This paper proposes a physical hypothesis based on the axiomatic system of "Information = Energy = Mass," reinterpreting wave-particle duality as a phase transition between two material states of the photon: the "wave-photon" (massless, volumeless) and the "particle-photon" (massive, occupying volume). In this framework, observation is defined as an external perturbation that pays energy to the underlying system through information interaction, triggering a wave-to-particle phase transition. The core falsifiable criterion is as follows: in an interferometer experiment, as the observation intensity (I) is gradually increased, the photon's time-of-flight delay (ΔT) should exhibit a monotonic increase followed by a plateau. To eliminate systematic errors, a second independent verification path is proposed: simultaneous measurement of the real-time power consumption inflection point of the path marker. This hypothesis predicts that the inflection points (plateau onsets) of the two paths must coincide; if the inflection points are misaligned, the hypothesis is invalidated. If the two paths independently measure the same energy threshold E₀, this would prove the existence of a new physical constant connecting the quantum and classical domains. This paper further proposes an alternative interpretation of the "Many-Worlds Interpretation (parallel universes)": quantum interference does not split off new universes but manifests the overlapping and de-correlation of logical links within the underlying information-energy field.
This paper proposes a physical hypothesis based on the axiomatic system of "Information = Energy = Mass," reinterpreting wave-particle duality as a phase transition between two material states of the photon: the "wave-photon" (massless, volumeless) and the "particle-photon" (massive, occupying volume). In this framework, observation is defined as an external perturbation that pays energy to the underlying system through information interaction, triggering a wave-to-particle phase transition. The core falsifiable criterion is as follows: in an interferometer experiment, as the observation intensity (I) is gradually increased, the photon's time-of-flight delay (ΔT) should exhibit a monotonic increase followed by a plateau. To eliminate systematic errors, a second independent verification path is proposed: simultaneous measurement of the real-time power consumption inflection point of the path marker. This hypothesis predicts that the inflection points (plateau onsets) of the two paths must coincide; if the inflection points are misaligned, the hypothesis is invalidated. If the two paths independently measure the same energy threshold E₀, this would prove the existence of a new physical constant connecting the quantum and classical domains. This paper further proposes an alternative interpretation of the "Many-Worlds Interpretation (parallel universes)": quantum interference does not split off new universes but manifests the overlapping and de-correlation of logical links within the underlying information-energy field.
Abstract:Wave–particle duality remains one of the most conceptually challenging aspects of quantum mechanics. Standard interpretations describe the transition between wave-like and particle-like behavior through complementarity or measurement-induced collapse, but do not specify the underlying mechanism.This work proposes a new interpretation based on Informational Distinguishability (ID): a quantum system behaves as a wave when its possible micro-configurations or paths are informationally indistinguishable, and as a particle when environmental structure renders these configurations distinguishable. The transition corresponds to an informational compression rather than an observer-dependent collapse.The framework naturally explains interference disappearance, quantum erasers, delayed-choice phenomena, and upstream mode switching. It also yields falsifiable predictions, including quantitative thresholds of distinguishability and controlled partial-interference regimes.The model provides a unifying informational foundation for wave–particle behavior and suggests new directions in quantum foundations, measurement theory, and informational physics.
Wave-particle duality has remained, for more than a century, an unresolved logical problem. Einstein transferred the contradiction into the concept of the photon; the orthodox interpretation deferred it as "complementarity." This article proposes an ontological reinterpretation: what moves as a particle is energy (concentrated at a point); what spreads and interferes is interaction (distributed in space). They are two distinct entities, not two aspects of the same entity. This distinction dissolves the ontological enigmas of duality — retrocausality, destructive interference, and superposition — without abandoning the confirmed equations of the quantum method. The collapse of measurement, following (Flor, 2026a), is dissolved as a characteristic of the probabilistic method. Under the demarcation framework of (Flor, 2026h), the classical formulation of duality violates the non-negotiable pillar of logical consistency; the proposed distinction restores it and occupies the legitimate antechamber of scientific speculation, awaiting the experimental test proposed in Section 10. The proposal connects to the field-medium model (Flor, 2026l), where c is a local property of the field resulting from interactions. The onset of interaction is not limited by c; only its peak is. This produces a falsifiable prediction and the honest acknowledgment that the proposal implies, in principle, the possibility of superluminal transmission of information. The article is programmatic: it dissolves the logical paradox, proposes an experimental test, and defers the quantitative reconstruction of the quantum formalism and the definition of the nature of light to future articles. A note on the originality of the distinction is included in the introduction.
