Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
Philosophical / Metaphysical Comments

by Geoff Haselhurst

The following thoughts seem to me to be direct consequences of the Metaphysics of Space and the Wave Structure of Matter.

1. There is no discrete particle thus it is impossible to locate the exact position of something that does not exist (the continuous motion of a 'particle'!).

2. Motion only applies to the Wave Motion of Space, not the Motion of 'Particles' (or motion of matter in general, as Space is the only existent) thus it is impossible to know the exact momentum of a particle as neither 'particles' or particle velocity (and thus momentum) exist. They are mathematical constructions, and only approximate the real Wave Structure of Matter. Matter actually 'moves' in discrete steps as successive Spherical In-Waves meet at their Wave-Center in discrete locations in Space. So it turns out that Einstein was correct, as he writes;

Thus the last and most successful creation of theoretical physics, namely quantum mechanics (QM), differs fundamentally from both Newton's mechanics, and Maxwell's e-m field. For the quantities which figure in QM's laws make no claim to describe physical reality itself, but only probabilities of the occurrence of a physical reality that we have in view. … I cannot but confess that I attach only a transitory importance to this interpretation. I still believe in the possibility of a model of reality - that is to say, of a theory which represents things themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence. On the other hand, it seems to me certain that we must give up the idea of complete localization of the particle in a theoretical model. This seems to me the permanent upshot of Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

A few further thoughts;

3. It seems to me that Schrodinger's Equations are founded on de Broglie Matter Waves.
Therefore, Schrodinger equations are not fundamental (as de Broglie waves are Doppler effect / phase wave of two relatively moving spherical (ellipsoidal) standing waves - the real cause of matter and its interactions).
Then I read that Dirac effectively divided Schrodinger's equations into two parts (Milo Wolff has a good section on this in his book) - which according to my logic above is correct (though he did it by chance). Thus I am thinking that wherever you use de Broglie waves, you should really substitute in the real wave equations for two spherical standing waves with relative motion which deduce the de Broglie waves. Does this make sense, is it possible?

4. Problems with Wave Velocity not being Constant
In modern physics the velocity of light c is treated as a constant, rather than (I think) being dependent on wave amplitude (charge) and wave density (gravitational mass). I also think though, that due to wavelength changes with wave velocity the velocity of light is always measured to be the same (a subtle but important difference from being constant, which is a theoretical interpretation of the empirical fact that the velocity is measured to be the same).
Further, the de Broglie wave is a phase wave, caused by matter wave interactions, and has a phase velocity of c²/v where v is the relative velocity. Thus you are effectively working with two different velocity waves.

It is interesting too that when you substitute this phase wave velocity into the energy = frequency equation for matter you get the de Broglie equations, i.e. We first deduce Compton wavelength by relating frequency of matter to energy of matter (as you know)

E = hf = mc², and c = f l,
hc/l = mc²
Thus Compton Wavelength l = h/mc

We can then recalculate above for de Broglie phase wave velocity c²/v = f l, where v is group velocity which I assume is same as apparent velocity of 'particle'.

E = hf = mc², and c²/v = f l,
hc²/vl = mc²
Thus de Broglie Wavelength l = h/mv

This seems to confirm the correctness of the phase wave velocity of de Broglie waves (and is the limit of my maths!, is it correct). Any thought on this? Thanks.
Geoff