A huge cosmic carousel of Donald E. Simanek: Stephen E. Robbin has two new QM uploads! totally fascinating analysis of the Black Body radiation origin of Planck's Constant

Totally fascinating! Thanks!! That really helped me understand this whole "issue" much better!! So when you bring up "h" as a minimum limit constant - have you checked out Dr. Juliana Mortenson? She emphasizes how Planck by converting to Wein's Law then reduced out a time factor for joules. And so she calls "h" just as the "average energy of light" but the key secret is that extra time factor is "noncommutative" to the "vibrator" time. So then if you check out the "weak measurement" experiments of Aharonov - Yakir Aharonov, et. al. - they go to a lower "minimum" limit than Planck's Constant by using entangled photons as a supermomentum. So the frequency is then based on reverse time from the future - and this would then be the "counter" weight - so to speak - against the ultraviolet catastrophe. So then the emission of visible light is a subharmonic of this reverse time energy and it's modeled by Heisenberg's noncommutative matrices math. So yes Mortenson also emphasizes that de Broglie was limited due to relying on Planck's "h" so that de Broglie was not able to say what the "wave" was for the pilot wave. I'll try taking a look closer at Kessler but first to watch your more recent vids now. thanks again.

Part two: Dissing Wave/Particle Duality? via the photoelectric effect? (part 2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBnnXbOM5S4 The more general uncertainty principle, beyond quantum Grant Sanderson, math/science Stanford: 

"Unlike the doppler radar case where the ambiguity arose because waves were being used to measure an object with a definite distance and speed; what we're seeing here is the particle IS the wave - so the spread out over space and over momentum is not some artifact of imperfect measurement techniques; It's a spread fundamental to what the particle is: analogous to how a musical note being spread out over time is fundamental to what it even means to be a musical note."

 This Grant Sanderson Video is the best explanation of wave/particle duality that I've found -

So Dr. Stephen E. Robbins is relying on the self-published work of Jacob Kessler. I'm trying to find info about him - only a "skeptic" site by a state university physics professor dismissing Kessler as a crank.  The site says being a crank does not mean they don't have valuable insights only that the overall judgment of the work is that it is not tenable. 

https://lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/cutting/grav.htm

OK here is that physics professor CITING Jacob Kessler (not to be confused with quantum physicist Joachim Kessler) - we assume it is to dismiss his views.

Physicists abandoned the ether when relativity theory was adopted. They had enough to do just trying to understand and test the predictions of relativity. But the nagging question "How can bodies exert forces through intervening nothingness" persisted. Independent thinkers tinkered with the ether idea, but were ignored or ridiculed by the larger scientific community. [5, 6, 7]

 So Kessler is 6 and 7.

6. Kessler, Jacob. Relativity and Space Ether. Jacob Kessler, 1968.
7. Kessler, Jacob. Basics in Physical Reality. Jacob Kessler, 1972.

Wow that is a fascinating article about what space is - as defined by relativity! Truly stunning.

Thanks again for a stunning explanation! When you say at the end that you see no wave in the entire QM story - you mean based on after de Broglie was dismissed at the 1927 Solvay Conference. But in fact the term "Mechanics" in QM is from de Broglie's reference to waves.

wave quantum mechanics

theory that explains the physics of atoms and subatomic particles

So the problem is that Schroedinger's wave function equation was based on ignoring the fact that de Broglie was critiquing Einstein's relativity. And so the disconnect between the number of waves as amplitude squared as a probability from the frequency of the waves is then restored through a noncommutative phase, as Heisenberg realized. So de Broglie's Law of Phase Harmony is actually noncommutative.

So then the photon being emitted is a subharmonic of this reverse time supermomentum wave - and this is then orthogonal to the photoelectric effect - as the guiding wave. And so there is no "resting frame" as simultaneity (as observed in science due to time-frequency uncertainty) but nevertheless it exists as can be perceived through logical inference of philosophy of science (as D'Espagnat emphasizes) but also through philosophy of noncommutative phase listening as meditation (as Manfred Euler corroborated in my correspondence with him).

And the de Broglie-Bohm model has made a serious comeback with Yakir Aharonov et. al. doing their weak measurement experiments that physically corroborate it. And Professor Jean Bricmont has pointed out the errors of the standard model (and how it's been misunderstood as well). So yes as Max Born pointed out - Einstein did realize that there had to be some kind of "ghost field" that Einstein was unwilling to accept - instead just relying on the probability wave but looking for some kind of other source. And later Einstein realized that David Bohm's model did have merit. But Einstein had first gotten de Broglie's Ph.D. approved - yet later rejected de Broglie at Solvay - saying it was too simplistic.

So the problem is not that the amplitude wave has been restored of the classical EM wave but rather that it was the logarithmic math originally that was wrong! So the velocity squared as amplitude intensity is still hiding the noncommutative truth as a non-local phase - which most of science still does not recognize, instead preferring to just call it "time-frequency uncertainty."

To go back to that article I linked -  Ken Amis and Donald E. Simanek. It's a huge cosmic carousel.

 Every year theoretical physicists discover new conjectures supporting the idea that space itself can act upon matter, even at the quantum level. For example, Feigel [10] has concluded that virtual photons which arise spontaneously from a vaccum, then vanish before they can be directly observed, can, in a magnetic field, move with momentum biased in one direction. Therefore, in large enough quantity, they could move small objects in a particular direction. Feigel claims that this would not violate any fundamental laws of physics.

 Physics Professor Donald E. Simanek. Ken Amis is a pseudonym