I have found some interesting consequences for QM due to the fact of certainty in QM. This is to say that Heisenberg Uncertainty is completely wrong, except under certain conditions. It has been proven experimentally that an electron's position and momentum can be simultaneously determined with absolute certainty over any duration by Nobel prize winner Hans Dehmelt. I showed later how uncertainty does not at all apply to monochromatic light. What we are involved with now, are some of the various consequences which arise when "Uncertainty" is eliminated from the quantum theory.

First, we will examine the topic of causality in the atomic domain. It has been commonly supposed that the principle of indeterminacy holds at this level. Due to the results of Dehmelt, this is no longer a valid understanding. Further, because it may become possible to image subquantum entities a vast improvement in measurement of the exceedingly small may thereby become available, removing all doubt from the realm of atomic and intra-atomic activity. It seems logical, that as our ability to image the small becomes greater that the degree of uncertainty diminishes accordingly. In this regard, the theorem of J. von Neumann given in "Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik" (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1932) is no longer tenable, first of all, because in his theory, real and observable physical phenomena are being assumed to have no causes, which makes little sense to the intellect. Secondly, where this reference showed mathematically that no conceivable distribution of motions of "hidden" parameters in the observed system could lead to the same results as the Schrodinger equation, where the probability interpretation of the wave-function is incorporated, is shattered by any measurement which is smaller than the size limits set in the von Neumann theory. It is conceivable that quantum fluctuations originate in irregular motions of some new kind(s) of entities that exist at a deeper level, e.g. subquantum particles. In this regard, Wheeler's "quantum foam" is only a partial description of the actual mechanism of vacuum fluctuations.

Here, von Neumann's theory implies that such a deeper level of causal law can never exist at all, and that the causation of such irregular vacuum fluctuations cannot be traced by any manner of measurement or experiment, and that these fluctuations ultimately have NO CAUSE, an assertion that defies logic. I assert that this expression of von Neumann is incorrect because it assumes that the precise result of any measurement or experiment is completely arbitrary, in the sense that the result can have no relationship whatever to anything else that exists in the world, that has existed in the world, or will exist in the world.

I further assert that there ARE "hidden variables" and they are the results of the forces engendered by Consciousness in its various forms. For example, it has been instrumentally verified that the emotional condition, the intentions and the attentions of the operators of symplectic E/M radio transmission facilities result in instant alterations of the radiation pattern of the antenna, and further, that a divergence in the quantum field results. I further suggest that the statistics of the quantum theory may be found to have a direct correlation with the statistics which arise in investigations of various forms of life. It appears to me that some manner of Being is the ultimate causation, and that the observations related to QM are the result of VOLITION at many levels and scales. This is to say that the vacuum fluctuations may be the result of organizational forces due to some manner of consciousness(es) on acting in the domain of the subquantum, i.e., smaller than the Planck length.

This view invalidates the concept that there is no form of continuity in the atomic domain, because it shows that there may be some variety of "intercessor particles" intervening in atomic activities, and within the nucleus of the atom simply due to the interactivity of the consciousness with the subquantum, which in turn affects the nuclear entities. (Reference Tony Smith's model of the electron as a Compton radius vortex: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/Sidharth.html . ) Fluidic particles smaller than the electron are implied as being the material which actually forms the vortex which comprises the electron. There is also an implication that quanta may be divisible, contrary to popular views of QM. Were the division of a quanta smaller than the Planck length, or smaller that the Planck energy, we have no instrument presently available to detect such an event, although such an instrument may potentially exist.

There are many more such irregularities in the quantum physics, such as Bohr's assertion that an atom has no properties whatsoever until it is observed. (Again, this is illogical. It seems more rational to state that if any atomic properties ever exist at all, that they must exist for all time, and at all locations in this universe, regardless of the presence or absence of an observer. Topological physics supports this view.)

It should be pointed out here, that both Einstein and Planck held that there should exist a more complete theory of quantum physics that would explain individual quantum processes. I have just provided the outline of such a more complete theory, which has it that Consciousness is the basis and the ultimate guidance of all quantum activities.

More on this as the implications continue to unfold.