(Fig.1) The current physics used only useless fictional concepts for explaining observed phenomena, which pseudo-science ruins researchers' careers.
The recent research tried to explain material called manganese oxide interacting with high-energy (unseen) muons by using one pseudo-electron DFT (= density functional theory ) model with artificially-chosen unreal pseudo-potential and pseudo-wavefunction with No quantum mechanical prediction, and No practical use.
The 1st, 5th, 9th, 12th, 16th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Muon spectroscopy is an important experimental technique that scientists use to study the magnetic properties of materials..."
"We started with tricky cases, such as europium oxide and manganese oxide, and in both cases, we could Not find a reasonable way to reconcile (one pseudo-electron) DFT predictions and the experiments (= quantum mechanical mainstream DFT method failed )"
"Because it is a complicated system, you must add some corrections to DFT, such as the Hubbard U parameter (= unphysical model with No real particle picture ), But we were choosing its value empirically, and when you do that, you have a lot of uncertainty, and the results can change dramatically depending on the value you choose (= DFT+U method depends on empirically-chosen parameter U with No prediction power, this p.7-2nd-paragraph )."
"This method can be used with onsite U and intersite V Hubbard parameters that are computed from first principles instead of being chosen empirically (← but this first-principle or ab-initio DFT failed to agree with experiment after all = this p.2-right-last-paragraph says a predicted value of Bµ = 0.8 T instead of the 1.17 T observed experimentally )"
"In the future (= still useless research ), Timrov explains, the group wants to keep studying the same material also including temperature effects."
First of all, muons are very unstable (unseen) particles that can be explained by high-energy electrons or protons (= we do Not need muons ).
They did the alleged muon (spin) spectroscopy where they collided high-energy protons with some materials, which were said to emit (unseen) muons that entered the manganese oxide above (= these high energy muons are indistinguishable from other protons or scattered electrons in this experiment, this p.8-11 ).
These unseen muons (= μ ) were said to precess under magnetic field of the manganese oxide, and soon decay in the direction of (unseen) muon's spin (= just imagination, No proof ) into (unseen) positrons that were detected by scintillater and photodetector ( this p.12, this p.4, this p.4-lower, this p.3 ).
↑ So all they actually detected were (classical) lights or photons in photo-multiplier tube (= PMT ) of scintillators that can Not distinguish ordinary charged particles and (imaginary) positrons (= so positrons and muons are imaginary unstable unnecessary particles with No evidence ).
To (mis-)interpret this observations allegedly indicating manganese oxide's structure, they tried to use one-pseudo-electron DFT+U+V model where pseudo-potential parameters U and V must be artificially or empirically chosen ( this p.2-left ).
↑ They used the word "ab-initio (= first-principle )", but this (fake) ab- initio method of determining U and V depends on artificially-chosen pseudo-potential ( this p.8-V-pseudo-potential, p.3-left-pseudo-wavefunction, this p.7-upper-pseudo-potential, core-correction, this 8th-paragraph, this-lower-caveats ) and electron's wavefunctions (= projector functions, this p.5-2nd-paragraph ), so they are adjustable and Not truly ab-initio nor first-principle.
Furthermore, their calculation results of ab-initio DFT disagreed with experimental results after all ( this p.2-right-last-paragrah ).
Ordinary DFT cannot explain energies of various materials and solids, so physicists had to artificially add pseudo-potential U parameter.
But even this DFT+U often failed to explain experimental results, so they were forced to add another ad-hoc potential parameter V ( this p.2-left ).
But depending on materials, the oridinal DFT is better (or worse ) than the new artificial DFT+U+V model, which means quantum mechanical DFT with No power to predict can Not improve or find the better pseudo-potential model.
This p.6-right-2nd-paragraph (= Table.1 ) say
"In the cubic phase, GGA+U (= DFT+U ) seems to provide the best, in the AFD case, GGA (= DFT ) provides the best (= in both case, the newest DFT+U+V or GGA+U+V potential failed )"
"Finally, we observe that GGA, GGA+U and GGA+U+V all result in much larger octahedral rotation angles than experiment." = DFT, DFT+U, DFT+U+V all disagreed with experimental (= Exp. ) values (= This p.6-Table I, θ ) like in this p.14-Table III- band gap-Eg disagreeing with experiment.
And this quantum mechanical mainstrem DFT model outrageously treating the whole material as one pseudo-electron can Not give real shapes to each atoms inside material, hence useless for applied science.
The 7th and 12th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Using an experimental technique called angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy, or ARPES, lead author detailed the band structure of the copper-vanadium-sulfur material and found it hosted a flat band (= which indicates unreal infinite effective mass, this p.2-3rd-paragraph ) that is unique in several ways."
"He said the predictive methodology or design principle that his research group used in the study may (= this word means "just speculation, still useless" ) also prove useful to theorists who study quantum materials (← ? )"
↑ This experiment just measured real electrons with real mass ejected by light using the device called ARPES, and tried to (falsely) explain the observed electron's energy and mass using fictitious quasiparticle ( this-p.15-Fig.9(b) ), flat-band with fake (infinite) effective mass, and one-pseudo-electron DFT model which eventually disagreed with experimental results. ← No quantum mechanical prediction, and No real particle picture.
↑ ARPES measuring electrons ejected by light out of material cannot know the precise electron's momentum inside material, leaving unknown parameter V, but quantum mechanics unreasonably tries to misinterpret the observed real electron's mass and momentum (= outside the material ) as fake effective mass of imaginary quasiparticle inside material ( this p.2-right-2nd-paragraph, this p.4-lower ).
This p.4-upper-(fictitious) effective mass in flat band, p.12-unphysical Hubbard model, fictitious spinon quasiparticle (= p.12-last-paragraph ) lacking real particle picture, which quantum mechanical pseudo-model is useless for practical application.
One pseudo-DFT model (= the current only mainstream quantum mechanical approximation ) with artificially-chosen exchange energy functional failed to agree with experimental results in this research that says ( this p.6,p.9 )
"Near EF, however, the measured electronic structure exhibits moderate deviations from DFT calculations (p.6-middle)"
"While both our DFT calculations and ARPES measurements have revealed the existence of 3D flat band in CuV2S4, the energy position of the flat band between them is different. The flat band predicted by the DFT calculations is 0.5 eV above the Fermi level while it is observed to be located at EF experimentally (= DFT disagreed with experimental results, p.6-lower)"
"Moreover, we also carried out specific heat measurements, from which we extract a Sommerfeld coefficient, γ, to be 60 mJ/K2mol. Notably, this γ is 6 times larger than that predicted by the DFT calculations (γDF T=10 mJ/K2mol) = DFT disagreed with measured values again p.9-middle"
↑ As a result, quantum mechanical fictitious models not only lack reality but also disagree with experimental results.
The 6th and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"the researchers developed a two-dimensional heterostructure device that combines quantum materials (← ? ambiguous expression ) with two different properties for the first time. By applying voltage as low as 5 V to a device consisting of a two-dimensional ferromagnetic material (Fe3-xGeTe2) and a two-dimensional ferroelectric material (In2Se3) stacked on top of each other, the magnetic field required to change the spin direction of the ferromagnet (= Not unreal spin but electron's orbital magnet ), i.e., the coercivity, can be reduced by more than 70% (= instead, this needs more energy to apply voltage, so no reduction in total energy consumption )."
"By securing ultra-low-power next-generation memory core element technology using quantum materials, we will (= uncertain future, still useless ) be able to maintain our technological edge and competitiveness in the recently faltering semiconductor industry (← ? )"
↑ This research just measured (classical) light polarization change (= not spin ) after being reflected by magnetic field (= caused Not by unrealistic spin but by realistic electron's orbital motion ) of ferromagnet using classical Kerr effect when various voltage was applied to ferroelectric material, and tried to explain it using one-pseudo-electron DFT with empirical potential functional with No quantum mechanical prediction.
This paper (= p.2, p.8 ) says, the magnetic properties are measured using a magneto-optic Kerr effect (= MOKE = p.2-left-last-paragraph = just seeing polarized light changed by material's magnetic field, Not seeing spin itself ), and their explanation of electromagnetic properties in material relies on one-pseudo-electron DFT model using empirically-fitting intermolecular DFT-D2 potential (= this p.8-first-principle calculation ) and experimental lattice constants with No quantitative comparison between DFT and experiemnts (= No quantum mechanical prediction ), and No realistic particle picture.
Superfluid seen in very cold helium liquid can flow without any loss of kinetic energy due to its zero viscosity.
Unfortunately, quantum mechanics failed to explain or predict this superfluidity ( this p.1-introduction ).
Due to the useless Schrödinger equation, quantum mechanics had to rely on various ad-hoc models, fictitious quasiparticles such as phonon and roton models with artificially-adjustable parameters ( this p.16-17(p.12-13) ), which are just nonphysical math symbols with No real particle figure ( this p.3-left-(8), this p.14-15 ), so useless ( this p.8-5th-paragraph ).
This IV.Discussion (= p.15-16(or p.14-15) ) says
"The Gross-Pitaevskii model, despite its shortcomings, is often applied to model superfluid helium. As GP is known to model only the phonon (= fictitious quasiparticle ) branch of superfluid helium dispersion relation, it is typically employed with parametrization that matches the speed of
sound. However,.. this does Not yield
results that are in agreement with known ion solvation structure"
Furthermore, quantum mechanics tries to explain superfluidity using one pseudo-eletron DFT model with artificially-chosen empirical intermolecular functionals such as OT-DFT pseudo-potential and Lennard-Jones potential whose parameters must be adjusted to experiments with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.3(or p.2)-right~p.4(or p.3) ).
This p.5-1st-paragraph says
"The main drawback of
DFT is that the exact energy functional is Not known and must therefore be constructed in a
semi-empirical manner (= No quantum mechanical prediction, this-p.21(or p.13)-1.5~p.23(p.15) using empirical values ). Nevertheless, DFT is the only method.."
The 2nd-last and last paragraphs of this recent hyped news say
"This study focuses on a theoretical issue in understanding quantum turbulence in superfluids and shows that the Reynolds similitude in superfluids can be verified by measuring the terminal velocity of an object falling in a superfluid,
If this verification can be made, then this suggests that quantum viscosity exists even in pure superfluids at absolute zero (= this is just theory, still No experimental verification )"
↑ This research tried to theorize about the superfluidity using fictitious quasiparticle models and artificially-chosen parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this-p.2-left-lower-fictitious quasiparticle, p.4-left-lower-empiriical-quasiparticle model with No quantum mechanical prediction ).
The 5th and 7th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"However, in order for atom scattering to be useful, accurate theoretical predictions of scattering signatures are key. To date, these predictive models have been oversimplified or misleading (= quantum mechanical prediction until now failed ).
her group have put forth a new method of prediction scattering that provides a fully ab initio (= untrue, this is fake ab-initio with No quantum mechanical prediction ), or from the start, approach to guiding non-destructive atomic beam scattering such as helium-atom scattering."
"Kelley's group used the surface interactions of a helium beam with a niobium surface to capture how atom scattering and phonon (= unreal quasiparticle ) excitation interacted with each other. This allowed them to create this new predictive theory that will (= uncertain future, still useless ) change the way researchers model surface structure (← ? )"
↑ This paper says all quantum mechanical model failed to predict atoms scattered by some materials (= ex. helium atoms scattered by niobium or Nb ), but their group seemed to 'predict' it for the first time using 'ab-initio' quantum mechanical theory (= but untrue, the quantum mechanical ab-initio theories are fake ab-initio with No power to predict any values ).
This p.1-left-2nd-paragarph says
"Unfortunately,
No fully ab initio method, which computes scattering directly from first principles, has yet been available to guide
and interpret atom–surface scattering experiments (= all quantum mechanical calculations until now failed to predict )"
↑ This p.2-Fig.1-nonphysical abstract diagram between helium and fictitious phonon quasiparticle lacks real particle picture, and this can tell us nothing about the detailed real scattering mechanism.
↑ This p.4-left-computational method used one-pseudo-electron DFT model with artificially-chonsen pseudo-potential (= Not real potential ) and PBEsol exchange functional.
Choice of different (unreal) pseudo-potentials gives different results, which means quantum mechanics is Not ab-initio nor able to predict any physical values ( this p.7-last says choice of pseudo-potential is Not unique ).
