AN UNDERSTANDING TO THE UNIVERSE

Amankwah Eric Aboagye

Department of Chemistry
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology
Kumasi, Ghana.
 CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
DEDICATION
PREFACE
PART I: PILOT WAVE FIELD THEORY
 INTRODUCTION
 CONCEPTS
 MATHEMATICAL APPROACHES
 WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY
 PILOT WAVE EQUATION
 TRAJECTORY EQUATIONS
 RELATIVISTIC PILOT WAVE EQUATION
 FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT
 PILOT WAVE ATOMIC MODEL
 ZERO-POINT ENERGY
 DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT
PART II: GRAVITATIONAL COUPLE FIELD
THEORY
ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY
 CONCEPT
 MATHEMATICAL APPROACHES
 QUANTIZATION APPROACHES
 ENTROPIC APPROACHES
REPULSIVE GRAVITY
 CONCEPT
 MATHEMATICAL APPROACHES
 QUANTIZATION APPROACHES
 ENTROPIC APPROACHES
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to the Almighty
God for granting me the knowledge, wisdom, understanding,
and insight into the mysteries of this universe, and for making
this project a reality.
I would like to thank Professor Aboagye Menyeh and Dr.
Abavare of KNUST for their immense contribution. Mr
Michael Acheampong for his contribution and guidance, Mr
Bruce Appiah for his immense contribution. Mr Isaac
Adubofour for his contribution and motivation.
I would also like to thank the following people for their care,
contribution and motivation:
 My family
 Miss Ella Bonsi
 All my friends

DEDICATION
This book is dedicated to:
1. My family
2. All curious students of Physics.
 PREFACE
“Remember to look up at the stars and not down at your feet.
Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what
makes the universe exist. Be curious. And however difficult life
may seem, there is always something you can do and succeed at.
It matters that you don’t just give up.”—Stephen Hawking.
As Stephen Hawking put it, this book “An Understanding to
the Universe” is the product of curiosity, determination and
perseverance. This book’s project was ignited in the year 2016,
the very year that commemorated a centennial of Einstein’s
General Theory of Relativity (GTR). In that year, I got to
know about the General Theory of Relativity. Once I was e-
learning and came across this statement, “Quantum Gravity”.
I did a lot of researching around it and came to the realization
that, it was a theory which closely resembles a Theory of
Everything, In the sense that Quantum Theory describes the
universe and its interactions at the microscopic scale while
Gravity (specifically, General Theory of Relativity) also
describes the universe and its interactions at the macroscopic
scale. Hence, obtaining a Quantum Theory of Gravity would
imply a complete theory of the universe. With this insight, I
probed still further and got to know that there is currently no
such thing as a consistent theory of Quantum Gravity. I
decided to give my hands a try on the subject and after a
hectic period of trials and errors, and being in search for a
consistent Theory of Quantum Gravity, I finally came out
with a mathematical model of the subject, whose implications
seemed to match those observed in nature, as I read on news
about the subject. Once I had the mathematical model, I
probed still further and found some mathematical
inconsistencies in some Classical and Quantum Principles,
which I have pinpointed out and corrected in this book.

Amankwah Eric Aboagye

Author.
This page was intentionally left blank
 PILOT WAVE FIELD THEORY.
INTRODUCTION
At the celebrated 1927 Solvay Conference, Louis de
Broglie presented his hypothesis on the wave nature
of matter. In his hypothesis, it is clearly seen that,
matter in motion has an associated wave that
accompanies its motion. This theory was called the
Pilot Wave Theory. De Broglie insisted that
everything at the quantum scale was perfectly normal
and above-board. He devised a version of quantum
theory that treated both the wave and the particle
aspects of light, electrons and everything else as
entirely tangible. His “pilot-wave” theory envisioned
concrete particles, always with definite locations, that
are guided through space by real pilot waves.
However, there were challenges which were not
accounted for by his theory. Some of those challenges
were:
 It did not deal properly with the case of inelastic
scattering.
 His theory did not encompass the many-particle
case.
 There is no relativistic version of his theory.
It is my sole purpose to attempt at solving some of
these challenges his theory faced.
Concept:
An entangled system is defined to be one whose
quantum state cannot be factored as a product of
states of its local constituents; that is to say, they are
not individual particles but are an inseparable whole.
In entanglement, one constituent cannot be fully
described without considering the other(s). The state
of a composite system is always expressible as a sum,
or superposition, of products of states of local
constituents; it is entangled if this sum necessarily
has more than one term.
Quantum systems can become entangled through
various types of interactions. For some waysin which
entanglement may be achieved for experimental
purposes, see the section below on methods.
Entanglement is broken when the entangled particles
decohere through interaction with the environment;
for example, when a measurement is made.
As an example of entanglement: a subatomic particle
decays into an entangled pair of other particles. The
decay events obey the various conservation laws, and
as a result, the measurement outcomes of one
daughter particle must be highly correlated with the
measurement outcomes of the other daughter
particle (so that the total momenta, angular
momenta, energy, and so forth remains roughly the
same before and after this process). For instance, a
spin-zero particle could decay into a pair of spin-½
particles. Since the total spin before and after this
decay must be zero (conservation of angular
momentum), whenever the first particle is measured
to be spin up on some axis, the other, when measured
on the same axis, is always found to be spin down.
(This is called the spin anti-correlated case; and if
the prior probabilities for measuring each spin are
equal, the pair is said to be in the singlet state.)