The Observer Effect and Wave–Particle Duality in the S-field Framework --- 1. The traditional wave–particle problem In standard quantum mechanics, physical entities appear to behave: • as waves in interference experiments; • as particles when measured or detected. This has led to the idea that observation itself changes reality, often formulated as: “measurement collapses the wavefunction”. However, this formulation leaves unresolved questions: • What qualifies as an observer? • Why should information acquisition alter physical law? • Where exactly does the transition occur? --- 2. S-field perspective: no wave, no particle as primitives In the S-field framework, neither “wave” nor “particle” is fundamental. At the base level, there exist only: • oscillatory S-field states; • phase, frequency, and orientation; • dynamic resonance patterns. Wave and particle are emergent regimes, not ontological categories. 3. Wave behavior: coherent phase evolution A system exhibits wave-like behavior when: • S-oscillations evolve coherently; • multiple phase paths remain phase-correlated; • no dominant resonance locking occurs. In this regime: • interference patterns arise naturally; • delocalization reflects phase superposition; • the system evolves as a distributed resonance structure. “Wave” behavior is therefore a manifestation of extended phase coherence. --- 4. Particle behavior: resonance locking Particle-like behavior emerges when: • the S-oscillatory ensemble undergoes strong phase locking; • coherence collapses into a dominant resonant configuration; • the system enters a stable 4D projection. Localization is not imposed externally — it is a self-organized resonance outcome. A “particle” is a stable, self-locked oscillatory ensemble. 5. What observation actually does Observation does not create reality and does not collapse a wavefunction. Instead, observation means: • physical interaction with an environment; • introduction of new S-field couplings; • modification of phase relations. This interaction typically: • reduces global phase coherence; • enforces resonance selection; • stabilizes a particular outcome. Thus, observation is not epistemic — it is dynamical. --- 6. Why which-path information destroys interference Interference disappears because: • phase correlations are disrupted; • alternative phase paths decohere; • the system is forced into locally stable resonance modes. Which-path information is not special — any interaction that breaks coherence removes interference. No observer consciousness is required. 7. Delayed-choice experiments In delayed-choice scenarios: • the system remains in a coherent oscillatory regime; • no definitive resonance locking occurs until interaction; • temporal ordering appears paradoxical only classically. In the S-field framework: • time itself emerges from phase ordering; • coherence preservation allows late-mode selection; • no retrocausality is involved. The outcome reflects final coherence conditions, not past knowledge. --- 8. No collapse, only regime transition There is no physical “collapse”. Instead, there is: • a transition from distributed coherence to localized resonance stability; • a change of dynamical regime; • emergence of macroscopic definiteness. Wave → particle transition is micro → macro coherence restructuring. 9. One-sentence synthesis > Wave–particle duality is not a duality of objects, but a duality of coherence regimes in the S-field. --- 10. Conceptual closure This interpretation: • removes observer-dependence; • preserves realism; • unifies wave and particle behavior dynamically; • aligns quantum phenomena with micro–macro transition theory. Si(t) = Ai · e^( i( ωi·t + φi ) ) C = | (1 / N) · Σ_{i=1}^N e^( i φi ) | Order parameter (complex): R·e^( iΨ ) = (1 / N) · Σ_{j=1}^N e^( i φ_j ) , C ≡ R Kuramoto-type phase dynamics (micro ensemble): dφ_i/dt = ω_i + (K / N) · Σ_{j=1}^N sin( φ_j − φ_i ) Self-consistent equation for stationary coherence R: R = ∫ dω g(ω) · √(1 − (ω/(K R))^2 ) (for |ω| ≤ K R) — standard Kuramoto integral form Mass as emergent resonant integral: m ∝ ∫ ρ_S(χ) · C(χ) · dV_S(χ) Micro→macro criterion: C ≥ C_crit ⇒ stable 4D projection (particle regime) C < C_crit ⇒ incoherent / wave-like regime Interference visibility and intensity (two-path): I(Δφ) = I_0 · [ 1 + V · cos( Δφ ) ] , V ∝ C Coherence decay under environment coupling (phenomenological): dC/dt = α(K,…) · C − Γ_env · C ⇒ C(t) = C(0) · e^{ (α − Γ_env) t } Decoherence rate (Fermi-golden-rule style): Γ_env(ω) = (2π / ħ) · |V_int(ω)|^2 · ρ_env(ω) Measurement interaction as coupling-induced locking (mean-field): dr/dt = (K/2) · r · (1 − r^2) − γ · r , fixed points r = 0 (wave) and r = r_* > 0 (particle) when K > K_c Which-path disruption condition: any interaction s.t. Γ_env ≳ α(K,…) ⇒ V → 0 (interference destroyed) Time as accumulated phase change (collective): t ≡ (1 / Ω) · Σ_k Δφ_k , Ω ≡ ⟨ω⟩_ensemble Spatial separation as phase-metric: d_{AB} ∝ | ⟨ e^( i( φ_A − φ_B ) ) ⟩ | Classical limit (macroscopic): lim_{N→∞} Var(φ) → 0 ⇒ C → 1 ⇒ particle-like, deterministic dynamics Compact formal statement: Classicality = lim_{C,N → large} ( Quantum S-ensemble )
