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.
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.
We propose a novel interpretation of quantum mechanics based on the hypothesis that quantum entities possess two ontologically distinct components—particle and wave—that couple to spacetime through fundamentally different mechanisms. The particle component interacts with spacetime through conventional local, causal coupling, while the wave component exists on a topological plane structurally linked to spacetime's global geometric properties. This dual-mode coupling framework offers intuitive explanations for wave-particle duality, measurement-induced decoherence, quantum interference, and non-local correlations without invoking wavefunction collapse or observer-dependent reality. We outline the conceptual foundations, discuss how this framework resolves longstanding quantum paradoxes, and propose potential experimental tests.
Field-Theoretic Explanation of Wave-Particle Duality—Unification of Particle Locality and the Wave Nature of the Perturbation Field This paper provides a physical explanation of the most central puzzle in quantum mechanics—wave-particle duality—without relying on "probability-amplitude collapse" or "nonlocal entanglement." This theory divides all matter in the universe into Nie-matter entities (massive, Staticity) and Ji-matter entities (massless, Dynamicity), and maintains that quantum objects (electrons, neutrons, etc.) are always localized Nie-matter entity particles. Their "wave behavior" originates from the particle's local perturbation of the Ji-matter field that already fills space during motion—the perturbation propagates in the form of a wave, produces an interference field when passing through the double slits, and the interference field in turn guides the particle's landing position. The particle always passes through only one slit, while the field passes through both slits simultaneously; interference is the behavior of the field, not the behavior of the particle. This mechanism naturally explains double-slit interference, the coexistence of neutron collisions and wave behavior, the disturbance of interference fringes by observation devices, and the variation of interference contrast with source offset and slit spacing. This paper further gives three falsifiable predictions: P6-1 (a decisive distinction between device field-strength disturbance and which-path information disturbance), P6-2A (the disturbance effect varies continuously with field strength), and P6-2B (an argument for the explanatory power of double-slit interference contrast—naturally derived from one mechanism vs. jointly explained by four independent concepts). Compared with mainstream theory, this theory does not need "wavefunction collapse," does not need "nonlocality," and does not need "many worlds"—it only needs to acknowledge: particles are localized, the field fills space, and the motion of particles is guided by the local field gradient.
Abstract The double-slit experiment is a classic experiment that presents the clearest manifestation of wave-particle duality, one of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. The double-slit experiment still remains the phenomenon that demonstrates wave-particle duality at the most fundamental level. This phenomenon quantitatively and conceptually demonstrates that microscopic objects can behave like both waves and particles at the same time. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the physical nature of dualism, the mechanism of formation of the interference pattern, and the impact of the act of observation on the dynamics of quantum systems. The need for a new perspective on this topic is due to the fact that the current uncertainty in the interpretation of quantum reality has not yet been completely eliminated, and the boundaries between classical and quantum behavior in microscopic objects are still being explored. The results presented here restructure the deep mechanisms of the interference picture, more clearly frame the relationship between observation and wavefunction collapse, and provide a quantum. Since the article attempts to provide a complete answer to the mechanism of the formation of wave-particle duality, extensive space is given to sections such as historical development, theoretical models, modern research, etc. New approaches to this phenomenon have been developed using modern research and string theory. As a result, a new mathematical expression has been proposed that explains the reasons for the initial emergence of wave-particle duality, and is also important for string theory. The article explains the measurement problem with a more effective physical structure and ontological model.
For over a century, physics has taught that light is “both wave and particle,” with the photon elevated to a fundamental constituent of nature. This article revisits how thecorpuscular picture of light became dominant—from Newton and Huygens to Einstein’s photoelectric effect and Compton’s scattering—and argues that much of the alleged evidence for photons as “particles” can be reinterpreted more economically in a purely wave-based framework. We highlight a conceptual tension of twentieth-century quantum rhetoric: electrons and photons are routinely described as if they “knew” our experimental intentions, while any serious discussion of consciousness beyond humans is dismissed as unscientific. Building on a recently proposed geometric reinterpretation of the Compton effect—where the wavelength shift arises from field–structure coupling rather than particle–particle collisions—we show how the photoelectric effect and double-slit experiments can likewise be understood without attributing ontological particle status to light. Discreteness emerges not from light being made of corpuscles, but from quantized field modes and the event-like nature of charge in matter. The electromagnetic field remains a wave throughout; only matter clicks. This work integrates new conceptual insights, including two revealing paradoxes of the standard narrative and three implicit principles that guide our geometric reinterpretation, while preserving the full depth and detail of the original analysis.