This p.4-left-III.A says
"For consistency, we used the same pseudopotentials in
all calculations at the semilocal and meta-GGA density functional level of theory, which may affect the results when compared to all-electron calculations. We believe that changing
the pseudopotential would hamper the comparison between
the different functionals made in this study"
Furthermore, in addition to pseudo-potential, the artificial choice of the exchange-correlation functionals affects the results, which means No quantum mechanical prediction.
They chose PBEsol functional, which functional often faield to predict physical values ( this p.6-right-3rd-paragraph says PBEsol overestimates Ni energy ). Hence it is Not universally correct exchange energy functional (= physicists just choose different functionals for explaining different experiments with No quantum mechanical prediction ).
The 3rd and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"The researchers demonstrated the ultrathin nanosheet morphology of CoTPP-CoBpy3 in various solvents by atomic force microscopy (AFM) and cryo-TEM (transmission electron microscopy). They confirmed the superhydrophilicity by contact angle measurements (CAs), zeta potential tests and ( impractical ) density functional theory (DFT) calculations."
"This study presents an efficient water oxidation photocatalyst design, which offers a promising (= uncertain future, still useless ) example for exploration on high-performance water oxidation photocatalysts."
↑ Even after measuring real atomic structures and shapes by sophisticated atomic force microscopes, researchers blindly chose impractical one-pseudo-electron DFT model giving up real separate atomic picture, which is why the current nano-technology has stopped progressing.
↑ This research tried to explain some water oxidation catalysis using the unrealistic one pseudo-electron DFT (= Kohn-Sham theory ) with empirical energy functional DFT+D3 containing freely-adjustable parameters ( this p.2-2nd-paragraph, this p.9-10-Table.1,2 ). ← No quantum mechanical prediction (= No quantitative comparison between DFT and experiment has been made in this research ), and No real atomic picture. → Science stops.
The 6th and 8th paragraphs of another hyped news say
"These structures were used to trap and grow cobalt NCs (= nanoclusters ) on flat copper surfaces. The resulting cobalt NCs were of two sizes, 1.5 nm and 3.6 nm. To understand their properties and structure further, various techniques were employed, including low-temperature scanning tunneling microscopy and spectroscopy (STM and STS), angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy (ARPES) with low energy electron diffraction (LEED), and the ( impractical ) density functional theory (DFT) calculations."
"The use of this approach in applications such as single-atom catalysis, miniaturization of spintronics media, and quantum computing (= impractical forever ) will (= uncertain future, still useless ) contribute to the development of an information-based society in a way that reduces carbon dioxide (CO2) production (← ? )"
↑ Even after measuring real molecular shapes and structures by scanning tunneling microscope (= STM ), they automatically adopted the impractical one-pseudo-electron DFT model, which is why the current science has stalled.
↑ This research tried to explain some atomic and molecular structures by using the (impractical) one pseudo-electron DFT model with empirical DFT-D2 energy functional containing freely-adjustable parameters ( this p.3~4-2.6 DFT calculation uses DFT-D2 van der Waals correction where C6 parameter was artificially rescaled ). ← No quantum mechanical prediction, and No real atomic picture. → No more progress in science.
The 2nd-last and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"The flexoelectric field altered the electronic interactions and lattice structure within strontium ruthenate, leading to a successful induction of polarization within the metal, causing a transformation in its electrical and mechanical properties"
"We are the first researchers to verify the universal implementation of polarity states within metallic substances. I am hopeful that the findings from this study will (= uncertain future, still useless ) prove beneficial in crafting highly efficient devices within the semiconductor (← ? )"
↑ This experiment tried to explain electric polarization and other properties of some metals using the impractical one-pseudo-electron DFT model with artificially-chosen potential parameter U, unphysical pseudo-wavefunction, pseudo-potential with No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ This research's paper p.7-left says one-pseudo-electron DFT with empirically-chosen potential U parameter and (unphysica) projector augmented wavefunction (= PAW ) based on artificially-chosen pseudo-wavefunction, pseudo-potential, core radius parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ Quantum mechanics, which is useless for describing multi-electron metals, has to artificially choose approximate fake pseudo-potential, pseudo-wavefunction, atomic core, radius in the widely-used pseudo-electron model called projector-augmented-wave (= PAW ) method ( this p.2,p.17-pseudo-wavefunction, pseudo-potential, this p.18-various adjustable parameters have to be chosen ).
This p.1-left says
"a direct all-electron treatment is prohibitive. One way to
circumvent this problem is to replace the effect of the chemically inert core states by an effective (= unreal ) pseudopotential..
DFT using pseudopotentials and a plane-wave basis set has
therefore become one of the most popular choices in computational chemistry (= so the current mainstream quantum mechanical method lacks reality, relying on unreal pseudo-potential )"
The choice of (fictitious) pseudo-potential is Not unique.
Poor pseudopotentials can lead to nonsense calculations ( this p.2 ).
↑ This means quantum mechanics has No power to predict any physical values, because it has to rely on various artificially-adjusted parameters, pseudo-potential ( this p.8-left ) and pseudo-wavefunction to describe metals and semiconductors in a wrong way that lacks real particle picture and hampers technological innovation.
↑ DFT or Kohn-Sham theory has dominated the physics, chemistry since 1965 ! = our science has stopped progressing for about 60 years !
Actually, though this research tried various exchange energy functionals and fit many parameters, all of those functionals eventually disagreed with experimental results (= Expr. ) especially of magnetric moment value ( this p.30-Table.3-mag.moment )
The 1st, 2nd and 5th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Research.. described in the journal Nature Communications, toward understanding the behavior of an electric charge at the microscopic level."
"Their findings could (= just speculation, still useless ) improve efficiency, life span, and performance in batteries, solar cells, and other electronic devices (= full of hypes )"
"To achieve this capability, they employed a scanning probe microscope equipped with an automated control system that enables a unique spiral pattern for efficient scanning and advanced computer vision techniques for data analysis"
↑ This research tried to observe electrochemically mediated diffusion of mobile surface ions on a LaAlO3/SrTiO3 planar device by using scanning Kelvin probe force microscopy, which is one of atomic force microsope (= AFM ) that can observe and manipulate even one single atom one by one.
But even though physicists can actually observe each atomic or molecular shape by the current technology of atomic force microscopes (= AFM ), the paradoxical quantum mechanics forces them to rely on useless nonphysical pseudo-models such as quasiparticles and one-pseudo-electron DFT (= density functional theory ), which unrealistic quantum mechanical model clealy obstructs the advancement of nanotechnology.
↑ This research paper (= p.10 DFT calculation ) says
"DFT calculations used the VASP. The Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE)
functional was used with a Hubbard U correction of 4.2 eV, which is
well-established to accurately describe vacancies in rutile TiO2"
↑ This VASP (= Vienna ab initio simulation package ) is the DFT method using fictional pseudo-potential (or PAW that also uses pseudo-potential, this p.11 ) and one pseudo-electron model unrealistically spreading over the whole material as fictitious plane wave, which lacks real atomic boundary or shape (= due to unrealistically-spreading one pseudo-electron DFT model, this p.13, this p.25-lower ).
Choice of fictional pseudo-potentials, which are Not real Coulomb potentials, is Not unique, which means pseudo-potential is one of freely-chosen parameters ( this p.2 ), and quantum mechanics, its most-widely-used DFT relying on free parameters ( this p.18 ) is unable to predict any physical values = fake ab-initio.
↑ Hubbard U parameter called DFT+U must be also empirically fitted to experimental results ( this p.15-4, this p.2-third-paragraph ), which also shows quantum mechanics has No ability to predict physical properties of materials.
As a result, in this research, quantum mechanics (= its mainstream one-pseudo-electron DFT model ) not only prevents real atomic picture (= which obstructs practical use of atomic behavior ) but also has No ability to predict any physical values.
The 1st, 6th, 8th, 14th, 15th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"researchers have proved the existence of altermagnetism. The experimental discovery of this new branch of magnetism (= actually, Not new magnetism at all, with regard to their impracticality ) is reported in Nature and signifies new fundamental physics, with major implications (= untrue ) for spintronics."
"The spins alternate, as in antiferromagnets, resulting in no net magnetization. Yet, rather than simply canceling out, the symmetries give an electronic band structure with strong spin polarization that flips in direction as you pass through the material's energy ( unseen ) bands—hence the name altermagnets"
"Although spintronics has for some years promised to revolutionize IT, it's still in its infancy (= impractical, quantum mechanics stops science )."
"The proof came using spin- and angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy (= spin-ARPES ).. This technique enabled the team to visualize a tell-tale feature in the electronic structure of a suspected altermagnet: the splitting of electronic ( unseen ) bands corresponding to different spin states (= just imagination ), known as the lifting of Kramers spin degeneracy."
↑ wrong. This so-called spin-ARPES just measured ambiguous electrons' kinetic energies scattered by light and material, Not fictitious spin."
"The discovery was made in crystals of manganese telluride (= MnTe ), a well-known simple two-element material. Traditionally, the material has been regarded as a classic antiferromagnet (= Not new magnetism )."
"Altermagnetism is actually not something hugely complicated. It is something entirely fundamental that was in front of our eyes for decades without noticing it (= which means it has already been known in front of us, and useless )
many people around the world will (= meaning "uncertain future, still useless" ) be able to work on it, giving the potential (= just speculation, still No impract ) for a broad impact."
↑ This research just measured kinetic energies of electrons (of the ordinary antiferromagnetic material MnTe = Not new ) ejected by light (= fictitious electron spin itself cannot be measured ), and tried to (mis)interpret it as electrons with different spin directions splitting into different energy levels or bands (= which they call lifting of Kramers spin degeneracy = LKSD, in this, band lines of electrons with different spins = blue or red lines separate ) which is said to be characteristic of ferromagnet, which is why they insist this material (= just showing ordinary antiferromagnetism, Not new ) may be new type magnetism called "altermagnetism"
↑ But actually, this material is just ordinary antiferromagnet with no magnetic field (= Not showing new magnetic properties, so concept of altermagnetism is meaningless from the practical viewpoint ).
They used the device called spin-ARPES which can just measure kinetic energies and scattering directions of the material's electrons ejected by incident light, and can Not measure the material's original electron's (fictitious) spin nor momentum (= or wave number k ), because electrons absorbing light's energy cannot keep their original momentum inside the material.
Quantum mechanics tries to often misinterpret the kinetic energies of electrons (= ejected by light, driven out of material ) measured by ARPES as a sign of (fictitious) electron or quasiparticle with ( fake negative ) effective mass ( this-2nd-paragraph, this-p.68- ) in unseen band consisting of the fake particle's energy and quasi-momentum (= wave number k, this p.7-right ).
↑ To (wrongly) explain this (fictitious) electron's band, energy and spin, this research (= this-p.7-right-calculation ) used one-pseudo-electron DFT model with unreal pseudo-potential (= Not unique ) and artificially adjusted energy parameters such as empirical Coulomb ( Hubbard ) interaction U and exchange interaction J. ← No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ The paper ( this p.4-2nd-last-paragraph ) which this research quoted also says
"Accordingly, several schemes have been
suggested in the literature to determine U from LSDA calculations (= but unreal pseudo-potential and wavefunctions must be artificially chosen, which affect the parameter U value, this p.3-left-lower ).
However, in this work
we use it (= U ) as a (fitting) parameter" ← No quantum mechanical prediction.
Furthermore this p.7-right-lower also used the spin polarized fully relativistic Korringa–Kohn–Rostoker (SPRKKR) Green’s function method in the atomic-sphere approximation (= Not original quantum mechanical theory ), which just artificially chose the ( paradoxical relativistic ) spin-orbit coupling parameter ( this p.13-2.2.8 or this p.18(or p.13)-2.2.8 ) without predicting it from the theory.
As a result, this research tried to treat the ordinary (useless, not-new ) antiferromagnet as (fictitious) new magnetism or Altermagnetism by intentionally misintepreting electrons (= unseen spin ) measured by ARPES just for researchers to publish papers in academic journals.
The 2nd and 8th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"They have managed to switch the spins in an antiferromagnetic material using surface strain (= actually, this experiment did Not detect the switch of fictional spin or magnetization of antiferromagnet ). This could (= just speculation, still useless ) lead to an important new line of research in electronic technologies (= No mention of what these technologies mean in detail )."
"Experiments with uranium dioxide have shown that mechanical stress can be used to compress the crystal lattice a tiny bit, and this is enough to switch the magnetic order of the material (= magnetic order or spin direction of this uranium dioxide could Not been directly measured )."
