As I will show you, quantum physicists uses the logical consequence of the definition of 'momentum', which they also deny it as 'product of classical intuition'! To be certain about the momentum of an object, one must be certain of at least two locations of the same object, and the time it took for the object to get from one of the locations to the other. This is a logical consequence of the meaning of 'speed' and hence 'momentum'. How can you be 'certain' about the speed of an object if you don't even know where it is in the first place!

It turns out that theoretical physicists, as in their usual usage of words, uses 'certain' (and thus 'uncertain') in a completely incongruous manner. The bible says 'faith is being sure of what we hope for and being CERTAIN of what we do not see.' (Hebrew 11:1). This is how theoretical physicist uses 'certain' (despite 'science' being depicted as 'anti-religion' and 'anti-faith'). They never saw any moving particle, but they were somehow 'certain' about its momentum! Indeed that is the only way one can be 'certain' about 'momentum' without being certain of location: if 'certain', like in the above Hebrews verse, means the same thing as 'faith'. So 'uncertainty' is just 'lack of enough faith', that is all!

In a nut shell, the theoretical physicist is actually talking about wavelengths, which he equates it completely with momentums, an equating which is actually theoretical. So no one observes 'momentum' in this case, so he may be 'certain' about it, and checks if he is 'uncertain' about the location. Rather, the momentum is INFERRED from observation of wavelength and by the application of deBroglie Hypothesis. By this, one can only get 'certain' about the 'momentum' by elevating an hypothesis into unquestionable truth, like in an act of faith! There would be no much problem with such, if they stuck there. Perhaps we can never be 'certain' about both a WAVELENGTH of a wave associated with a particle and the location of the particle. This is perfectly logical. The problem comes when the physicist now changes the hats and turns into an epistemologist or even a 'psychologist'. He now talks of this illogical 'being certain about momentum while being uncertain about the locations' as 'counter intuitive' (their usual wild card). They are preparing us to accept illogicalities as 'counterintuitives', so they may latter get away with fallacies in the name of 'counterintuitives'! We must accept this illogicality because, well 'experiments shows so', but as usual, they 'swap the hats' and 'pull out the rabbit' in the experiment. In this case, the 'momentum' is treated exactly as though it were LOGICALY tied with wavelengths, yet it is so only HYPOTHETICALLY!

The cornerstone of Uncertainty Principle, deBroglie Hypothesis, is problematic because though momentum is a vector quantity, wavelength is not, as best expressed by the meaninglessness of 'negative of wavelength'. To elucidate more, first note that when we say that 'momentum is a vector', we mean that we can decompose it into 3 components, each for the 3 directions in 3d space that are all mutually perpendicular to each other. So, for instance a particle moving at some angle along an inclined plane can be seen (or be decomposed) as to be moving both upwards and horizontaly all at once, with a certain velocity towards up, and a certain velocity towards the horizon, depending on the angle of inclination. If the plane is so steep, then it is rapidly moving upwards, and moving slowly horizontally etc. But how can we talk of 'wavelengths' for the wave similarly moving in such an inclined plane? It seems we should use the basic fact about waves that relates their speed to the wavelength as: c=λf, where c=speed, λ=wavelength and f=frequency. This way the wavelength of a wave moving a long a steep inclined plane should be very short when the wave is seen to be moving horizontally (the horizontal component of the wave), and very large as seen to be moving vertically. This is all due to the fact that the formula; c=λf makes speed directly proportional to wavelength. So if the horizontal speed becomes smaller due to the steepiness of inclination, then the 'horizontal wavelength' should be correspondingly smaller etc.

But then in the deBroglie Hypothesis, the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum, in direct conflict with c=λf, we have mv=h/λ, where h=Plank's Constant. So if we are considering a particle moving on an inclined plane, with the horizontal component velocity given by say vx, and the vertical component given by say vy, we will have two 'wavelengths' that don't corresponds to anything real about the wave! The deBroglie Hypothesis plainly lie that 'in a wave propagating along a steep inclined plane, the 'horizontal wavelength' is larger than the 'vertical wavelength'. That is what the formular mv=h/λ indicates (by putting λ in the denominator), while the formular v=λf indicates the opposite reality that is actually observed (by putting λ in the numerator)! It is this lie that, as I will next show you, will force the physicist to dart back and forth from using 'wavelength' as synonym for 'momentum', and again using the traditional notion of momentum, which is actually in conflict with the Uncertainty Principle! As usual, the physicist keeps 'swapping the hats' and then 'pulling out the rabbit' and getting away with it while the unvigilant crowd is watching!