Diffraction and interference fringes are stable and reproducible objective phenomena in optical experiments. Mainstream quantum mechanics puts forward the ontological interpretation of wave particle duality. It holds that the material ontology of micro particles such as photons inherently possesses both particle and wave properties, and attributes diffraction and interference phenomena directly to the intrinsic matter wave behavior of particles. This interpretation stays at the level of observational appearance and avoids underlying ontological dynamic mechanisms. It represents a research approach that deduces the intrinsic properties of material ontology merely from external observations. Within the framework of the light ontology theory, a photon is an energy state object. Energy and motion at the speed of light form an inseparable whole and are permanently bound together and cannot be separated. In the real universe, no photon with energy that does not travel at the speed of light has ever been observed. Nor has any object moving at the speed of light without energy been detected. The two cannot exist independently from one another. A photon has no physical volume but possesses inherent fixed transverse trembling property. At the moment a photon is generated, it acquires a definite trembling angle within a 360 degree spatial plane perpendicular to its propagation direction. This transverse trembling orientation remains unchanged without physical collision interaction. When the transverse trembling of a photon can reach the slit wall, absorption and reradiation secondary scattering will occur. Massive secondary photons superpose statistically to form bright and dark diffraction and interference fringes. Slit walls are stacked by large numbers of atoms. Their spatial scale is hundreds of thousands to tens of millions times larger than the scale of photon transverse trembling. For photons, slit walls constitute huge physical barriers and can produce significant interactions with trembling photons. The wave function is only a mathematical tool for fitting experimental data. Good fitting performance of a mathematical model does not mean its corresponding physical interpretation equals objective physical reality. This paper proposes a new set of comparative decisionmaking experiments. The key innovation is to place a linear polarizer in front of the slit. Before photons contact the slit, the transverse trembling orientation of photons is pre screened. The transverse trembling direction of transmitted photons is made parallel to the orientation of vertical slit walls to suppress oscillation components perpendicular to slit walls and make it difficult for photons to hit slit walls. Polarizers with different grating line widths can be replaced to observe the influence of the grating scale of polarizers on experimental results. According to the physical mechanism of slit wall scattering, characteristic diffraction and interference fringes will be greatly attenuated and only the central direct light spot will remain. Non ideal device characteristics will bring a small amount of stray scattering background, but complete bright and dark diffraction and interference structures will not appear. According to the traditional ontological interpretation of wave particle duality, the geometric parameters of slits remain completely unchanged. Only polarization orientation screening is conducted and the intrinsic matter wave of particle ontology is not affected. Therefore diffraction and interference fringes should be fully preserved. The two theories produce mutually exclusive observable predictions. This experiment can test whether the ontological interpretation of wave particle duality holds true. This paper does not deny objective diffraction and interference phenomena, nor does it deny the practical value of wave function as an engineering calculation tool.