↑ This research just measured a slight change of magnetic hysteresis loop (= ferromagnet's magnetizing response to external magnetic field = Not fictional spin ) of ferromagnet Fe3O4 contacting strained antiferromagnet uranium dioxide (= UO2 ) at extremely low temperature (= only 5K, this p.4-figure 2a ). ← No fictitious electron spin nor spintronics is relevant.
↑ This UO2 called frustrated antiferromagnet itself showed No practical magnetic property, so useless.
This p.2-left and p.3-left say
"Frustrated antiferromagnets (= UO2 ), while inherently fascinating, have yet to gain practical significance"
"Determining the exact type of AFM (= antiferromagnetic ) ordering in UO2 films is challenging.. Such a determination has Not yet been made for any UO2 thin film. Instead, we utilize the exchange-bias (EB) effect' magnitude (= meaning slight magnetic hysteresis loop change of neighboring ferromagnet Fe3O4 ) in UO2/Fe3O4 bilayers to indirectly probe the AFM state in UO2"
"the mechanisms behind EB, which are Not yet fully understood (= quantum mechanics still cannot clarify the mechanism of ferromagnet or antiferromagnet )"
↑ This slight magnetic change was only seen at extremely low temperature (= 5K ) under very special condiction, which is very impractical.
↑ To explain this almost-unseen weak magnetic property, they used one-pseudo-electron DFT model ( this p.7-right-last-paragraph ) with empirically-fitted Hubbard U parameter ( this p.1-abstract ) and double-counting term (= adjustable parameter, this p.3-left-2~3rd-paragraphs ) in LAPW (= one electron unrealistically spreading over all the material as plane wave with artificially chosen energy parameters ). ← No quantum mechanical prediction.
It is impossible for this nonphysical one-pseudo-electron DFT model lacking real atomic picture to clarify real complicated magnetic mechanism of materials or fictional spin, and these quantum mechanical methods often disagreed with experiments as this p.5-right-last-paragraph says
"We then solved the calculated ab initio magnetic Hamiltonian.. Cubic UO2 is predicted to order into the transverse 3k AFM (= antiferromagnetic unseen ) structure at the theoretical TN bulk = 56 K, the overestimation as compared to the experimental value of 30 K"
The 2nd, 8th, 10th, 13th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"This innovation, which uses artificial intelligence (AI = just hype ) to mimic the decision-making process of chemists, enables the manufacturing of quantum materials (= just ordinary molecules ) with unrivaled intelligence and precision for future (= just speculation, still "useless" AI or quantum mechanics ) quantum technology applications such as data storage and (parallel-world) quantum computing (= never happen )."
"By combining scanning probe microscope techniques with deep learning, the research team enabled the microscope to carry out precise fabrication of a carbon-based quantum material called magnetic nanographenes (= just a kind of graphene )"
"site-selective cyclodehydrogenation is a complex but essential method to synthesize nanographenes."
"The analysis results indicate that the CARP (= chemist-intuited atomic robotic probe ) effectively captured some features that might (= just speculation ) be crucial for the successful synthesis of nanographene through cyclodehydrogenation.. The CARP also showed potential (= just speculative power ) in handling versatile probe chemistry reactions.."
↑ This research controlled scanning tunnel microscope (= STM ) or atomic force micrcoscope (= AFM ) to find molecules (= graphenes ) and caused them some chemical reaction called "cyclodehydrogenation" by flowing electric currents ( this or this p.6-7(or p.5-6), p.23-26(p.22-25) ). ← still No practical use or No quantum mechanical prediction.
These scanning tunneling microscope (= STM ) and atomic force microscope (= AFM ) that can manipulate each single atom have been used for more than 30 years ( this p.3 ).
So humans could have already manipulated each atom and created useful nano-machines to cure diseases, but quantum mechanical impractical pseudo-models have prevented this technological development.
To explain the observed single atomic or molecular manipulation, this research relied on the impractical quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron density functional theory (= DFT ) model consisting of artificially-chosen pseudo-potential (= Not unique, so No quantum mechanical prediction, this p.7-last, this p.2 ) and unphysical plane-wave-like electron ( this p.3(or p.2 )-1st-paragraph ).
↑ The current mainstream quantum mechanical DFT model forces physicists to describe electrons inside material as a pseudo-electron unrealistically spreading over the entire material as the illusory plane wave ( this p.12, this p.17-29, this-lower-picture ). ← No real particle or atomic picture
↑ This unrealistically-spreading plane-wave-like electron cannot give concrete shapes or boundaries to atoms (= each real atom must consist of a nucleus and confined electrons giving clear boundary and shape to the atom ) inside material, hence, they cannot treat each atom or molecule as a real object or tool with real shape, which quantum pseudo-model stops technological development.
AI or machine learning was just used on conventional (classical) computers by the conventional programming to manipulate these microscopes (= STM, this p.11(or p.10 ), p.23 ), which can Not cause any technological revolution under the 100-year-old already-dead quantum mechanical pseudo-model (= This latest AI-quantum research made No progress from the earlier similar research of this p.3-8 in 2010 ).
Scanning tunneling microscope (= STM ) just flowed tiny electric current consisting of real electrons with real positive kinetic energies over very narrow space (= ~nm = in such a narrow space, electrons can naturally flow under applied voltage through de Broglie wave interference ). ← No evidence of quantum mechanical ridiculous claim of unrealistic ( unobservable ) negative kinetic energy in the tunnel current ( this 1st-paragraph ).
Also in another recent research on X-ray crystallography of some proteins involved in photosynthesis relied on the impractical one-pseudo-electron DFT model with unreal pseudo-potential and empirical Grimme's dispersion potential (= Not predicted by quantum mechanical theory, this p.11-Density functional theory ).
Also in the recent research on some single-atom catalysis, they relied on the useless unphysical one-pseudo-electron DFT model with aritifically-chosen pseudo-potential (= VASP ), Hubbard U free parameter, empiricial DFT-D3 energy functional (= No quantum mechanical prediction ) and unrealistically-spreading plane wave's electron model ( this p.7-DFT-calculation-model ).
↑ The current technologies can measure and manipulate each single atom.
→ But the current mainstream impractical quantum mechanics prevents researchers from using experimentally-obtained atomic or molecular shapes as practical nano-tools.
→ All basic and applied science stops progressing.
→ Researchers aim only to publish papers in journals instead of making useful things.
Atomic manipulation and AI sound "state-of-the-art" or "futuristic", but actually humans have been already able to manipulate a single atom for more than 30 years (= atomic manipulation is the old technology like the current space industry just trying to imitate Armstrong going to the moon 50 years ago ).
Quantum mechanical mainstream pseudo-model (= one-pseudo-electron DFT used in interpreting the observed atoms as shown in this p.8, this p.4 ) has prevented researchers from using individual atoms and molecules as practical components with concrete shapes, which has obstructed the development of useful nano-technology to cure diseases for a long time. ← No cure for cancers
Finally, physicists even tried to manipulate illusory quasiparticles such as polarons ( this p.7-continue to use unphysical DFT model ), giving up pursuing reality.
In 1984, Tersoff and Hamann were the first physicists starting to apply the unphysical one-pseudo-electron DFT model (= stopping science ) to explain atoms observed by scanning tunneling microscope using linearized-augmented (unrealistically-spreading) plane wave model (= LAPW ) with artificial parameters and approximation ( this p.5-right-4,5th-paragraphs ), which often disagreed with experimental results ( this p.33(or p.27)-4,5th-paragraphs ).
↑ Even the (full-potential) linearized augmented-plane wave (= LAPW ) DFT model also has to artificially choose various parameters such as atomic core (= muffin-tin ) radius ( this p.27-32, this p.1-right-lower~p.2 ) and band energies (= atomic energies are just freely-adjustable parameters that can Not be predictd by quantum mechanics, this p.20, this p.19(or p.17)-3.2, p.20-22(or p.18-20) ).
↑ These quantum mechanical energies have No physical meaning ( this p.15(or p.9 )-upper ).
As a result, quantum mechanics is not only unable to predict any physical values but also preventing researchers from using practical atomic models with concrete shapes (= instead, unphysically-spreading plane wave model with pseudo-potential is used ), which clearly obstructs development of effective drugs and technological innovation forever.
The 6th, 7th, 8th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"The team used a molecule terminated by a ferrocene group comprising two carbon-based cyclopentadienyl rings that sandwich an iron atom."
"They then used light to leverage the electrochemical properties of the ferrocene-based molecules to form a direct bond between the ferrocene iron center and the gold (Au) electrode when the molecule was in an oxidized state (i.e., when the iron atom had lost one electron). In this state, they discovered that ferrocene could bind to the gold electrodes used to connect the molecule to the external circuitry. Technically, oxidizing the ferrocene enabled the binding of an Au0 to a Fe3+ center."
"By harnessing the light-induced oxidation, we found a way to manipulate these tiny building blocks at room temperature, opening doors to a future (= just speculation, still useless ) where light can be used to control the behavior of electronic devices at the molecular level."
↑ This research shone laser light on a single molecule called ferrocene where iron atom (= Fe ) changed to Fe+ by light energy, and this excited Fe+ was detected as higher electric conductance (= electric current flowed through the molecule with Fe+ ) by scanning tunneling microscope with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this or this p.2,3,7 ).
This research tried to use the impractical one-pseudo-electron DFT model with artificially-adjusted empirical intermolecular energy functional to explain (electric) interaction between this molecule and gold probe of the scanning microscope ( this p.9-(1),(2) ).
↑ As I repeatedly said, all the current researchers blindly rely on the useless quantum mechanical DFT model which unrealistically replaces the actual multi-electron molecules by one inseparable pseudo-electron model that cannot give real shapes or boundary to individual atoms or molecules, so researchers cannot utilize this impractical DFT pseudo-electon or pseudo-atomic model as practical tools to design and build multi-molecular devices.
Humans have been already able to manipulate a single atom or molecule for a long time ( this p.3 ).
But the impractical quantum mechanical (mainstream one-pseudo-electron) model makes it impossible for researchers to manipulate multiple molecules for simulating and building useful devices bigger than a single molecule. ← Science stops progressing by quantum mechanics.
The 1st, 5th, 11th, 12th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"However, it is currently unclear which materials can be used to construct those components for the transmission and storage of quantum information (= quantum network and memory are hyped pseudo-science forever, this last-paragraph )"
"rare earth elements, such as europium (= Eu ), have shown promise (= just speculation, still unrealized ) for use in quantum information devices due to their unique atomic structures"
"Riedel composed a (one-pseudo-electron) DFT computational screening to predict which materials could form (← wrong, quantum mechanics or DFT cannot predict anything ). Following this screening, Riedel was able to identify new Eu compound candidates, and further, he was able to synthesize the top suggestion from the list, the double perovskite halide Cs2NaEuF6. This new compound is air-stable, which means it can be integrated with other components, a critical property in scalable quantum computing (= impractical forever ). DFT calculations also predicted several other possible compounds that have yet to be synthesized."
"We have shown that there are a lot of unknown materials left to be made that are good candidates (= still candidates, unrealized ) for quantum information storage"
↑ This research tried to use the (impractical) quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron density functional theory (= DFT ) model with artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials (= so No quantum mechanical prediction ) to estimate the stable energy states of compounds, and some of those candidates disagreed with DFT model ( this research paper p.2-4, p.10-right-last-paragraph ).
In fact, all the ab-initio quantum mechanical methods including the most-widely-used one-pseudo-electron DFT model heavily rely on artificially-chosen (fake) potential energies called pseudo-potential with multiple freely-adjustable parameters that can Not predict any physical values, contrary to hypes.
This 2nd-paragraph says
"We can choose form various pseudopotential libraries. Choice of pseudopotential depends on the problem we are investigating, e.g., if there is a heavy element present in our system and we are interested in the spin-orbit coupling effects, we should choose a full relativistic pseudopotential. We need to be careful whether our chosen pseudopotential correctly reproduces physical properties (← they just "choose" pseudo-potential compatible with experimental results without prediction )"
This p.17-last says
"bad pseudopotentials deal bad results (and there is not such a
thing as a passable PP = pseudo-potential )
"
This p.4-2nd-last-paragraph says
"Note that absolute pseudo-energies have No
physical meaning (= unreal energy potential ) ! they depend on the specific pseudopotential. Only energy differences
are significant."