The special property of entanglement can be better

observed if we separate the said two particles. Let's
put one of them in the White House in Washington
and the other in BuckinghamPalace (think about this
as a thought experiment, not an actual one). Now, if
we measure a particular characteristic of one of
these particles (say, for example, spin), get a result,
and then measure the other particle using the same
criterion (spin along the same axis), we find that the
result of the measurement of the second particle will
match (in a complementary sense) the result of the
measurement of the first particle, in that they will be
opposite in their values.

The above result may or may not be perceived as

surprising. A classical system would display the same
property, and a hidden variable theory would
certainly be required to do so, based on conservation
of angular momentum in classical and quantum
mechanics alike. The difference is that a classical
system has definite values for all the observables all
along, while the quantum system does not. In a sense
to be discussed below, the quantum system
considered here seems to acquire a probability
distribution for the outcome of a measurement of the
spin along any axis of the other particle upon
measurement of the first particle. This probability
distribution is in general different from what it would
be without measurement of the first particle. This
may certainly be perceived as surprising in the case of
spatially separate entangled particles.

Paradox:
The paradox is that a measurement made on either of
the particles apparently collapses the state of the
entire entangled system—and does so instantaneously,
before any information about the measurement result
could have been communicated to the other particle
(assuming that information cannot travel faster than
light) and hence assured the "proper" outcome of the
measurement of the other part of the entangled pair.
In the Copenhagen interpretation, the result of a spin
measurement on one of the particles is a collapse into
a state in which each particle has a definite spin
(either up or down) along the axis of measurement.
The outcome is taken to be random, with each
possibility having a probability of 50%. However, if
both spins are measured along the same axis, they are
found to be anti-correlated. This means that the
random outcome of the measurement made on one
particle seems to have been transmitted to the other,
so that it can make the "right choice" when it too is
measured.
The distance and timing of the measurements can be
chosen so as to make the interval between the two
measurements space-like, hence, any causal effect
connecting the events would have to travel faster than
light.

According to the principles of special relativity, it is

not possible for any information to travel between
two such measuring events. It is not even possible to
say which of the measurements came first.
For two space-like separated events x1 and x2 there
are inertial frames in which x1 is first and others in
which x2 is first. Therefore, the correlation between
the two measurements cannot be explained as one
measurement determining the other: different
observers would disagree about the role of cause and
effect.
(In fact similar paradoxes can arise even without
entanglement: the position of a single particle is
spread out over space, and two widely separated
detectors attempting to detect the particle in two
different places must instantaneously attain
appropriate correlation, so that they do not both
detect the particle.)
In experiments in 2012 and 2013, polarization
correlation was created between photons that never
coexisted in time. The authors claimed that this result
was achieved by entanglement swapping between two
pairs of entangled photons after measuring the
polarization of one photon of the early pair, and that
it proves that quantum non-locality applies not only
to space but also to time.
In three independent experiments in 2013 it was
shown that classically-communicated separable
quantum states can be used to carry entangled states.
The first loophole-free Bell test was held in TU Delft
in 2015 confirming the violation of Bell inequality.
In August 2014, Brazilian researcher Gabriela
Barreto Lemos and team were able to "take pictures"
of objects using photons that had not interacted with
the subjects, but were entangled with photons that did
interact with such objects. Lemos, from the
University of Vienna, is confident that this new
quantum imaging technique could find application
where low light imaging is imperative, in fields like
biological or medical imaging.
In 2015, Markus Greiner's group at Harvard
performed a direct measurement of Renyi
entanglement in a system of ultra-cold bosonic atoms.

