, such as the many-worlds theory, every possible outcome occurs in its own separate “branch” of the universe—so in one branch the cat survives, in another it does not.

In my scalar field view, I see this more as a question of whether we fully know the global configuration of the field. If we do not know exactly how the field influences the cat’s entire environment, then to us, the cat’s fate appears uncertain or in a superposition. But if the field itself is fully deterministic, the cat would be in one definite state—even though we may be unable to predict it without complete information about the scalar field’s fluctuations. Unlike many-worlds, I do not necessarily posit that the universe “splits” for each outcome; rather, all these outcomes could be deterministic results of a deeper, underlying field configuration. In that sense, the “cat paradox” reflects our lack of knowledge about the field, rather than a genuine coexistence of all outcomes.

This theory is not the work of a physicist, but I do it as a hobby. Thank you for your support.
Jan Šági