This paper explains how pseudo-potential (= PP ) energies of quantum mechanical calculations were artificially created and chosen (= instead of quantum mechanical theory predicting values ) in detail ↓
p.2-1st-paragraph says "it became quickly evident that available pseudopotentials (PP’s) couldn't do the job. So we generated our
own PP's (= artificially created pseudo-potential )"
p.3-1.3 says "Third, one checks whether the resulting PP (
= pseudo-potential ) is actually working. If not,
one tries again in a different way... The second and third steps are closer to cooking than to science. There is a large
arbitrariness in the preceding step that one would like to exploit in order to get the
"best" PP, but there is No well-defined way to do this.
" ← Not quantum mechanical legitimate prediction.
p.4 says "choose the generation parameters:.. 6.(choose) pseudization energies ( this p.4-right-upper )
7. pseudization radii.. In case of trouble or of unsatisfactory results, one has to go back to the first step and change the generation parameters"
p.6 says "requires to choose a suitable reference
energy...
The results of your PP (= pseudo-potential ) are very sensitive to the chosen configuration. This is
something that in principle should not happen"
↑ As shown in this official procedure, quantum mechanics just chooses (fake) pseudo-potential with many freely-adjustable parameters such as atomic radii, band energies..
There is No such thing as quantum mechanical prediction.
This research paper also says ( this ↓ )
p.2-left-2nd-paragraph says "If 4f electrons
are frozen in the core, separate pseudopotentials are needed for divalent (4f7
core) and trivalent (4f6
core) europium"
p.3-Table 1 says "Computed ∆Hf values best match
experimental ones when the appropriate pseudopotential is used (= just artificially-chosen )"
p.4-right-1st-paragraph says "the 4f7
core pseudopotential does
poorly for the Eu3+ systems. Therefore, we
used the pslibrary set"
p.10-right-last-paragraph says "Though our attempts to synthesize the other predicted compounds were unsuccessful (= Their DFT pseudo-potential failed to predict some materials )"
↑ This research just tried to synthesize some compounds based on artificially-chosen DFT pseudo-potential (= and failed in some materials ), and still has Not realized useful quantum memory. ← quantum mechanics and mainstream DFT proved to be useless.
The 2nd, 7th, 11th, 12th, 13th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"studying the behavior of these and other materials under enormous, sustained pressures is anything but practical (= superconductivity under enormous high pressure is just impractical ) "
"To detect when a sample has been squashed enough to go superconducting, physicists typically look for a dual signature: a drop in electrical resistance to zero, as well as the repulsion of any nearby magnetic field, a.k.a. the Meissner Effect"
"They used these effective quantum sensors, called nitrogen vacancy (= NV ) centers, to image regions inside the chamber while the sample is pressurized and crosses into superconducting territory."
"they worked with cerium hydride, a material known to become a superconductor at about a million atmospheres of pressure (= this material becoming superconductor only under such an impractically-high pressure is unneeded for us )"
"The new tool could (= just speculation, still useless ) help the field not only by enabling discovery of new superconducting hydrides (= only under impractically-high pressure ), but also by allowing easier access to those coveted characteristics in existing materials"
↑ This research squashed the material called cerium hydride (= CeH9 ) under the impractically-high pressure = a million times atmospheric pressure (> 100 GPa ) to make it artificial superconductor at very low temperature (< 90K = Not room temperature, this or this p.4, p.21 ), and tried to measure its electric conductivity and magnetic field repulsion (= proof of superconductivity ) by nitrogen-vacancy (= NV ) center in diamond which they call "quantum (magnetic) sensor", but No quantum mechanical prediction nor calculation was made in this research.
Contrary to an incredible amount of overhyped news, nitrogen-vacancy center in diamond, which is said to be a promising quantum sensor, is useless forever (= or it remains "uncertain potential or promising imaginary quantum sensor" forever ).
This nitrogen-vacancy (= NV ) center consists of a nitrogen (= N ) atom and a vacancy (= V ) inside diamond (= carbons = C ), whose energy level interval between ms = + 1 and ms = -1 is widened by external magnetic field B, which energy levels' change can be detected by measuring light's energy or frequency interacting with NV center.
↑ So these experiments using the NV centers in diamond do Not detect the (unrealistic) electron's spin itself.
This NV center's energy splitting under magnetic field is related to "Bohr mangeton (= μB, this p.1-right-last-paragraph, this p.2-last-paragraph )", which means electron's orbital motion instead of spin is related to this NV center's energy splitting.
Physicists just measured the energy (= or frequency ) change of the (classical) light wave (= microwave or MW ) emitted from or absorbed into NV centers under varying applied magnetic field B ( this Figure.3, this-lower figure ) from which the applied magnetic field's magnitude is roughly estimated.
The point is this NV center in diamond can Not measure the (absolute) value of magnetic field, so it cannot be used as a practical magnetometer.
Because this NV centers' sensitivity to external magnetic field is uncertain. random and unpredictable due to their uncertain random vacancy positions inside the diamond ( this p.6-right-1st-paragraph, this 1.introduction ).
And NV centers are very unstable, easily broken or degraded ( this-abstract, this 1.introduction-3rd-paragraph ), which can never become reliable magnetic sensors, contrary to the hypes that try to hide inconvenient truth of the current deadend science.
This research placed these NV-centers in diamond near or a litte distant from the squashed artificial superconductor, and compared the energy levels' splittings under external magnetic field, which energy splitting interval is smaller (= detected by light's frequency interacting with NV centers ) near the superconductor, which vaguely showed the magnetic repulsion by superconductor.
↑ This p.19,p.21-Fig.3-(e)(f)-green points nearer to the squashed superconductor felt smaller magnetic field B ( which is different from the original applied external magnetic field H which can Not be detected by the NV centers with uncertain magnetic sensitivities without artificial calibrarion, this p.27 ) compared to purple points farther away from the superdonductor.
And this research did Not conduct any quantum mechanical calculation nor prediction. They just artificially chose experimental parameters in the abstract equation lacking real particle picture. ( this p.24 ).
Quantum mechanics still cannot give the detailed mechanism of the NV-centers in diamond as magnetic sensors, like this p.3-1st-paragraph says
"questions remain on the details of the low-lying spin states and transitions between
charge states. The mechanism of intersystem crossing between triplets and dark singlets in
negatively charged NV center (NV−), a process that is essential for initialization and readout of
quantum states, is still controversial"
Due to this unphysical quantum mechanics lacking real physical picture, physicists waste their time in impractical high-pressure superconductors and unreliable quantum sensors only to publish papers in journals whose useless science out of touch with reality ( ex. this p.32-2.4 unreal pseudo-spin ) will ruin researchers' and students' careers, future.
The 8th, 9th, 12th, 13th, 16th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"There are also metals in which the conduction electrons come together collectively. Together, they can shield the magnetism of the material, behaving as a single particle with—for electrons—an extremely high mass (= meaning fake effective mass )"
"Such superconducting materials are known as heavy-fermion superconductors. UTe2 (= heavy fermion is unreal quasiparticle model lacking real particle picture), "
"With their studies on the heavyweight UTe2, the researchers have now been able to raise the bar even higher: At a transition temperature of 1.6 kelvin (–271.55°C = needing too cold temperature shows useless superconductor ), the critical magnetic-field strength reaches 73 tesla, setting the ratio at 45—which is a record."
"Until now, heavy-fermion superconductors were of little interest for technical applications,.. They have a very low transition temperature and the effort required to cool them is comparatively high (= so useless comsuming a lot of energy to make superconductor )."
Of course, UTe2 cannot be used to make leads for a superconducting electromagnet,.. First, the material's properties make it unsuitable for this endeavor, and second, it is radioactive. But it is perfectly suited for the exploration of the physics (← ? ) behind spin-triplet superconductivity (= very ambiguous target ).
↑ This research tried to explain electromagnetic properties of some (impractical) superconductors by using fictitious heavy fermion quasiparticle model and nonphysical abstract equation with freely-adjustable parameters and No quantum mechanical prediction (= No quantum mechanical calculations such as DFT have been performed in this research ).
This p.5-right-1st and 3rd-paragraphs say (fictional) heavy quasiparticle, effective mass, and "In the case of heavy-fermion systems, even though there is No accepted complete microscopic theory (= quantum mechanics can Not explain this superdconducting mechanism )"
This p.4-right shows the speculative abstract equation between Hc2 (= critical magnetic field ) and Tc (= critical temprature ) of the superconductor including freely-adjustable paremeter vF, p.5-left-freely-adjustable parameter λ (= this p.10-2nd-paragraph ), p.8-left-4th-paragraph says "Presently, too little is known about the magnetization and Hex above Hm. Thus, there are too many possible tuning parameters for a comprehensive quantitative model of the hfSC pocket."
↑ As a result, quantum mechanics not only failed to explain the mechanism of this superconductor but also obstructs the scientific progress by forcing unscientific quasiparticle model with fake effective mass.
The 1st and 9th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Semiconductor moiré superlattices are fascinating material structures that have been found to be promising (= uncertain futre, still useless ) for studying correlated electron states and quantum physics phenomena. These structures, made up of artificial atom (= Not real atoms ) arrays arranged in a so-called moiré configuration, are highly tunable and characterized by strong electron interactions."
" when each moiré' atom (= fake artificial atom ) in a superlattice contains three electrons, they found that Coulomb interactions led to the formation of a so-called "Wigner molecule (= fake artificial molecule irrelevant to real atomic or molecular interaction )."
↑ Each fake artificial moire atom or artificial Wigner molecule trapping about three electrons by potential well (= quantum dot's artificial atom ) is far bigger (= 5~10nm, this p.15 ) than an actual atom or a molecule (= avoiding clarifying actual tiny atomic behavior ).
↑ This research tries to use fake artificial atom trapping several electrons in its potential well like quantum dot to simulate fictitious quantum mechanical model such as quasiparticle ( this p.4-left-2nd-paragraph ), fake electron's effective mass. = moving in the opposite direction from reality
This p.1-right-lower says single-particle moire (= artificial atom ) band structure is accurately described by a continuum model consisting of an effective (= fake ) mass approximation
The current basic science is stalled, or rather regressing due to quantum mechanical pseudo-models.
Because physicists could observe each actual atom or molecule by the current technology of scanning tunnel microscope (= STM, this p.15-Fig.1D ), but they ignore those actually-observed atomic or molecular shapes or information.
Instead, they automatically try to rely on quantum mechanical pseudo-model such as quasiparticle, fake effective mass, and try to describe each (pseudo-)particle as nonphysical math symbol with No concrete figure using obsolete ancient meaningless equation ( this p.14-15, this p.19 ).
↑ Theory has made No progress compared to artificial atomic research in 1990s ( this p.13-14 ), which is Not going toward elucidating real atomic mechanism at all.
And this research just relies on artificially-chosen parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this Fig.1,2,3 ).
Quantum mechanics or BCS theory claims that some material becomes superconductor under the critical temperature (= Tc ) where two negative electrons could magically attract each other (= this is impossible ) by fictitious phonon quasiparticle and form Cooper pair (= which just means positive nuclei mediating negative electrons, this p.4, so quasiparticle models are unnecessary in realistic explanation ).
When some amount of energy (= called energy gap appearing under the critical temperature ) is given to this superconductor, Cooper pair is said to be broken into fictitious Bogoliubov quasiparticles ( this p.9 ) that is said to make superconductor unstable.
But this mainstream BCS theory turned out to be invalid in high-temperature superconductor where the energy gap called pseudo-gap exists even above the critical temperature.
Quantum mechanics cannot explain the mechanism of this high-temperature superconductor despite longtime researches ( this last-paragraph ).
Furthermore, quantum mechanics can only describe electrons and fictitious quasiparticles as nonphysical math operators with No concrete shapes, which prevents clarifying real atomic bahavior and underlying mechanism of superconductor ( this p.4, this p.18-, this p.3- ).
Lithium-6 (= Li-6 ) is said to become superfluid at extremely low temperature (= less than impractical microkelvin ), but this lithium superfulid is very unstable, elusive ( this p.2-second-paragraph ) and useless compared to the famous helium superfluid.
Physicists have tried to use this (impractical) lithium's superfluid as a fake platform for simulating irrelevant high-temperature superconductor's pseudo-gap for a long time in vain (= even if they claim some similar energy gap may be found in cold lithium, it cannot change the current useless high-temperature superconductor research ).
