>>1664>>1577Well you actually me temporary stop my current works, in order to research physics for real. I don't know whether to thank you or blame you anymore.
Uncertainty principle is real, but modern physics mystified the physical causes of it. Modern quantum physics is just staying at the level of mathematical (information) models and refusing to proceed to a new physical models of the world. Wave function, momentum eigenfunction, etc. okay, every calculation is correct. But in the end, wave and momentum of WHAT?
From the viewpoint of dialectical materialism, it's necessary to assume the existence of a material environment, of which physical form we don't know yet, but it must exist and our (known) physical phenomena happen in it
(one could go farther and even say that there could be a place without this kind of environment, and the physical phenomena in that place will be quite different from the ones in our environment, but that's the job of future generations because we haven't reach the border of our environment yet)
So if we hypothesise the existence of quantum particles as wave in the environment, then it is easily to understand the uncertainty principle, as the more localised the wave is, the more spread-out in wavelengths of component waves, which forming it. And wavelength is directly related to momentum by Planck constant, done. But another question is that can waves truly have momentum (impulse)? Maybe if we consider the waves of appearing and disappearing i.e. wave with min valley as non-negative energy level. For normal compression wave, there is period of decompression after compression, so the total impulse is zero, but for waves of appearing and disappearing, the range of value is from 0 -> positive value, therefore the integral area is positive (which means directed impulse exists).
However, as I researched further, the problem is indeed more complex. If we view quantum particles as waves (non-localised entities), then how to explain the quantum collapse phenomena? When an electron collided with the measurement surface, we only received one single dot instead of a faint spread-out image. Therefore, the Copenhagen viewpoint has a grain of truth, as they say the wave here is a wave of probability, of where electron will appear. The recent discover (1980s) of single photon, that is when lowering the intensity of light gradually, at one point we will achieve only single photon. If lower than that intensity, there will be no light, no photon. So it is the all or nothing situation. Anyway, that means we cannot discard the idea of Copenhagen school.
So this makes me think that the pilot wave theory is one that will resolve this problem. There is actually two part of a quantum phenomenon. One part is the particle-part we capture in the screen, the other is the wave part in the environment. In my opinion, the E = hf part is actually only the particle, while the wave part energy is the remainder part < hf. For example, E = 5*hf + R means that the excitation E creates 5 photon in environment and the rest turn into wave part in the environment. As Hegel had said, the limit (degree) exists, doesn't mean it cannot be overcome, but actually, it will and must be overcome and then the old quality will become a new quality. Energy lower than hf doesn't mean there is no excitation, but an excitation of form different than energy higher than hf. As photon is discrete, so E < hf means it is an continuous phenomenon, in other words, a wave. However, of course, one could say that if E = hf exactly then there would be no wave at all!
Not so fast. Every discrete phenomenon must grow from another continuous phenomenon and vice versa. To create a photon, the excitation must be accumulate gradually until reaching the breaking point E = hf, so during that gradually accumulation process, some motion energy must be lost in the form of wave in the environment. There is no magical way to achieve efficiency H = 100%, as there will never be absolutely closed system.
Now, finally what is the physical meaning of Planck constant? I've found one paper which I think is quite correct on the nature of Planck constant:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-1056/26/4/040301/metaPlanck constant h, in combination with frequency f, is the necessary excitation needed, in order to create a particle in the environment. Smaller than hf, there is no particle, higher than hf but not so much, there is still only one particle. In order to have more particles, E must be multiple times of hf.
So is Planck constant really a constant? No, not at all. From the viewpoint of Heraclitus, everything flows and there is no absolute constant. If we ever found constant in this world, it is actually a relative constant. A constant is actually a property of some environment, as only the aggregation of many many phenomena in an environment could create a somewhat constant phenomenon. Individual property must necessary be varied from one individual to another individual. Therefore, I'm highly suspecting that the mass and electric charge of an electron are actually properties of environment instead of a single electron, if they are property of each singular electron, then the mass and electric charge should be varied instead of being an exact number. By not seeing the role of environment, some physicists even mystified the origin of electron, thought every electron is only a manifestation of one electron exists some where. How is this different from Plato's theory of ideal world?
Now let return to our constant h. Why there must be a h constant? As a computer scientist, I think it's quite similar to data communication on noisy channel. The channel is always noisy, therefore, if we want the information to be created and transported on the channel, a certain SNR (signal to noise) level must be reached. Lower than that threshold, we must use a very low density data encoding, so that the noise cannot destroy the signal. A quite similar situation happens with E = hf case. If we only have a low energy excitation, then the only way to create a particle is to lower the frequency f. High frequency particle requires high energy level, there is no exception.
Now let translate this into physical model. Noisy channel means that the environment is constantly in chaotic thermal motion, so if an high frequency excitation is too small, it cannot overcome the environment and be drowned out. But that doesn't means the wave doesn't exist, it exists but cannot create a particle and remains undetected because of noise from thermal motion. In a more "easier" environment, such that photon could be formed by using smaller amount of energy, we could say that Planck constant in that environment is smaller than Planck constant in our environment.
From that hypothesis, I come up with an new idea to observe the microscopic world.
First, we must create an environment in which h constant is very low.
Second, we enclose this environment in a box (of special material) in order to isolate it from our normal environment. This will act as an equivalent of dark chamber in our traditional camera.
Third, drill a very small hole (we should aim to make the hole as small as electron) in the wall of the box, so that it functions as a lens to filter out low frequency waves and allow very small wavelength waves pass through.
Fourth, when the super small vibrations of the outside environment pass through the lens to enter the "dark chamber", they will form photon due to low h constant and leave impact on the film.
This way, we can observe the electron without influencing or destroying it, by using light with high frequency but low energy.
I think this idea is nothing new, but maybe only in the military that they're actively researching it. The hardest part is to control the h constant of environment. After that is to isolate the environment by very dense material (undiscovered). Finally, we must able to drill a very small hole with very high precision. They are very hard tasks, maybe not achievable in our lifetime. But who knows?