From 2016 various companies like IBM, Microsoft etc.

have successfully created quantum computers and
allowed developers and tech enthusiasts to openly
experiment with concepts of quantum mechanics
including quantum entanglement.

In the media and popular science, quantum non-

locality is often portrayed as being equivalent to
entanglement. While this is true for pure bipartite
quantum states, in general entanglement is only
necessary for non-local correlations, but there exist
mixed entangled states that do not produce such
correlations. A well-known example is the Werner
states that are entangled for certain values, but can
always be described using local hidden variables.
Moreover, it was shown that, for arbitrary numbers
of parties, there exist states that are genuinely
entangled but admit a local model. The mentioned
proofs about the existence of local models assume that
there is only one copy of the quantum state available
at a time.
If the parties are allowed to perform local
measurements on many copies of such states, then
many apparently local states (e.g., the qubit Werner
states) can no longer be described by a local model.
This is, in particular, true for all distillable states.
However, it remains an open question whether all
entangled states become non-local given sufficiently
many copies.
In short, entanglement of a state shared by two
parties is necessary but not sufficient for that state to
be non-local. It is important to recognize that
entanglement is more commonly viewed as an
algebraic concept, noted for being a prerequisite to
non-locality as well as to quantum teleportation and
to super-dense coding, whereas non-locality is defined
according to experimental statistics and is much more
involved with the foundations and interpretations of
quantum mechanics.
 MATHEMATICAL APPROACHES TO
SOLVING THE PARADOX:

A ONE—PARTICLE SYSTEM APPROACH

���� ℏ�
��� = � � � ���
� � �
Proof:
V= u+gt
For uniformly accelerated motion from rest, u=0;
V=gt------(1)
��
Also, � = �� --------(2)
Substituting equation (2) into (1) gives;
���
� = � --------(3)
�
From General Relativity,
���
��� = � ���
�
Make ‘G’ the subject;
��
� = ��� �−�
�� �� ----------(4)
Substituting equation (4) into (3) gives;
�� ��
�= �˟ ��� �−�
��
� ��
�� ��
�=
��� � �� ----------(5)
��� �−�
From de Broglie equation;
�
� = ----------(6)
��
Substituting equation (6) into (5);
� �� ��
= � ��� �−�
��
�� ���
Making Guv the subject gives;

���� �
��� = � � ���
� � ��
 But ���� =Area of a sphere (���� )
�
�−� =
��
Finally,
���� ℏ�
��� = � ���
�� �� �

�
���� ℏ�
��� = ���
�� �� �
�����:
�� = �� + ���
For uniformly accelerated motion from rest, u=0;
�� = ���---------(1)
��
Also, � = �� --------(2)
Substituting equation (2) into (1) gives;
����
�� = � -----------(3)
�
From General Relativity,
���
��� = � ���
�
Make ‘G’ the subject;
��
� = ��� �−�
�� �� ----------(4)
Substituting equation (4) into (3) gives;
��� ��
�� -)
�
� = ��
( ��� �−�
��
�� ��
�� =
��� � ��� �� ----------(5)
�−�
From de Broglie’s equation;
�
�=
��
Squaring both sides;
��
� = � �-----------(6)
�
� �
Substituting equation (6) into (5);
 �� �� �� −�
= ��� ���
�� �� ����

Making ��� the subject gives;

���� ��
��� = � � � ���
� � � �
But ���� =Area of a sphere (���� )
−� ��
� = �
��
Finally,
�
���� ℏ�
��� = � �
���
� � �

���� ℏ�
��� −� � �� ��� + ���� = � � � ���
� � �
�����:
���� �������� ����� ��������;

��� − � � �� ��� + ���� = ��� ------(1)

���� ℏ�
��� ��� = � ��� ----------(2)
�� �� �

������������ �������� � ���� � �����;

���� ℏ�
��� −� � �� ��� + ���� = � ���
�� �� �
 �
���� ℏ�
��� − � � �� ��� + ���� = � � ���
� � �
�����:
���� �������� ����� ��������;