This p.2-left-3rd-paragraph says
"Due to the analogy (= just analogy, so physically irrelevant ) between superfluidity and superconductivity, it is
expected that study of the pairing and superfluid phenomena in ultracold Fermi gases may (= just uncertain speculation ) eventually shed
light on the pseudogap physics and thus the mechanism
of high Tc superconductivity (← never happen )"
But the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"A research team has, for the first time, observed and quantitatively characterized the many-body pairing pseudogap in unitary Fermi gases (= cold lithium atoms ). This achievement, pursued by the ultracold atomic community for nearly two decades (= still No practical use ), resolves longstanding debates regarding the existence of a pairing pseudogap in these gases. It also supports pairing as a possible origin of the pseudogap in high-temperature superconductors"
"The existence of an energy gap is a hallmark phenomenon of superconductivity. In conventional superconductors, the energy gap exists below the superconducting transition temperature (Tc). In cuprate high-temperature superconductors, the energy gap can still be observed even above Tc, a phenomenon known as the pseudogap."
"Yet the complexity of high-temperature superconducting materials leaves these questions largely unanswered (= quantum mechanics cannot explain high-temperature superconductor )."
"Unitary Fermi gases provide an ideal (fictitious) quantum simulation platform for investigating the existence and characteristics of a pairing pseudogap ( Fermi gases or cold lithium atoms are used as fictional platform for simulating the irrelevant solid superconductor's pseudo-gap )."
"The techniques developed in this work lay the foundation for future exploration and study of other important low-temperature quantum phases (= No mention of practical use, this research is an example of physicists wasting their time and life only in publishing papers in academic journals )"
↑ This research just applied microwave pulse to excite very cold lithium atoms to some energy levels under magnetic field, and tried to interpret this lithium's atomic energy interval by using quantum mechanical fictitious quasiparticle model with fake effective mass, free parameters and pseudo-gap theory.
This p.5 shows two split energy levels of cold lithium-6 (= Li-6 ) under magnetic field, whose energy interval equals the applied microwave energy.
This p.10, p.13, p.14, p.15 used fictitious quasiparticle model and various freely-fitting parameters such as fake effective mass (= m* ), Hartree energy U and paring (= pseudo ) gap Δ with No quantum mechanical prediction nor calculation.
This p.16-summary says
"We establish the existence of a pseudogap, which originates from strong pair fluctuations, in a
homogeneous unitary Fermi (= lithium ) gas through momentum-resolved microwave spectroscopy. We obtain quantitatively accurate T-dependent pairing (= pseudo-) gap
∆(T), by both analyzing the (fictitious) quasiparticle energy dispersion and fitting the energy distribution
curve with a minimal fermion self-energy model (= just artificial fitting between experimental microwave energy and fictional model's pseudo-gap, No quantum mechanical prediction )."
↑ As shown here, quantum mechanics forces physicists to automatically rely on unrealistic quasiparticle model with fake effective mass to explain various physical phenomena, which old deadend quantum mechanical pseudo-model clearly obstructs the current science and innovation.
The 4th and 9th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"When researchers strike one set of atoms in these materials with light, it causes their spins (= Not real spin ) to wobble in a pattern that ripples out through neighboring atoms like waves on a pond when a stone falls in (= this sentence is wrong, because quantum mechanical unphysical math model can Not express real concrete objects with shapes, this p.5-8 ). This is a spin wave (= just magnetic fluctuation, unreal spin itself is invisible )."
"they found that the excitation of two different spin waves can result in a new, hybrid spin wave... this is particularly exciting because it could (= just speculation, still useless ) help push the technology from spintronics into a new realm called magnonics. In spintronics (= irrelevant to quantum mechanical spin ), information is carried in the spin of individual electrons. In magnonics, information is carried in spin waves (also known as magnons = fictitious quasiparticle representing imaginary spin wave )."
↑ This experiment just investigated the electromagnetic wave or field interacting with some antiferromagnetic material, and tried to explain it by using fictitious magnon (= spin wave ) quasiparticle model with artificially-adjusted parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction.
This p.16-lower-p.17-nonphysical abstract LLG equation allegedly describing fictitious magnon dynamics lacking real particle or spin wave picture. ← No quantum mechanical calculations nor prediction has been done in this research.
↑ This p.29(or p.28)-Table S1 = artificial parameters fitted to experiments with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.3 ).
The 1st and 6th paragraphs of this hyped news says
"A collaborative group of researchers has potentially (= uncertain ) developed a means of controlling spin waves (= just magnetic fluctuation, not spin ) by creating a hexagonal pattern of copper disks on a magnetic insulator. The breakthrough is expected to (= just speculation. still useless ) lead to greater efficiency and miniaturization of communication devices in fields such as (hyped) artificial intelligence and automation technology"
"by rotating the magnonic (= fictitious quasiparticle magnon ) crystal and changing the incident angle of spin waves, the researchers revealed that the frequency at which the magnonic band gap occurs remains largely unchanged in the range from 10 to 30 degrees. This suggests the potential (= uncertain future, still unrealized ) for the two-dimensional magnonic crystal to freely control the propagation direction of spin waves."
↑ This research tried to explain the material's magnetic fluctuation, which is misintepreted as a fictitious magnon quasiparticle or spin wave in quantum mechanical pseudo-model, by using classical Maxwell equation as classical wave. ← No quantum mechanical prediction nor calculation has been done in this research.
↑ This abstract-last and p.2 A.calculation model say
"The 2D MCs (= magnonic crystal ) were designed using a simulator
( CST Studio Suite ) based on the three dimensional (3D) finite integration technique (FIT = this is based on classical Maxwell equation, Not quantum mechanics )".
↑ This simulator (= CST studio ) can just create some artificial classical Maxwell equation-based electromagnetic wave from experimentally-known parameters, Not from quantum mechanical prediction nor calculation.
This p.3-left-4th-paragraph artificially set the value of λYIG to 600μm.
↑ The same group ( this p.4-calculation of spin wavelength ) also used the classical wave simulating method (= CST microwave ) calculating EMW (= classical electromagnetic wave ) from the antenna modeled with the same dimensions as the sample used in the experiment (= based on the input known parameters ), ignoring quantum exchange energy term, saying "Heff was determined as the best fit value.. in order to match the results of the experiments".
As a result, there is No such thing as "quantum mechanical prediction (even in fictitious spin wave)" that is just overhyped illusion.
The 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"The brain is the ultimate computer, and scientists are constantly striving to create neuromorphic devices that mimic the brain's processing capabilities, low power consumption, and its ability to adapt to neural networks (= mimicking brain or AI is impossible under the current useless quantum mechanics )"
"In recent years, many advances in computational models inspired by the brain have been made. These artificial neural networks have demonstrated extraordinary performances in various tasks. However, current technologies are software-based; their computational speed, size, and energy consumption remain constrained by the properties of conventional electric computers (+ quantum computer is hopeless )."
"Some have proposed spintronics as a means to realize high-performance devices. But devices produced so far have failed to live up to expectations. In particular, they have failed to achieve high performance at nanoscales with GHz speed." ← spintronics is useless.
"Our study proposed a physical RC (= reservoir computing ) that harnessed propagating spin waves (← just proposal, No experimental realization )"
"we have potentially (= just speculation, still useless ) paved the way for a new era of intelligent computing,"
↑ This research just proposed some (fictional) theory and simulated it with No experimental realization and No quantum mechanical prediction = No evidence of spin wave or fictitious magnon quasiparticle ( this p.1-left-first ).
↑ This research paper ↓
p.1-right-3rd-paragraph says "However, the current performance of spintronic RC
demonstrated experimentally still remains poor compared with
the Echo State Network (ESN)
, idealized RC model implemented
in conventional computers"
p.10-right-last says using the micromagnetic simulator mumax ← just simulation, Not experimental research.
p.11 artificially-chosen models and parameters were used with No quantum mechanical (spin) prediction nor quantum mechanical calculation.
Physicists tried to (fruitlessly) mimic brain's neuron (= these fictitious spin wave researches are far from actual brain ) using the simple material (= ferromagnet corresponding to reservoir ) whose magnetic field was fluctuated by input electric current (= which they call spin wave, though No experimental verification of spin ), which magnetic fluctuation can be detected as electric voltage change through magnetoresistance (= just measure electric resistance unrelated to spin ) or something.
One of the recent experiments about this spin wave reservoir is this Nature paper ↓
p.2 says "Magnetization oscillations (= allegedly by spin magnetic wave oscillation ) are converted into voltage oscillations through magnetoresistance (← fictitious spin itself is undetectable )... To compute we
encode neural inputs in the (electric ) current injected in the oscillator I(t) and use the (voltage) amplitude V(t) response as the neural output"
p.3 shows just one input (electric current) signal far from actual complicated brain network.
Fruitless attempts to use the (fictitious) spin magnetic wave fluctuation to mimic brain's neuron network (= corresponding to reservoir far from actual brain ) are limited only to imaginary theoretical researches (= No experimental realization ), as
this p.2-2nd-paragraph says
"The majority of
works on spintronic RC (= researvoir computing ) have been carried out theoretically or through simulations (= No experiment )"
The latest research attempting to make the (fictitious) spin wave's magnetic fluctuation mimic neural network reservoir is this one where they input only 4 bits (= only four electric current pulses, each pulse represents 0 or 1 ) into a very bulky millimeter-sized material ( this-(a) ) that caused magnetic fluctuation (= alleged spin wave ) and electromotive force, which voltage changes were detected by oscilloscope ( this p.3-4 ).
↑ The accuracy rate of correctly identifying those (just) four input electric pulse information (= 0010 ) is less than 90% ( this p.4-left-1st-paragraph ). ← far from sophisticated human brain that can recognize much more complicated information.
↑ Even only 4 bit information can Not be correctly dealt with in this alleged fake brain's spin-wave device (= millimeter size ) which is far bigger, bulkier and more useless than the ordinary classical computer's compact bit or transistor (= only nanometer size ).
Researches on quantum mechanical spintronics and (fictitious) spin wave have been deadend with No substantial progress, contrary to the hypes.
The 1st, 6th and last paragraphs this recent hyped news say
"Quantum dots are a kind of artificial atom: just a few nanometers in size and made of semiconductor materials, they can emit light of a specific color or even single photons, which is important for quantum technologies (← ? ambiguous "quantum" technology, again )"
"This leads to the formation of an exciton (= unreal quasiparticle ) consisting of an electron, which can now move more freely, and a hole—in other words, a missing electron—in the energetic band structure of the material. The excited electron can fall back to a lower energy state and thus recombine with the hole. If the energy released during this process is converted into a photon, the quantum dot emits light.."
"they could (= just speculation, still useless ) be used as light-activated catalysts in organic chemistry. Kovalenko is conducting (= still Not finished ) research into such applications (= actually, this perovskite quantum dots are still useless due to unphysical quantum mechanical quasiparticle model )"
↑ This research tried to explain quantum dot of perovskite interacting with light by using fictitious quasiparticle phonon and exciton ( very old-fashioned ) models with unreal effective (exciton) mass (= No real particle picture, this p.5-7, so useless ) and artificially-fitted parameters ( this p.8, p.13(or p.12), p.15, p.18-24 ) with No quantum mechanical prediction.
This p.3-left-fictitious exciton quasiparticle's effective mass model, uncertain parameters.
This p.13(or p.12), p.15(or p.14), p.19(or p.18), p.22(or p.21), Table S2 uses various artificial free parameters fitted with experiments such as PL bandgap parameter, the (fictitious) exciton reduced effecive mass parameter, effective dielectric constant. Kane parameter Kp of artificial exciton model remains an uncertain paradoxical parameter disagreeing with quantum mechanical DFT prediction ( this p.5-left-last-paragraph ).
↑ So there is No such thing as quantum mechanical prediction in quantum dots.
This p.8-right says impractically-time-consuming ab-initio molecular dynamics (= AIMD or CPMD) based on one-pseudo-electron DFT with artificially-chosen pseudo-potential and fictitious electron mass, which cannot express real dynamics or motion of real electrons or atoms.
↑ Unphysical quantum mechanics relying on fictitious (exciton) quasiparticle model with fake effective mass and one-pseudo-electron DFT impractical method is the reason why the perovskite quantum dots are still impractical (= this-last-paragraph, the media just repeats the uncertain cliche "promising candidate" ) despite long-time researches based on macroscopic trial-and-error approach that does Not look into microscopic real separable atoms or electrons (= instead of one inseparable DFT pseudo-electron ).
