Well you actually me temporary stop my current works, in order to research physics for real. I don't know whether to thank you or blame you anymore.
Uncertainty principle is real, but modern physics mystified the physical causes of it. Modern quantum physics is just staying at the level of mathematical (information) models and refusing to proceed to a new physical models of the world. Wave function, momentum eigenfunction, etc. okay, every calculation is correct. But in the end, wave and momentum of WHAT?
From the viewpoint of dialectical materialism, it's necessary to assume the existence of a material environment, of which physical form we don't know yet, but it must exist and our (known) physical phenomena happen in it
(one could go farther and even say that there could be a place without this kind of environment, and the physical phenomena in that place will be quite different from the ones in our environment, but that's the job of future generations because we haven't reach the border of our environment yet)
So if we hypothesise the existence of quantum particles as wave in the environment, then it is easily to understand the uncertainty principle, as the more localised the wave is, the more spread-out in wavelengths of component waves, which forming it. And wavelength is directly related to momentum by Planck constant, done. But another question is that can waves truly have momentum (impulse)? Maybe if we consider the waves of appearing and disappearing i.e. wave with min valley as non-negative energy level. For normal compression wave, there is period of decompression after compression, so the total impulse is zero, but for waves of appearing and disappearing, the range of value is from 0 -> positive value, therefore the integral area is positive (which means directed impulse exists).
However, as I researched further, the problem is indeed more complex. If we view quantum particles as waves (non-localised entities), then how to explain the quantum collapse phenomena? When an electron collided with the measurement surface, we only received one single dot instead of a faint spread-out image. Therefore, the Copenhagen viewpoint has a grain of truth, as they say the wave here is a wave of probability, of where electron will appear. The recent discover (1980s) of single photon, that is when lowering the intensity of light gradually, at one point we will achieve only single photon. If lower than that intensity, there will be no light, no photon. So it is the all or nothing situation. Anyway, that means we cannot discard the idea of Copenhagen school.
So this makes me think that the pilot wave theory is one that will resolve this problem. There is actually two part of a quantum phenomenon. One part is the particle-part we capture in the screen, the other is the wave part in the environment. In my opinion, the E = hf part is actually only the particle, while the wave part energy is the remainder part < hf. For example, E = 5*hf + R means that the excitation E creates 5 photon in environment and the rest turn into wave part in the environment. As Hegel had said, the limit (degree) exists, doesn't mean it cannot be overcome, but actually, it will and must be overcome and then the old quality will become a new quality. Energy lower than hf doesn't mean there is no excitation, but an excitation of form different than energy higher than hf. As photon is discrete, so E < hf means it is an continuous phenomenon, in other words, a wave. However, of course, one could say that if E = hf exactly then there would be no wave at all!
Not so fast. Every discrete phenomenon must grow from another continuous phenomenon and vice versa. To create a photon, the excitation must be accumulate gradually until reaching the breaking point E = hf, so during that gradually accumulation process, some motion energy must be lost in the form of wave in the environment. There is no magical way to achieve efficiency H = 100%, as there will never be absolutely closed system.
Now, finally what is the physical meaning of Planck constant? I've found one paper which I think is quite correct on the nature of Planck constant: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-1056/26/4/040301/meta
Message too long. Click
to view full text.