The case we will close examine is the attempt to use the Uncertainty Principle to explain the single slit experiment. You will see that the physicist obviously uses the ordinary notion of 'momentum'. He insinuates that once the particles enters through the slit, they disperse away from the slit as they move away from the slit. So the wave-like patern on the screen is accually caused by particles of different 'horizontal momentums' (the component of momentum that is directed ALONG the screen), getting distributed on the screen. So a particle comming off the slit has at least two momentums, or better, 'two components of the same momentum'. One momentum takes it directly away from the slit, and the other one takes it away in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the first momentum. So it is the momentums of the second types that leads to distribution of the particles on the screen. So I call this 'the horizontal momentum'. The physicist then relates the first momentum to deBroglie Hypothesis (p=h/λ), thereby insinuating (perhaps unwittingly) that this momentum is certain (they first deduced the 'uncertainty principle' by completely equating momentum with wavelength, as if 'certain momentum' means 'certain wavelength), but they, perhaps deliberately, failed to relate the horizontal momentum with the deBroglie Hypothesis!

So the physicist have actually painted for us an absurd scenario! This stems from an inconsistent usage of 'Uncertainty Principle' that tantamounts to 'swapping the hats'. Originally, we are told that the 'Uncertainty Principle' is actually due to the 'Uncertainty of wavelengths', and that when we are thus uncertain about wavelengths, then we are accordingly uncertain about momentums due to deBroglie Hypothesis. But here, for the purposes of the single slit experiment, we are going to be uncertain about the momentum of the single particle somehow surfing on the wave with a certain wavelength! We have a contradiction! As you should see, the physicist is actually using the 'UNCERTAINTY OF LOCATIONS' (not momentums), and then using the now normal classical commonsensical reasoning that 'if we are uncertain about locations, then we are automatically uncertain about momentums'. After all how can you realy be certain about the momentum of a particle if you have absolutely no clue where it is, in the first place? However, it is this silly notion of 'being certain about the momentum without being certain about location' that they want us to swallow it by shoving the 'counterintuitive' 'Uncertainty Principle' down our throats!

To drive home the idea that the Uncertainty Principle actually explains the single slit experiment, he now refer to the classical 'wave' explanation. In this explanation, we have a neat wave spreading away from the slit! By this the wavelengths actually draws concentric circles around the slit. So we dont have 'uncertain wavelengths' at all, and particularly, the 'horizontal wavelength' is as certainly as the 'vertical wavelength'. So this confirms that the physicists are using contradictory notions of 'momentum' to explain the single slit experiment. They use the 'wavelength' definition for the 'horizontal momentum' and then uses the classic definition for the 'vertical momentum'! In the 'vertical momentum' they now use the usual, commonsensical definition for speed: v= (x1-x0)/t, where x0 is the location of the particle on the slit and x1 is the location on the screen. This is jarring because to be certain about speed v, in this notion, we must be certain about the two locations (x0 and x1) of the particle, contradicting the Uncertainty Principle! The uncertainty of x1, while we are certain of x0 is the UNCERTAIN OF LOCATION not of momentum. We are uncertain about where a particle is on the screen, and the (x0-x1)/t 'speed' should be regarded as meaningless because, as they say 'the individial particles traces no trajectory from x0 to x1'. Using such (x1-x0)/t for 'momentum' in quantum mechanics actually brings in a 'momentum' whose uncertainty is proportional to the uncertainty of location (x1 location), contradicting the Uncertainty Principle. Indeed such (x0-x1)/t speed can even exceed the speed of light, wherein again the physicist 'swaps the hats' and tells us that in quantum world, 'speeds' are solely 'wavelengths'!

In the proper Uncertainty Principle, the 'momentum' that we are uncertain about is solely 'the wavelength'. If you pile waves of different wavelengths on each other, and then you are initially careful to make sure that their wave crests are all aligned at the 'origin' of the waves, you will note that their coherence rapidly reduces as you move away from the origin. The differing wavelengths ensures that the wave crests are not aligned elsewhere apart from at the origin. The further away the waves are from the origin, the more dis-aligned they get, and the more the cancel themselves rather than piling up. So they only pile up at thd origin. This scenario creats a wave packet around the origin. By this, we get 'more certain' about the location of the paricle, ie that it is more likely to be at the origin than at elsewhere. However, we also becomes more uncertain about its momentum as we are now using several wavelengths. But there is no such a scenario in the slit experiments. The supposed 'certainty' of the particles does not come from any pilling of waves at around the slit, nor do we have many 'horizontal wavelengths' at the screen. If this were the case, we would not have any interference pattern on the screen at all, as the piling of waves of differing wavelengths would lead to decoherence!