The 1st and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"researchers have developed a transmissive thin scintillator using perovskite nanocrystals, designed for real-time tracking and counting of single protons. The exceptional sensitivity is attributed to biexcitonic (= unreal quasiparticle model ) radiative emission generated through proton-induced upconversion and impact ionization."
"In particular, these CsPbBr3 nanocrystal scintillators hold overwhelming promise (= uncertain future word, so still useless ) for advancing detection technology in proton therapy and proton radiography (← ? )."
↑ This experiment tried to explain the phenomena of protons entering perovskite scintillator exciting electrons emitting (classical) light (= only this light can be detected by PMT detector. No unreal exciton or biexciton quasiparticles can be detected ) by using fictitious exciton and biexciton quasiparticle models ( this p.9-Fig.7 ) with No quantum mechanical prediction.
This p.3-Fig.2e,f says proton beam generates fictitious quasiparticles exciton, biexciton (= representing just excited electrons ) that eventually emit detectable light (= quasiparticles themselves are undetactable, just illusion ).
This p.9 just showed abstract equations with artificial parameters fitted with experiments. ← No quantum mechanical prediction, and No real particle picture (= real mechanism is still unknown stuck in quantum mechanical useless model ).
↑ These abstract equations or unphysical quantum mechanical quasiparticle models prevent us from exploring the real microscopic mechanism inside materials using real electrons or atoms, which impractical (quantum mechanical) pseudo-model has stopped our science (forever).
The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 10th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"The condensation of excitons (= unreal quasiparticle ) with non-zero momentum can give rise to so-called charge density waves (CDW). This phenomenon can prompt the transition of materials into a fascinating new quantum phase, known as an excitonic insulator (= just name, No practical use )."
"Researchers.. carried out a study exploring the possibility that this metal-insulator transition could occur in the atomically thin semi-metallic HfTe2. Their observations, outlined in Nature Physics, unveiled possible excitonic CDW and metal-insulator transitions in the atomically thin material."
"Our research team previously conducted a series of studies on two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenides including TiSe2 and ZrTe2 to explore this novel phenomenon. Unfortunately, lattice distortion is still evidenced in the calculated phonon (= unreal quasiparticle, again ) dispersions, although it might (= just speculation ) not be the main driving force in these materials"
"These calculations showed that single-layer HfTe2 does not exhibit structural instability. In addition, Raman (= just using classical light ) and X-ray diffraction measurements did not unveil any significant lattice distortions, thus providing strong evidence for the electronic origin of the metal-insulator transition in single-layer HfTe2 (= No quasiparticles appeared )."
"The new excitonic insulator uncovered by this research team could (= just speculation ) lay the foundation for additional studies focusing on exotic quantum effects deriving from interaction between excitonic insulating states and other orderings (e.g., topology and spin-correlated states). In their future (= meaning still useless ) work, Peng and his colleagues plan to examine the quantum insulator phase they observed further, to better understand its underlying physics." ← No mention of practical use, so useless research.
↑ This research just illuminated some material with light at very cold temperature (= 10K ), and observed kinetic energies of electrons (= called photo-electron ) ejected by the light in the device called ARPES. Actually, they did not measure electric conductance or metal-insulator transition in this research.
↑ No quasiparticles such as excitons nor phonons were observed, and No quantum mechanical prediction was made, so completely useless research except for publishing papers in journals.
↑ This paper p.2-abstract, p.4, p.13-16 say observed electrons' energy by ARPES showed some energy gap (= this c-1TL at 10 K showed small energy gap, this-lower-picture ) at low temperature (= 10K ), which is said to be caused by fictional exciton quasiparticle-based charge density wave (= CDW ) or electrons' fluctuation instead of fictitious phonon quasiparticle-mediated lattice distortion, though such fictional quasiparticles were never observed (= all they detected were just electrons or light ).
↑ This paper p.19-2nd-paragraph says this research used one pseudo-electron density-functional-theory (= DFT ) model with VASP-projector augmented wave methods (= PAW ) which rely on artificially-chosen pseudo-potential ( this p.2 ) and pseudo-wavefunction (= free parameter, this p.18, this p.7-last ), which can Not predict physical values from original quantum mechanics.
This paper p.21-2nd-paragraph says
"Of note is that DFT results predict a larger overlap between the
valence band top and the conduction band bottom than the experiment in the normal phase due to
the inherent limitations of the DFT method (= this quantum mechanical DFT model failed to predict experimental results. )"
As a result, this experiment just measured electrons of some cold material ejected by light, and tried to use fictional quasiparticle model such as unseen exciton and phonon (= lack of real particle picture hampers real scientific advancement ) with No quantum mechanical prediction, so useless research going nowhere, contrary to the media-hype.
The 6th, 7th and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"the researchers.. used a special microscope for photoelectrons in combination with a high-intensity laser. In the process, the breaking up of an exciton (= fictional quasiparticle ) leads to a loss of energy in the electron measured in the experiment."
"This energy loss is characteristic for different excitons (= just imaginary theory ), depending on the environment in which the electron and the hole interact with each other."
"In the future (= uncertain future, still useless ), we want to use the spectroscopic signature of the interaction between electrons and holes to study novel phases in quantum materials"
↑ This research just illuminated some material with laser, and treated the excited electron-hole pair as fictitious quasiparticle exciton, whose energy was said to be measured by electrons (= Not quasiparticles ) ejected by light in photoelectric effect with No quantum mechanical prediction and No real particle picture, which quantum mechanical pseudo-model hampers the real (applied) science, and physicists waste their time in useless pseudo-science.
This research paper p.4-right-2nd-paragraph says
"This deviation between experiment and theory can be understood by the fact that radiative and defect-assisted decay processes of intralayer, hybrid, and interlayer (fictitious) excitons with lifetimes
ranging from 1 ps to tenths of picoseconds are not
included in the model calculations. Hence, the model calculations
overestimate the exciton occupation" ← Quantum mechanical exciton model disagreed with experiment, and physicists tried to rely on another fictitious exciton model to explain this discrepancy without using real particle-based mechanism.
This p.12 expressed fictional exciton quasiparticles with fake exciton mass as nonphysical math operator with No physical shapes, which cannot be used for practical atomic tool.
↑ This reference paper ( this p.3-left ) used one pseudo-electron DFT model with VASP-PAW = artificially-chosen pseudo-potential ( this p.11-15 ) and fictional exciton Coulomb potential model ( this p.6, this p.3-4 various parameters chosen ) just fitting free parameters to experiment. ← No quantum mechanical prediction.
This "mainstream" quantum mechanical fictional useless exciton quasiparticle model lacking real particle picture applied to some transition metal dichalcogenides clearly obstructs the develpment of all science, medicine.
The 2nd, 5th, 6th, 9th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"These extra electrons—or holes—do not participate in atomic bonding but sometimes bind to excitons—quasi-particles (= unreal particle ) consisting of an electron and an electron hole"
"We broke through the energy resolution limit of conventional luminescence measurements by directly observing the fine structure of bound excitons in boron-doped blue diamond, using optical absorption"
"This acceptor-bound exciton structure yielded two triplets separated by a spin-orbit splitting of 14.3 meV, supporting the hypothesis (← quantum mechanics cannot predict atomic energies nor fictional spin-orbit splitting )"
"In future studies (= meaning, still useless ), we are considering the possibility of measuring absorption under external fields".
↑ This experiment just measured light interacting with the boron-doped diamond, Not directly measuring fictional quasiparticle exciton nor unphysical spin-orbit interaction (= fine structure ) that can be naturally explained by realistic atomic model without spin nor spin-orbit ( this-lower, this p.14-3th,4th,last-paragraphs ).
↑ I couldn't find this research's original full paper, but the same team's research did Not perform any quantum mechanical calculation nor prediction of exciton's spin-orbit fine structure energy splitting (= so No hypothesis supported by experiment ), instead, just explaining the experimental results using fictional quasiparticle model such as exciton and phonon ( this p.6-7 ).
One of papers by M.Cardona that was quoted by this research refers to theoretical approach based on k·p band and very old Slater-Koster potential to roughly estimate this (fictional) excition's spin-orbit energy splitting ( this p.1-left ).
↑ Both of these k·p method and Slater-Koster potential just artificially adjust free energy parameters to experimental results, so No quantum mechanical prediction of spin-orbit interaction nor exciton. ← No evidence
This k·p band structure method (= empirically fitting ) says
"The parameters not available from experimental information have been adjusted until the calculated energy bands agree with ultraviolet reflection data."
This p.2 says
"The 1954 paper by Slater and Koster established parameterized tight-binding (= semi-empirical, this p.1-first ) as a
method for fitting electronic band structures of crystals. In this method, matrix elements
between atomic-like orbitals are treated as disposable constants with which to fit band
structures calculated using some more accurate technique."
In fact, quantum mechanical Schrodinger equation can Not calculate nor predict multi-electron atoms, especially in solids.
Slater and Koster's original paper ( p.1-left ) says
"it becomes almost impossibly difficult to carry out with full rigor... We shall arbitrarily discard many terms which make trouble.. Instead of computing analytically, we shall use them as disposable constants.. fit the results such as cellular method or orthogonalized plane waves.."
↑ So the theoretical methods used to allegedly explain the (fictional) exciton quasiparticle's spin-orbit energy splitting just artificially fitted energy parameters to experiments with No quantum mechanical prediction.
The upper celluer method approximately replaced actual complicated potential V by the simple hydrogen-like potential in each independent cell (= fictional core ion is in the center, this p.18-cellular method's potential is unreal, this-4.1-4th~6th-paragraphs say the results are incorrect )
The upper orthogonalized plane waves (= OPW ) method used artificially-chosen pseudo-potential ( this p.2-2nd-paragraph, this p.1-last-paragraph ) fitted to experiments ( this p.12-14, empirical, this p.3-right artificial potential V fitted to experimental x-ray spectrum, p.5 empirical potential ).
↑ The exact (core or valence) potential energy V in solids is impossible to determine by quantum mechanics.
This p.3-left-II says
"The calculations were first carried
out using non-relativistic self-consistent neutral atom
potentials based on the Slater free-electron exchange
approximation (= just fictitious approximate potential )
the Slater model leads to
somewhat larger energy separations between valence
and conduction bands in some regions (= disagree with experiment )
"
This paper ↓
p.5(or p.1)-last-p.6(or p.2) says
"based on the idea of a band of energies for which No acceptable solution of the Schrodinger equation in crystal potential exist"
p.7(or p.3)-2nd-paragraph says
"core -state derived from solutions of the isolated carbon (= No carbon molecular bond was considered ) in diamond"
p.83(or p.79)-2nd-paragraph says
"Our first step is to determine approximate wave function from Slater's empirical rule."
↑ Quantum mechanics has to rely on empirical approximate core effective charge Z (= nucleus + inner electrons ) using rough Slater rule instead of calculating or predicting them from quantum mechanical theory.
No prediction by (useless) quantum mechanics means No evidence of the exciton quasiparticle's spin-orbit energy.
The 2nd and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"They exposed the material (=SrTiO3 ) to mid-infrared and terahertz frequency laser pulses and found that the fluctuations of its atomic positions are reduced under these conditions. This may (= just speculation ) explain the emergence of a more ordered dipolar structure than in equilibrium and of a ferroelectric state"
"the results discussed here may (= just speculation, still useless ) have wider implications beyond the physics of SrTiO3 (← ? )"
↑ This research tried to explain the transient electric polarization called ferroelectricity of some material illuminated by light by using fictitious phonon quasiparticle and one-pseudo-electron DFT model with unreal pseudo-potential, pseudo-wavefunction and freely-adjustable parameters. ← No quantum mechanical prediction. Physicists just waste their time in meaningless nonphysical equations.
This p.4-left-1st-paragraph says
"We determine all the
coupling coefficients used in these equations utilizing a first-principles
approach on the basis of DFT and adjust a few of them to best match
the experimental results (= just adjust free parameters to fit experiment with No quantum mechanical prediction, this p.5-lower )"
This p.7-Methods-one-pseudo-electron DFT with artificially-chosen exchange functional ( this p.18-4th-paragraph ), unreal pseudopotential and projector augmented wave method (= PAW ) that must choose various fitting parameters in fictitious pseudo-wavefunction ( this p.2, this p.18 ).
They can choose various (fictitious) pseudo-potentials, which are Not unique, to artificially fit experimental results ( this p.2-left-3rd-paragraph ).
Choice of improper pseudo-potentials causes errors and bad results ( this-p.14-disadvantage, this p.2 ), which is Not quantum mechanical prediction at all.