��� − � � �� ��� + ���� = ��� ------(1)

���� ℏ� �
��� ��� = ��� ----------(2)
�� �� �

������������ ��������� � ���� � �����;

�
���� ℏ�
��� − � � �� ��� + ���� = � � ���
� � �
Definition of Mathematical Terms:
ℏ= Reduced Planck’s Constant
R(r)= radius of quantum system
m= mass of quantum particle
n= principal quantum number
t= time of measurement
x= position of quantum particle
��� = Einstein Tensor
t=time of measurement (entangled system)
x=position of entangled system
k=wave vector of quantum system
��� =Ricci Tensor
�� =Ricci Scalar
� =Cosmological Constant
��� =metric Tensor
��� =Stress-energy Tensor
WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY CONCEPT
CONCEPT:
In modern physics, the double-slit
experiment is a demonstration that light and
matter can display characteristics of both
classically defined waves and particles;
moreover, it displays the fundamentally
probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical
phenomena. This type of experiment was first
performed, using light, by Thomas Young in
1801, as a demonstration of the wave
behavior of light. At that time it was thought
that light consisted of either waves or
particles. With the beginning of modern
physics, about a hundred years later, it was
realized that light could in fact show
behavior characteristic of waves and
particles. In 1927, Davisson and Germer
demonstrated that electrons show the same
behavior, which was later extended to atoms
and molecules. Thomas Young's experiment
with light was part of classical physics well
before quantum mechanics, and the concept
of wave-particle duality. He believed it
demonstrated that the wave theory of light
was correct, and his experiment is sometimes
referred to as Young's experiment or
Young's slits.
The experiment belongs to a general class of
"double path" experiments, in which a wave
is split into two separate waves that later
combine into a single wave. Changes in the
path lengths of both waves result in a phase
shift, creating an interference pattern.
Another version is the Mach–Zehnder
interferometer, which splits the beam with a
mirror.
In the basic version of this experiment, a
coherent light source, such as a laser beam,
illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel
slits, and the light passing through the slits is
observed on a screen behind the plate. The
wave nature of light causes the light waves
passing through the two slits to interfere,
producing bright and dark bands on the
screen – a result that would not be expected if
light consisted of classical particles. However,
the light is always found to be absorbed at
the screen at discrete points, as individual
particles (not waves); the interference
pattern appears via the varying density of
these particle hits on the screen. Furthermore,
versions of the experiment that include
detectors at the slits find that each detected
photon passes through one slit (as would a
classical particle), and not through both slits
(as would a wave). However, such
experiments demonstrate that particles do
not form the interference pattern if one
detects which slit they pass through. These
results demonstrate the principle of wave–
particle duality.
Other atomic-scale entities, such as electrons,
are found to exhibit the same behavior when
fired towards a double slit. Additionally, the
detection of individual discrete impacts is
observed to be inherently probabilistic, which
is inexplicable using classical mechanics.
The experiment can be done with entities
much larger than electrons and photons,
although it becomes more difficult as size
increases. The largest entities for which the
double-slit experiment has been performed
were molecules that each comprised 810
atoms (whose total mass was over 10,000
atomic mass units).
The double-slit experiment (and its variations)
has become a classic thought experiment, for
its clarity in expressing the central puzzles of
quantum mechanics. Because it demonstrates
the fundamental limitation of the ability of
the observer to predict experimental results,
Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon
which is impossible to explain in any classical
way, and which has in it the heart of
quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains
the only mystery [of quantum mechanics]. If
light consisted strictly of ordinary or classical
particles, and these particles were fired in a
straight line through a slit and allowed to
strike a screen on the other side, we would
expect to see a pattern corresponding to the
size and shape of the slit. However, when this
"single-slit experiment" is actually
performed, the pattern on the screen is a
diffraction pattern in which the light is
spread out. The smaller the slit, the greater
the angle of spread. The top portion of the
image shows the central portion of the
pattern formed when a red laser illuminates
a slit and, if one looks carefully, two faint side
bands. More bands can be seen with a more
highly refined apparatus. Diffraction
explains the pattern as being the result of the
interference of light waves from the slit. If
one illuminates two parallel slits, the light
from the two slits again interferes. Here the
interference is a more pronounced pattern
with a series of alternating light and dark
bands. The width of the bands is a property
of the frequency of the illuminating light.
When Thomas Young (1773–1829) first
demonstrated this phenomenon, it indicated
that light consists of waves, as the
distribution of brightness can be explained by
the alternately additive and subtractive
interference of wave-fronts. Young's
experiment, performed in the early 1800s,
played a vital part in the acceptance of the
wave theory of light, vanquishing the
corpuscular theory of light proposed by Isaac
Newton, which had been the accepted model
of light propagation in the 17th and 18th
centuries. However, the later discovery of the
photoelectric effect demonstrated that under
different circumstances, light can behave as if
it is composed of discrete particles. These
seemingly contradictory discoveries made it
necessary to go beyond classical physics and
take the quantum nature of light into account.
Feynman was fond of saying that all of
quantum mechanics can be gleaned from
carefully thinking through the implications of
this single experiment. He also proposed (as a
thought experiment) that if detectors were
placed before each slit, the interference
pattern would disappear.
The Englert–Greenberger duality relation
provides a detailed treatment of the
mathematics of double-slit interference in the
context of quantum mechanics.