Paper 74 — No Quantum Superposition This paper argues, by reductio ad absurdum, that the physical realisation of superposition — simultaneous multi-location existence — is incompatible with seven independent and well-established physical principles: (1) the observational fact that no infinite physical quantity has ever been measured; (2) conservation of energy; (3) the mass-energy equivalence E = mc²; (4) the Bekenstein entropy bound; (5) the second law of thermodynamics; (6) the Heisenberg uncertainty principle; and (7) causality. The foundational identification is that information, energy, and mass stand in proportional existential relation (Bekenstein bound: I ∝ M; Landauer principle: ΔE ∝ ΔI; mass-energy equivalence: E = mc²). Complete superposition requires infinite information processing, and therefore infinite energy and infinite mass — quantities universally absent from the observational record of physics. Finite N-state superposition is excluded by a complementary argument: maintaining N states simultaneously requires N times the information-processing load of a single undetermined state, violating the principle that nature selects minimum-load configurations. The positive alternative proposed is the undetermined state: during matter-wave propagation, the matter wave is real and physically present, but matter has not yet appeared at any location. This is not a hidden-variable state but an ontological absence of localisation prior to the formation of a constructive interference maximum. Paper 75 — The Double-Slit Experiment Reinterpreted This paper applies the undetermined-state ontology to the paradigmatic demonstration of quantum mechanics. The de Broglie matter wave — a real physical wave — passes through both slits, while the particle remains in an undetermined state until a constructive interference maximum is formed at the detection screen. The disappearance of the interference pattern upon which-path measurement is explained without wavefunction collapse: the measurement interaction physically disrupts the matter wave's coherent two-slit propagation. Three experimentally testable predictions distinguish this framework: (1) weak-measurement trajectory reconstruction should reveal single-path trajectories inconsistent with simultaneous two-slit passage; (2) diffraction fringe spacing should depend on the mass density of the slit material, because denser slit edges generate a steeper refractive-index gradient; (3) the fringe pattern should exhibit a density-dependent phase shift measurable with current matter-wave interferometry technology. The Schrödinger equation and Born's rule are retained without modification. Paper 76 — Discriminating Experiments for the Constructive-Interference Account of Gravity This paper derives the specific numerical values predicted by Paper 29 — n(r) from the Schwarzschild metric, Δφ = k₀∫[n₁(r)−n₂(r)]dr from the medium-structure integral, and Δx_max = f(∇n, geometry, λ₀) from the interference structure — and assesses whether current experimental technology can measure the gap between Paper 29's predictions and standard QM's predictions. Three formal conditions for a discriminating experiment are established: structural absence of the variable from standard QM, signal exceeding current resolution, and impossibility of alternative explanation. Two experimental classes satisfy all three conditions with existing apparatus: COW path-geometry (predicted δ(Δφ) ~ 10⁻³ rad vs. resolution ~10⁻⁴ rad, path shape structurally absent from the standard COW formula) and slit-material density (predicted Δx_max ~ tens of nm vs. resolution 1–5 nm, material density structurally absent from Δy ≈ λL/a). Cumulative agreement across both systems constitutes genuine inductive support for the proposed mechanism. Paper 77 — From Electrons to Fullerenes This paper addresses three questions that Paper 76 does not: (1) why the slit-material density experiment has never been performed in the hundred years since matter-wave interferometry began — the answer being that standard QM contains no density variable in the slit formula, so experimenters had no reason to vary it, with the Copenhagen prohibition on mechanism questions as the deeper structural reason; (2) why confirmation in exactly two systems — electrons and fullerenes