Not only widely-used pseudo-potentials but also all-eletron full-potential methods without pseudo-potential (=full-potential APW, LAPW, FLAPW ) depend on various artificially-chosen parameters such as atomic core (= MT sphere ) radius and energy parameter E ( this-(5)-El, this p.32, this p.23-24, this p.20, this p.7-energy-parameter ).
This p.1-right-last~p.2 say
"However, approaching the complete basis limit using the FLAPW (= full-potential all-electron without pseudo-potential ) method still requires expert knowledge, e.g., of the atomic electronic structure in order to define the local orbital basis at appropriate energies, choosing parameters such as the MT radius and angular momentum cut offs, and controlling the linearization error (= adjusting many free parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction )"
As a result, quantum mechanics and its mainstream DFT methods are completely unable to predict any multi-electron molecules and materials (= whether they are pseudo-potential or not ), and their lack of real particle picture hampers practical scientific development (= Only harm, No benefit in quantum mechanics ).
The 2nd, 7th, 18th, 22th. 28th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Electrons carry electrical energy, while vibrational energy is carried by phonons (= unreal quasiparticle ). Understanding how they interact with each other in certain materials, like in a sandwich of two graphene layers, will have implications for future (= just speculation, still useless ) optoelectronic devices."
"Phonons aren't particles like electrons though, they're a (fictitious) quasiparticle. Yet, their interaction with electrons in certain materials and how they affect energy loss in electrons has been a mystery (= quantum mechanics failed to elucidate it ) for some time"
"This observation is much faster than for the case of a single layer of graphene, especially at ultracold temperatures (specifically below -73°C). "At these temperatures, it's very difficult for electrons to lose energy to phonons, yet it happens in the MATBG (= magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene ). "
"Here though we have observed for the first time how electrons and phonons interact via Umklapp scattering to dissipate electron energy. The strong electron–phonon (= fictitious quasiparticle ) interaction is a completely new physical process and involves so-called electron–phonon Umklapp scattering (= newly-created concept lacking reality )."
"As the material is only being studied for a few years, we're still some way from seeing magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene having an impact on society (= still useless )"
"But we'll have to wait a little longer to fully understand the consequences of what the electron said to the phonon in the graphene sandwich (= quantum mechanics cannot give real mechanism, though research on fictitious phonon quasiparticle has been continued for about 100 years across the world )"
↑ This research just measured the slightly-generated electric voltage (= related to temperature ) of graphene illuminated by light at very low temperature, and tried to explain the heat loss (= cooling rate or time of graphene ) using fictitious phonon quasiparticle with No quantum mechanical prediction and No real particle picture, which hampers the advancement of real science.
This quantum mechanical fictional model is why ( overhyped ) graphene (= frequent target of quantum pseudo-model ) still has No useful application.
↑ This research used some artificial relation roughly estimating cooling time (= τ ) from temperature (= T ) and other various fitting parameters ( this p.2 = No quantum mechanical calculation ) such as deformation potential D (= which is just fitting parameter, cannot be obtained from experiment ), electron-phonon coupling g (= just artificially-chosen value not obtained from quantum theory, this p.3-(4) ), mean free path (= kFl which is also just artificially-chosen value, this p.3-right-top, this p.5-left-2nd-last-paragraph ).
This p.3-III-Results says
" the value of the deformation potential coupling constant (= D ) is Not established (= No quantum mechanical prediction )..
different values of D, differing by factors of three
(i.e. D ≈ 10−30 eV = uncertain value, so fitting parameter, this p.3-left-last-paragraph ), are quoted."
As a result, this research just tried to explain the cooling speed or time of some cold graphene by using ad-hoc model based on fictitious phonon quasiparticle and various fitting parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction, and the lack of real particle picture prevents the practical use of this nonphysical quantum mechanical model.
See other phonon hyped news.
The 10th, 11th, 17th, 18th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"The researchers used a technique called molecular beam epitaxy to stack together a topological insulator that has been made magnetic and an iron chalcogenide (FeTe).. The topological insulator is a ferromagnet (= this Cr-doped Bi,Sr2Te3 can show slight ferromagnetism only at impractically-low temperature < 15K, this p.3-lower ) while FeTe is an antiferromagnet, whose electrons spin in alternating directions."
"The researchers used a variety of imaging techniques and other methods to characterize the structure and electrical properties of the resulting combined material and confirmed the presence of all three critical components of chiral topological superconductivity at the interface between the materials"
"but we need more experiments and theoretical work to verify if this is true and to clarify the superconducting mechanism (= still mechanism is unknown )"
"The researchers said they believe this system will (= uncertain future, still useless ) be useful in the search for material systems that exhibit similar behaviors as Majorana particles (= fictitious quasiparticle )"
"Providing experimental evidence for the existence of chiral Majorana will (= just speculation ) be a critical step in the creation of a (illusory) topological quantum computer (= actually, this research has nothing to do with quantum computer or Majorana )"
↑ This research just measured the slight sign of superconductor and ferromagnetism in the interface between materials under extremely-low temperature (< 20 K = which is impractical ) with No quantum mechanical prediction, and this research has nothing to do with (imaginary) quantum computers, contrary to the hype.
This p.2-1st-paragraph of one-sentence summary says
"We demonstrated interface-induced superconductivity formed by
stacking together a ferromagnetic topological insulator and an antiferromagnetic iron
chalcogenide" ← That's all they did in this research. No quantum computer or a qubit was made.
↑ As shown in this p.3, this slight superconductivity and ferromagnetism appeared only at extremely-low temperature < 20K, which is completely useless.
This p.5-2nd-paragraph shows
physicists used fictitious quasiparticle model (= superconductor's Bogoliubov quasiparticle ) and fitted their free parameters and artificial model to experiment. ← No quantum mechanical prediction.
This p.10-upper, various free parameters were artificially chosen for nonphysical abstract model (= No real particle picture was shown ) with No quantum mechanical prediction nor calculation (= No DFT nor Schrodinger equation was used ).
In conclusion, this experiment just generating slight superconductivity in the interface between two materials is not only useless but also irrelevant to (imaginary) quantum computer nor Majorana quasiparticle.
The so-called Majonara fermion is a fictitious quasiparticle meaning some electric conductance under some condiction (= zero energy ), which has nothing do with real particle or quantum computer.
This 12th-paragraph say
"When the scientists varied the voltage to their devices, they detected a sudden peak in their electrical conductance. They claimed this electrical signal was evidence of discrete, quantized levels of conductance, a hallmark of Majorana (quasi-)particles." ← That's all, No real particle appeared.
Topological quantum computer based on this fictitious Majorana or anyon quasiparticle with unreal fractional-charge and unseen braids (= Not real physical braids nor knots, this 5th-last-paragraph ) is already dead.
Even a single qubit has Not been built despite extremely long time researches ( this p.1-left-1st-paragraph ),
The 6th, 7th paragraphs of this site say
"Quasiparticles that fit the profile are (fictitious) anyons."
"Unfortunately, anyons of the right kind remain theoretical, and even claims of sightings have proved controversial.." ← Because there is No such thing as anyon or Majorana quasiparticle in this real world.
The 1st-4th, 6th, 7th, 11-12th, 14-16th, 19th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"A research team.. has spectroscopically observed the fractionalization of electronic charge (= lie, impossible ) in an iron-based metallic ferromagnet. Experimental observation of the phenomenon is not only of fundamental importance. Since it appears in an alloy of common metals at accessible temperatures, it holds potential for future (= just speculation, still useless ) exploitation in electronic devices"
"Basic quantum mechanics tells us that the fundamental unit of charge is unbreakable: the electron charge is quantized. Yet, we have come to understand that "exceptions" exist (= meaning quantum mechanics is "self-contradictory" ). In some situations, electrons arrange themselves collectively as if they were split into independent entities, each possessing a fraction of the charge (= just illusion )."
"The fact that charge can be fractionalized is not new: it has been observed experimentally since the late 1980s with the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect. In this, the conductance (= just electric conductance or resistance was measured, Not fractional-charge ) of a system in which electrons are confined to a two-dimensional plane is observed to be quantized in fractional—rather than integer—units of charge."
"The Hall Effect provides an indirect measure of charge fractionalization through a macroscopic manifestation of the phenomenon: the voltage. As such, it does not reveal the microscopic behavior—the dynamics—of fractional charges (= meaning No direct evidence of fractional-charged particles ). The research team.. has now revealed such dynamics via spectroscopy (= Not charges themselves ) of electrons emitted from a ferromagnet when illuminated by a laser."
"Flat bands are regions in the electronic structure of a material where the electrons all lie in the same energy state, i.e., where they have nearly infinite effective masses (= unreal masses ). Here, electrons are too heavy.."
"Rare and sought-after flat bands can lead to phenomena including exotic forms of magnetism or topological phases such as fractional quantum Hall states (= so, they just imagine this unphysical band energy consisting of unreal infinite mass and fractional charge )"
"The researchers did Not set out to observe charge fractionalization in kagome Fe3Sn2 (= fractional-charges were unobservable, illusion after all ). Instead, they were simply interested in verifying whether flat bands existed as predicted for this ferromagnetic material."
"Using laser angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (laser ARPES = this device just measured real electrons with integer charges e-, Not fractional-charges ejected by laser light ).. with a very small beam diameter, they could probe the local electronic structure of the material at an unprecedented resolution."
"material's electronic (unphysical) band structure where the energy of electrons is at a minimum, effectively forming pockets where electrons 'hang out'. Here, the electrons behave as collective excitations or (unreal) quasiparticles"
"The laser ARPES measurements revealed a dispersive band, which did Not match with density functional theory (DFT) calculations—one of the most established methods to study electron interactions and behaviors in materials." ← The current most-widely-used quantum mechanical mainstream one-pseudo-electron DFT model failed."
"It quite often happens that DFT doesn't quite match (= quantum mechanical DFT failed )"
"When the new band is created, the charge is split between the original dispersive band and the new band. This means that each band contains only a fraction of the charge." ← false, they used APRES that can detect only real electrons with integer charges (= e- ) ejected by laser light."
"This makes it worthwhile considering whether there are electronic devices that might (= just speculation, still useless ) exploit fractionalization"
↑ This research just measured real electrons with real integer charges (= e- ) ejected by laser light in device called ARPES, but tried to (mis)interpret the observation as fictional quasiparticles with unreal fractional-charges and infinite (effective) mass, and the mainstream quantum mechanical (DFT) prediction failed.
Of course, an electron is unbreakable in this experiment, so the unobservable fractional-charges mentioned in this overhyped news mean fictional quasiparticles such as anyon and Majorana that do Not really exist ( this 5-6th-paragraph, this 2nd-paragraph ), so quantum mechanics pursues illusory math particles ( this p.4-3rd-paragraph ) in vain.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.4-left-2nd-paragraph says "None of the existing DFT calculations reproduces the very
small gap.. (= quantum mechanical DFT failed )"
p.4-right-1st-paragraph Dirac quasiparticles with unreal effective mass
p.5-left-2nd-paragraph DFT was useless.
p.6-1st-paragraph imaginary fractional-charge 1/3 quasiparticle.
This p.7-left used one-pseudo-electron DFT model with projector augmented-wave method of VASP that relied on artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials, and DFT-U whose parameter must be adjusted to experiments (= disagreed with other DFT results ). ← No quantum mechanical prediction.
So this experiment relying on unphysical quasiparticle and one-pseudo-electron DFT model lacking real particle picture is useless except for publishing papers in academic journals due to hindering technological advancement.
The 3rd and last paragraphs of this hyped news says
"One way of processing information based on this approach is to use the magnetic vortices called skyrmions (= unreal quasiparticles ) or, alternatively, their still-little-understood and rarer cousins called merons (= fictitious quasiparticle of half-skyrmion, this p.2-last )"
"With the aid of magnetic force microscopy in conjunction with the less familiar scanning electron microscopy with polarization analysis, we successfully identified merons (= false, fictional quasiparticle cannot be identified ) in our synthetic antiferromagnets
We have thus managed to make a step forward towards the potential (= just speculation, still useless ) application of merons."
↑ This research applied short magnetic field pulse to some multilayer antiferromagnetic material, measured the transient magnetic swirling patterns using magnetic force microscope (= MFM ), and tried to interpret these transient magnetic field swirling patterns as fictional quasiparticles called skyrmions or merons = half-skyrmion, and No quantum mechanical prediction was made in this research.
