Horace Heffner wrote:
This is just another "welcher weg" experiment. Spin flipping is a statistical observational event not a continuum event where a particle is "rolled over" in a Newtonian fashion.
Still it is not alone - and is one of many situation where Heisenberg is not helpful. Heisenberg is a Principle, not a law. Like Ockham, it is operates most of the time. If it were a law there would be a good underlying reason for it, and there isn't one AFAIK other than quantization.
In fact the whole deal with the the Planck constant and the reduced version: "h-bar" appears to be to shoe-horn data into QM which doesn't fit without that fudge factor. IOW the Dirac version with the 2pi factor is, in essence, the same conversion factor between phase (in radians) and action (in joule-seconds) as seen in the Schrödinger equation - but there could be others. Mills' idea is said [by those with greater math skills than me] to be a Fourier transform of the same function which Heisenberg fails to model correctly - i.e. "the fit" which you object to. The word "fails" is relevant only if you believe the Mills' experimental evidence, which I do think is accurate.
Since the Planck constant and the reduced Planck constant are both used to describe quantization, but from a differing POV [and isn't POV what Heisenberg is all about anyway?] then arguably any phenomenon occurring in subatomic particles, such as electrons-photon interactions may still occur in fixed amounts -rather than a continuous range of values - but there could exist other "measuring sticks" [i.e. POV] than h or h-bar - for instance: h^-2.
A possible variation to the "Planck-stick", so to speak, would involve a power law - which could reflects a dimensional change. This would be inherent in the Fourier transform of the angular frequency, which comes into play in Mills' math. I wish that I understood Fourier transforms better, because now I am operating only in a metaphor mode. However, from that perspective, many of the believers in CQM find Mills ideas intuitive, even if they disagree with Heisenberg.
Personally, even though I am not yet fully convinced of CQM, it is easy for me to see where and how it can deviate sharply from Heisenberg and yet still be valid.
There is no good reason to elevate Heisenberg to more than it is: a useful principle which works for many phenomena.
Jones