A low-intensity double-slit experiment was

first performed by G. I. Taylor in 1909, by
reducing the level of incident light until
photon emission/absorption events were
mostly non-overlapping. A double-slit
experiment was not performed with anything
other than light until 1961, when Claus
Jönsson of the University of Tübingen
performed it with electron beams.
In 1974, the Italian physicists Pier Giorgio
Merli, Gian Franco Missiroli, and Giulio
Pozzi repeated the experiment using single
electrons and bi-prism (instead of slits),
showing that each electron interferes with
itself as predicted by quantum theory. In
2002, the single-electron version of the
experiment was voted "the most beautiful
experiment" by readers of Physics World.
In 2012, Stefano Frabboni and co-workers
eventually performed the double-slit
experiment with electrons and real slits,
following the original scheme proposed by
Feynman. They sent single electrons onto
nanofabricated slits (about 100 nm wide) and,
by collecting the transmitted electrons with a
single-electron detector; they could show the
build-up of a double-slit interference pattern.
In 2019, single particle interference was
demonstrated for Antimatter by Marco
Giammarchi and coworkers. An important
version of this experiment involves single
particles (or waves—for consistency, they are
called particles here). Sending particles
through a double-slit apparatus one at a time
results in single particles appearing on the
screen, as expected. Remarkably, however,
an interference pattern emerges when these
particles are allowed to build up one by one.
This demonstrates the wave–particle duality,
which states that all matter exhibits both
wave and particle properties: the particle is
measured as a single pulse at a single position,
while the wave describes the probability of
absorbing the particle at a specific place on
the screen. This phenomenon has been shown
to occur with photons, electrons, atoms and
even some molecules, including Bucky balls.

So experiments with electrons add

confirmatory evidence to the view that
electrons, protons, neutrons, and even larger
entities that are ordinarily called particles
nevertheless have their own wave nature and
even a wavelength (related to their
momentum).
The probability of detection is the square of
the amplitude of the wave and can be
calculated with classical waves. The particles
do not arrive at the screen in a predictable
order, so knowing where all the previous
particles appeared on the screen and in what
order tells nothing about where a future
particle will be detected. If there is a
cancellation of waves at some point, that does
not mean that a particle disappears; it will
 appear somewhere else. Ever since the
origination of quantum mechanics, some
theorists have searched for ways to
incorporate additional determinants or
"hidden variables" that, were they to become
known, would account for the location of
each individual impact with the target. More
complicated systems that involve two or more
particles in superposition are not amenable to
the above explanation.
De Broglie-Bohm Theory:
An alternative to the standard understanding of
quantum mechanics, De Broglie–Bohm theory
states that particles have precise locations at all
times, and that their velocities are influenced by
the wave-function. So while a single particle will
travel through one particular slit in the double-slit
experiment, the so-called "pilot wave" that
influences it will travel through both. I try to
illustrate that this idea of a pilot wave is true.
 MATHEMATICAL APPROACHES:
ENERGY—TIME RELATION
APPROACH
ℏ��
�=
�
Proof:
�� = �� + ���
For uniformly accelerated motion from rest, u=0;
�� = ���---------(1)
��
Also, � = � --------(2)
�
Substituting equation (2) into (1) gives;
����
�� = � -----------(3)
�

From General Relativity,

���
��� = � ���
�
Make ‘G’ the subject;
��
�= ��� �−�
�� ----------(4)
��

�����
But ��� = �� ��� ��� ------(5)
�
Substituting equation (5) into (4) gives;
�� ���� �
�= ( � � ��� )�−� ��
�� � � ��
�� �
� = � ---------(6)
� ��
Substituting equation (6) into (3) gives;
 �
�
��� � �
� = � ×
� �� ��

���
� = �
---------(7)
���
�
Multiply equation (7) by �;
�
� ��� �
��� = ˟ �
� ��� �
Therefore;
� ��
��� = ---------(8)
� ��
�
But E= ��� ------(9)
�
Substitute equation (9) into (8);

��
�=
�
��
But �−� = ��
Finally,

ℏ��
�=
�
 MOMENTUM—POSITION RELATION
APPROACH
ℏ� � �
�=
���
Proof:
V= u+gt
For uniformly accelerated motion from rest, u=0;
V=gt------(1)
��
Also, � = � --------(2)
�
Substituting equation (2) into (1) gives;
���
� = � --------(3)
�
From General Relativity,
���
��� = � ���
�
Make ‘G’ the subject;
��
�� ----------(4)
� = ��� �−�
��
But,
���� ��
��� = � � � ��� ------(5)
� � � �
Substituting equation (5) into equation (4);
�� ���� �� −�
�= � �� � ��
�� �� �� �� �

�� ��
� = � � ------(6)
�� � �
Substituting equation (6) into (3) gives;
� � �� ��
�=( � �
)˟ �
�� � � �
 �� �
�= -----------------(7)
��� �� �

Multiply equation (7) by m;

�� �
�� = � �
˟�
�� � �
Therefore,
�� �
�� = ----------(8)
���� �

But Momentum(P)= mass(m) ˟ velocity(v);

Finally,
�� �
�=
���� �
��
But � −�
= ���
Finally,
ℏ� � �
�=
���
 ANGULAR MOMENTUM—ANGULAR
DISPLACEMENT
RELATION APPROACH
ℏ� � �
�=
���
Proof:
ℏ� ��
�= --------(1)
���

But for objects performing rotational motion,

�
� = ---------(2)
�

And also,
x=r �--------(3)
substituting equations (2) and (3) into (1) gives;
� ℏ� � �
=
� ��� �

Multiply both sides by r;

� ℏ� � �
�× = ×�
� ��� �
Finally,
ℏ� � �
�=
���
Definition of Mathematical terms:
E=Kinetic Energy of matter-particle
h=Planck’s Constant
t=time of measurement
x=position of matter-particle
m=mass of matter-particle
P=momentum of matter-particle
L=angular momentum of matter-particle
k=wave vector of quantum system
�=angular displacement of matter-particle
 THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

Imagine a microscope that possesses two microscopic

illuminators; A and B. Assuming the microscope obtains
very high resolution by using very high energy gamma
rays through illuminator A, and also obtains a very low
resolution by using low-energy UV rays through
illuminator B. The electron is then illuminated from the
left by gamma rays—high energy light which has a
shorter wavelength, and from the right by UV rays—low
energy light which has a longer wavelength,
simultaneously.
For accurate determination of the position of the electron
using radiation, it would require the use of short
wavelength to obtain a well-defined position, the
condition of which would be satisfied by illumination of
the electron from the left by the gamma rays. BUT, high
energy photons of the short wavelength radiation would
change the electron’s momentum.
For accurate determination of the momentum of the
electron using radiation, it would require the use of long
wavelength, the condition of which would be satisfied by
illumination of the electron from the right by the UV rays.
BUT, low energy photons of long wavelength radiation
would change the electron’s position.
Thus, for any experiment which aims at determining the
momentum and position of an electron simultaneously,
that uses either a short wavelength radiation or long
wavelength radiation will definitely end up being
probabilistic about the measured values of either
momentum or position of the electron obtained. Hence,
agreeing to the Uncertainty Principle. Conversely, should
the same experiment be carried out with both short
wavelength and long wavelength radiations, one would
end up being certain about the measured values of both
momentum and position of the electron obtained.
In Conclusion, any experiment that seeks to determine
the momentum and position of an electron simultaneously
must involve the use of both short and long wavelength
radiations, as illustrated above.