C₆₀ — is sufficient to establish the theoretical outline across six orders of magnitude in mass, because these systems are maximally independent in particle type, mass, apparatus, energy scale, and decoherence environment; (3) what confirmation across this mass range would establish for physics: the first experimentally supported identification of the physical mechanism of gravity, the first experimentally verifiable quantum-gravity connection at accessible energy scales, a physical grounding of Born's rule, and a mechanistic account of the measurement problem. A complete three-layer control protocol for excluding the slit-width confound is specified. Paper 78 — A Three-Dimensional Experimental Matrix This paper extends the experimental programme by introducing slit thickness as a third independent variable alongside matter-wave species and slit-material density. The wave-mechanical account predicts that phase shift scales linearly with slit thickness d: Δφ(ρ,d) = (2π/λ)·[n(ρ)−1]·d — a prediction structurally absent from standard QM, which assigns no physical role to slit thickness. The resulting 5×5×3 matrix of 75 independent measurements has a random coincidence probability of approximately 1/1,728,000, rendering chance agreement with theoretical prediction physically impossible. Three-layer control protocols for fabrication, TEM cross-section verification, and linearity testing are specified for the thickness dimension. Together, the five papers constitute a complete programme: ontological foundation (P74), phenomenological reinterpretation (P75), formal discriminating analysis (P76), strategic and historical argument (P77), and three-dimensional experimental design (P78).
Abstract This paper proposes a foundational physical paradigm framework with energy as the sole physical ontology. Different from the field ontology of quantum field theory and the particle-pilot wave dual ontology of Bohmian mechanics, it establishes a strictly divided four-layer cognitive system of “energy ontology–wave motion–node appearance–mathematical tool”. Energy is defined as the irreducible sole physical ontology (ontological preset); waves are not independent physical entities, but the inherent propagation mode of energy in spacetime following the principle of least action; microscopic particles are not basic material objects, but local dynamic nodes formed by coherent superposition and nonlinear self-focusing of multiple energy waves; fields and wave functions are pure mathematical tools for describing the spacetime distribution of energy without independent entity attributes. Based on the Fourier superposition principle, standing wave formation mechanism and the principle of least action, this paper fundamentally resolves the paradox of wave-particle duality and clarifies the inevitability of energy fluctuation. Two basic forms of energy waves are defined: traveling waves without rest mass for global energy transport and localized standing waves for bound energy localization, with clear transformation mechanisms and physical division of labor. Based on three self-consistent underlying axioms, two types of nodes (linear superposition/photon-type and nonlinear self-focusing/matter-type) are distinguished, the coupling rules of transverse and longitudinal waves are reconstructed, and the microscopic origins of gravity and strong force are unified. To resolve core theoretical disputes, this paper supplements a dynamic equilibrium radiation mechanism to eliminate the energy dissipation paradox of stable particles, revises wave coupling rules to be compatible with QED photon-photon scattering experimental facts, and completes the physical dimension and quantitative paving of node formation thresholds to upgrade theoretical self-consistency. Meanwhile, phase chirality is introduced as the unified origin of charge, spin and matter-antimatter asymmetry, and four experimentally verifiable physical predictions and falsifiable inferences are proposed. This framework only updates the underlying ontology of modern physics, fully compatible with existing mature quantitative calculation systems, without subverting the experimental conclusions of the Standard Model and general relativity, providing a new path for the paradigm innovation of fundamental physics unification.