In an interesting series of articles published few years ago Afshar and coworkers [1,2] reported an optical experiment in which they claimed to refute the well known N. Bohr principle of complementarity [3, 4]. Obviously this result, if justified, would constitute a serious attack against the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics (known as the Copenhagen interpretation). This work stirred much debate in different journals (see for examples references [5–12]). We think however that there are still some important misunderstandings concerning the interpretation of this experiment. In a preprint written originally in 2004 [5] (and following some early discussions with Afshar) we claimed already that the interpretation by Afshar et al. can be easily stated if we stay as close as possible from the texts written by Bohr. The aim of the present article (which was initially written in 2005 to precise a bit the thought developed in [5]) is to comment the interpretation discussed in [1]. We will in the following analyze the meaning of Bohr principle and show that far from disproving its content the experiment [1] is actually a complete confirmation of its general validity. The difficulties associated with the understanding of this principle are not new and actually complementarity created troubles even in Einstein mind [3] so that we are here in good company. To summarize a bit emphatically Bohr’s complementarity we here remind that this principle states that if one of a pair of non commuting observables of a quantum object is known for sure, then information about the second (complementary) is lost [3, 4, 15, 16]. This can be equivalently expressed as a kind of duality between different descriptions of the quantum system associated with different experimental arrangements which mutually exclude each other (read in particular [3,4]). Later in the discussion we will try to precise this definition but for the moment it is enough to illustrate the concepts by examples Consider for instance the well known Young double-pinholes interference experiment made with photons. The discrete nature of light precludes the simultaneous observation of a same photon in the aperture plane and in the interference pattern: the photon cannot be absorbed twice. This is already a trivial manifestation of the principle of Bohr. Here it implies that the two statistical patterns associated with the wave in the aperture plane and its Fourier (i. e., momentum) transform require necessarily different photons for their recording. It is in that sense that each experiment excludes and completes reciprocally the other. In the case considered before the photon is absorbed during the first detection (this clearly precludes any other detection). However even a non-destructive solution for detection implying entanglement with other quantum systems has a radical effect of the same nature: the complementarity principle is still valid. For example, during their debate Bohr and Einstein [3] discussed an ideal which-way experiment in which the recoil of the slits is correlated to the motion of the photon. Momentum conservation added to arguments based on the uncertainty relations are sufficient to explain how such entanglement photon-slits can erase fringes [15–19]. It is also important for the present discussion to remind that the principle of complementarity has a perfidious consequence on the experimental meaning of trajectory and path followed by a particle. Indeed the unavoidable interactions existing between photons and detectors imply that a trajectory existing independently of any measurement process cannot be unambiguously defined. This sounds even like a tragedy when we consider once again the two-holes experiment. Indeed for Bohr this kind of experiments shows definitely the essential element of ambiguity which is involved in ascribing conventional physical attributes to quantum systems. Intuitively (i. e., from the point of view of classical particle dynamic) one would expect that a photon detected in the focal plane of the lens must have crossed only one of the hole 1 or 2 before to reach its final destination. However, if this is true, one can not intuitively understand how the presence of the second hole (through which the photon evidently did not go) forces the photon to participate to an interference pattern (which obviously needs an influence coming from both holes). Explanations to solve this paradox have been proposed by de Broglie, Bohm, and others using concepts such as empty waves or quantum potentials [20, 21]. However all these explanations are in agreement with Bohr principle (since they fully reproduce quantum predictions) and can not be experimentally distinguished. Bohr and Heisenberg proposed for all needed purposes a much more pragmatic and simpler answer: don’t bother, the complementarity principle precludes the simultaneous observation of a photon trajectory and of an interference pattern. For Bohr [3]: This point is of great logical consequence, since it is only the circumstance that we are presented with a choice of either tracing the path
This work proposes a minimal ontological framework for interpreting wave–particle duality as a boundary-sensitive manifestation of quantum phenomena on an underlying, physically real but unobservable background. Rather than treating wave-like and particle-like behaviors as competing physical entities, the framework interprets them as distinct modes of manifestation determined by global boundary conditions. Motivated by interference experiments such as the double-slit setup, the study argues that experimental outcomes depend on boundary-induced modifications of a background structure beyond the local particle path. Within this view, wave-like interference corresponds to a nonlocal manifestation shaped by boundary conditions, while particle-like detection corresponds to localized manifestation events at measurement. The proposed interpretation preserves the standard quantum formalism while offering a realist, boundary-centered conceptual perspective that avoids observer-dependent collapse or multi-path particle propagation. The manuscript is provided as a preprint to invite open scientific discussion and critical evaluation.