As if such murkings are not enough, the physicist goes ahead to use the 'horizontal momentum' that does not take the particle any farther away from the first fringe pattern! In other words the chose only those momentums that confirms the Uncertainty Principle, and blatantly rejects those others, as if to tell you the white lie that 'the interference pattern doesn't extend beyond the first fringe'! In the slit experiments, there are these fringes. We have alternation of 'bright regions' and 'dark regions'. To explain the single slit experiment using the uncertainty principle, you must only use the first 'bright region'. Thereby you get the 'momentum range', a range which should not exist since in principle, the interference pattern extends indefinitely!

There is another serious problem with the equating of momentum with wavelength and never being told of the actual momentum of the supposed 'point like' particle. According to quantum mechanics, when we observed the system, it 'collapses' into a 'point like' particle. We must be very careful at this juncture, with our metallic clubs ready so that we hammer the numb-skull if he now 'swaps the hats' and tells us that this 'collapse' is actually due to a sudden superposition of waves of myriads of wavelengths, that creates a shart 'wave-packet' at the region where the particle is found. This 'collaps' must actually be what the particle should look like. It becomes an entirely classic particle. a classic object is an ensemble of such 'collapsed' wavefunctions. Nevertheless, we can allow some degree of 'quantum decoherence' to explain some aspects of the classic world. So we might say that the decoherence creats the illusion of isolated objects from an underlying quantum soup. But there is another trick. It is not enough to explain the appearance of objects in the classic world.We must also explain why they move as they do, i.e. with a certain velocity. The certainty of location of an object via decoherence comes at the expense of creating the uncertainty in its momentum, by bringing in myriads of wavelengths. Se we cannot rely on 'decoherence' to explain the classic world. Somewhere, a 'collapse' must actually happen.

But how will we explain the 'collapse' of the momentum into a certain momentum? Since the 'collapse' of location produces a 'point-like' particle, we would espect the observation of momentum to similarly 'collapse' into 'a particle moving at a definite speed', contradicting the common interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle which tells us that 'there can be no trajectory of a quantum particle'. This interpretation comes from the error of completely equating wavelength with the momentum, rather than just RELATING them. We could have as well interpreted the Uncertainty Principle as just 'the inability to PREDICT both the momentum and the location', but not as 'the inability to OBSERVE both the position and the momentum of the particle'. When we can correctly predict where the particle will be found, it will appear there but it will appear moving in a speed that we could not predict. So we don't need to abandon the notion of a particle with a definite trajectory. We only need to abandon the claim of knowledge of such prio to observation.

But now in the usual equating of momentum with wavelength, we are never told at all why we see a moving particle rather than a wave. What quantum physicists have actually done is to deny that we can see both a particle of wavelength λ and a particle moving at v in a classical sense of motion. To them, the Uncertainty Principle means 'there is no trajectory'. once we see a particle at x0, there is no more wave. Thus they use a 'certainty' that comes about due to a 'collapse', to invoke a 'principle' that is actually the result of a 'certainty' that comes about due to 'superposition of myriads of waves', while also insisting that such a 'collapse' can also happen in a single wave! In other words we can suddenly become certain about the location of a particle of a certain single wavelength when we observe it. This contradicts the simplistic, common interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle. This is not a surprise because actually there are two ways of becoming 'certain' about the location of a particle. One is if we make an observation and then there is a 'collapse'. The other one is if suddenly, there is a wide range of momentums leading to a sharp wavepacket. The Uncertainty Principle is only deduced from the latter case, and we realy have no need to apply it in the former case. Thus the Uncertainty Priciple should be compatible with a 'collapse' that brings about both a certain locations and a certain momentums. It is only that the location was uncertain prio to observation, but the momentum was certain, due to the certainty of the wavelength.

This ability to see both the classical momentum and the wavelength invalidates the Copenhagen Interpratation in favour of pilot wave interpretation. But it also ease the explanation as to why we see classical momentum in macroscopic objects, rather than only the wavelengths. The other notion that equates wavelength with momentum does not explain why we see objects moving around, rather than just wavelengths. What magic doe it happen where to turn 'wavelengths' into 'momentums'? This is the absurdity that we arive at if we follow the 'Copenhagen Interpretation'. But in the 'pilot wave', such a question don't arise since there are always both the waves and the particles. But in the latter interpretation, if we deny that there is the classic type momentum even in the quantum particle, were do this momentum comes from in the classic world? Quantum decoherence introduces uncertainty in momentum, not the certainty we see in the classic world. So it can't help us here!