This (fictional) skyrmion quasiparticle is often overhyped as the future promising storage device or magnetic memory, but actually this (unphysical) skyrmion has No hope of practical use ( this-lower challenges ahead ).
Despite the longtime researches, this skyrmion or magnetic swirling pattern is still very unstable, short-lived and extremely difficult to control, which can never be used for practical memory or storage device ( this p.1-left, this p.2-left, this p.1-left ).
The lifetime of this skyrmion quasiparticle is too short to measure precisely.
The estimated lifetime of this fragile skyrmion at low temperature (= 50-65K ) is only milliseconds ( this p.5-left-1st-paragraph ), and its lifetime at room temperature is miserable, only less than 1 ns (< 1 × 10-9s, this p.4-Fig.2 shows lifetime of skyrmion or Sk is less than 10-9 seconds at room temeprature = T-1 = 1/300K = 0.003 ), which is too short to utilize as stable data storage memory.
In this research, physicists applied short magnetic field pulse to material, and allegedly generated (fictitious) meron quasiparticles or half-skyrmion magnetic swirling patterns ( this p.2-left-1st-paragraph-half-skyrmion meron quasiparticle ).
↑ But the positions of these magnetic patterns or meron quasiparticles were random and disorderly, which means they can Not control even the positions of these skyrmion or meron magnetic quasiparticles (= even the positions of each storage memory cannot be precisely determined nor controlled ), which can Not make useful reliable memory device.
They used the magnetic force microcope (= MFM ), which just measured magnetic force literally (= irrelevant to imaginary electron spin ) and scanning electron microscopy with polarization analysis (= SEMPA, this p.3-left-2nd-paragraph performed MFM, SEMPA measurements after applying oscillating OOP magnetic field to the material ).
In this scanning electron microscopy (= SEM ) with polarization analysis (= SEMPA ), they applied electrons' beam to the material from which secondary electrons were emitted and flying toward another crystal.
↑ These secondary electrons emitted from the material were scattered by the crystal in different directions allegedly depending on the electrons' spin magnetic directions (= just imagination, No evidence ). ← This device just measured the electrons' almost-random scattering directions, Not the (fictional) spins.
Furthermore, this SEMPA has unreliably-low detection efficiency of only less than 0.0001 ( this p.4, this p.1-right-1st-paragraph ).
SEMPA cannot measure the absolute value of magnetization ( this p.4-2nd-paragraph ).
Even in ferromagnets such as Fe (= spin polarization should be close to 100% ), the alleged detected spin polarization is only less than 5%. ← Secondary electrons from Fe is said to have polarization P of only 13%, and the actually-measured polarization is only 13% × 0.3 (= efficiency or Sherman function due to uncertain electron scattering, this p.8, this p.1-(1),p.2-left-1st-paragraph ) = only 3.9%.
↑ We can naturally think, material with different magnetization has electrons' orbital motions (= Not fictional spin ) with different directions, which can slightly affect the directions in which electrons are scattered, so the electron spin is irrelevant in this research.
And this research used some artificial abstract interaction equation with changeable fitting parameters ( this p.9-artificially-varing parameters ) lacking real particle picture to express these fictional quasiparticles, and did Not perform quantum mechanical calculation nor prediction (= skymion quasiparticle formation mechanism is still unclear, this p.4-2nd-paragraph ).
So this research is also a typical example of researchers only aiming to publish papers in journals instead of really aiming to make useful device.
The 1st, 4th, 5th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Quantum sensor technology promises (= just speculation, still useless ) even more precise measurements of physical quantities (= false ). A team.. has now compared the signals of up to 91 quantum sensors with one another and thus successfully eliminated the noise (= actually, they did not eliminate noise, instead, they just got "average" values ) caused by interactions with the environment"
"Here, the key idea is that we do Not just use a single sensor, but a network of up to 91 sensors, each consisting of a single atom.. Since noise affects all sensors equally, analyzing simultaneous changes in the states of all sensors allows us to effectively subtract the environmental noise and reconstruct the desired information."
"This allows us to precisely measure magnetic field variations in the environment, as well as determine the distance between the quantum sensors"
"Notably, entanglement.. fails to provide an advantage compared to the multi-sensor network."
↑ This research trapped 50 ~ 91 Ca+ ions in external electromagnetic field, and measured the freuqency change of light interacting with each ion's energy levels ( this p.5-III,p.6,p.7,p.10-11 ).
The electromagnetic field, which gradually changed in different positions of ions, slightly affected the the frequency of light interacting with ions.
From these measured light frequency shifts, they roughly estimated (= not so precisely ) the local electromagnetic field (= fluctuation ) around ions.
By comparing 50~91 ions's light frequencies, they could roughly estimate the average tendency of how the external electromagnetic field gradually changed in different positions of different ions, and tried to reduce the uncertainty of measurement.
↑ It means the measuring each ion, whose two energy levels were used as a ion qubit's 0 and 1 state, caused a lot of errors and uncertainty, but by combining and averaging out all multiple ion's results, they managed to reduce uncertainty, which method is Not new, as seen in the ordinary atomic clock that reduces errors by measuring a lot of cesium atoms simultaneously.
↑ The measurement of each single ion's energy causing many errors means this method cannot be used for making quantum computers that must control each ion qubit precisely with No errors.
This experiment did not conduct two qubit (gate) operation called entanglement ( this p.2-left-3rd-paragraph ), so this experiment has nothing to do with "quantum technologies" such as quantum computer or information.
As I said in the typical quantum sensor called nitrogen vacancy center that also tries to estimate external magnetic field by seeing frequency shift of interacting light, the idea of using individual atoms as quantum sensor or qubit is impractical due to their instability and errors.
The 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 11th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Whether charging a battery or pouring water, the flow of matter is one of the most fundamental processes in the universe. But a surprising amount remains unknown about how this occurs at the atomic scale (= which means the mainstream quantum mechanics has been useless for clarifying atomic mechanism of materials, electric current or transistors )."
"In the new study, a team of researchers made the surprising discovery that the movement of individual ions can be influenced by its recent past; in other words, there is a memory effect (= this description is unscientific and just imagination to attract people's attention )"
"In order to capture this, the team used a technique called pump-probe spectroscopy, using rapid, intense pulses of light to both trigger and measure the ions' movement." ← So this research just measured "(classical) light" instead of seeing moving atoms, ions or imaginary remembering memory"
"quantifying this memory effect will (= uncertain future, so still useless ) help to predict the transport properties of potential (= just speculation ) new materials for the better batteries we need for the growth in electric vehicles (= actually, this research published in Nature has realized nothing useful )."
↑ This research just applied (classical) pump light to some material (=β-alumina + Na+, K+ or Ag+ ions ) whose atoms or ions transiently oscillated (= each atoms or ion's motion itself was Not observed in this research ) for very short time, which caused slight electric field change and affected the probe light's phase (= refractive index ) that could be detected using very old technique called Kerr effect discovered in 1870s ( this p.7-left-lower ).
↑ So it is very hard to imagine this experiment just measuring slight transient material's electric field oscillation detected by ordinary light (= just seeing refractive index change ) have implications for some technologies that were often overhyped by science news.
↑ This experiment is also an example of researchers just aiming at publishing papers in journals instead of really aiming at creating useful devices or curing diseases.
To mimic or simulate this extremely short (imaginary) oscillation of atoms or ions, physicists automatically relied on extremely-time-comsuming (= impractical ) molecular dynamics (= MD ) which is based on (pseudo-)classical empirical potential energy called force field (= using No real electrons or No atomic shape ) with artificially-fitting parameters ( this p.7, this paper p.7-right-lower ).
↑ No quantum mechanical calculation has been done in this research ( this paper p.7-right-lower-molecular dynamics simulated just impractically-short 15 ps oscillation ).
As I repeatedly said, the current basic science has stopped progressing due to the most-widely-used one-pseudo-electron DFT model and the unrealistically-time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ), both of which are unable to use real atomic or molecular models with concrete shapes even after the current technology can measure the actual atomic shape ( this p.4-left-modelling: the direct approach, and this p.7-right used unphysical one-pseudo-electron DFT model or impractical molecular dynamics ).
The 1st, 3rd, 4th, 8th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Opposites charges attract; like charges repel is a fundamental principle of basic physics. But a new study in Nature Nanotechnology has demonstrated that similarly charged particles in solution can in fact attract each other (= untrue, this explanation is just hype trying to attract people ) over long distances."
"The team of researchers found that negatively charged particles attract each other (= negative electrons attract each other !? impossible ) at large separations whereas positively charged particles repel, while the reverse was the case for solvents such as alcohols. These findings are surprising because they seem to contradict the central electromagnetic principle (= actually, this research did Not contradict ordinary Coulomb force )"
"Using bright-field microscopy, the team tracked negatively charged silica microparticles (= actually, these are electrically-neutral particles ) suspended in water and found that the particles attracted each other to form hexagonally arranged clusters. Positively charged aminated silica particles, however, did not form clusters in water."
"According to the researchers, this study implies a fundamental recalibration in understanding that will (= just speculation, still useless ) influence the way we think about processes as different as the stability of pharmaceutical.."
↑ This research just dissolved two kinds of electrically-neutral molecules of SiO2 and NH2-SiO2 in watter or alcohol, and saw them forming clusters or not in the solutions ( this p.10-left ), and No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ Contrary to the hyped news, negative charged particles did Not attract each other.
The neutral molecule SiO2 just tended to form clusters in water.
In order to simulate the motions of these molecules, the current only method is extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ).
If we can give realistic shapes to atoms and molecules, we can easily simulate the motions of those real particles (= atoms or molecules with shapes ) like simulating billiard balls.
But the unrealistic quantum mechanics (= MD ) is unable to give realistic shape to each atom and molecule, instead, it artificially introduces fictitious potential called "force field" whose parameters can be freely adjustable (= but often fail, this p.5-2nd-paragraph ) with No quantum mechanical prediction.
This research paper
p.11-left-simulation methods says
"We inferred the required pair-interaction potentials, U(x),
underpinning the experimental data by varying the input potential to the BD (= Brownian dynamics ) simulations"
"we
may also treat it as a free parameter which yields an alternate set of
parameters A, B, κ1 and κ2 that can provide equally good qualitative
agreement with the experimental data (= just adjust free parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction )"
In molecular dynamics (= MD ), researchers have to frequently calculate and update each particle's position by differentiating the artificially-chosen potential at extremely short-time intervales repeatedly, many, many times, which takes unrealistically too much time ( this 3-5th-paragraphs ), and makes the current simulating methods useless.
As shown in this p.12-left, this research could perform the molecular dynamical (= MD ) simulation of only (impractical) 20 ns motions of particles, which can Not simulate important biological or chemical reactions of millisecond~hour time scale. The current mainstream MD is completely useless.
Another recent research also relied on the simpler version (= called Glycoshield ) of (impractically-time-consuming) molecular dynamics simulation (= MDS ) of (only) glycan-protein interactions by using experimentally-obtained protein structure or glycan data, sacrificing accuracy, which is still far from developing effective drugs.
↑ This research paper ↓
p.11-right-3rd-paragraph says "although GlycoSHIELD cannot substitute for extended MDS (= molecular dynamics simulation ) of complete systems"
p.13-right says "GlycoSHIELD is limited by
the fact that it only takes into account glycan-protein interactions
at a very coarse (= inaccurate ) level and ignores glycan-glycan interactions (= cannot simulate real biological reaction )"
As a result, the present mainstream physics and science stop progressing by unphysical quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron DFT and impractically-time-consuming molecular dynamics.
The 4th, 5th, 7th, 11th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Reactive force field models are relatively common, but they usually require training for specific reaction types. Traditional models that use quantum mechanics, where chemical reactions are simulated based on underlying physics, can be applied to any materials and molecules, but these models require supercomputers to be used."
"This new general machine learning interatomic potential (ANI-1xnr = artificial potentials instead of giving shapes to atoms ), can perform simulations for arbitrary materials containing the elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen and requires significantly less computing power and time than traditional quantum mechanics models (= but still impractically-time-consuming ).. this breakthrough is due to developments in machine learning."
"We have shown that those machine learning models can be trained at high levels of quantum mechanics theory and can successfully predict energies and forces with quantum mechanics accuracy (= untrue, quantum mechanics cannot predict anything ) and an increase in speed of as much as 6–7 orders of magnitude"
"In the future, the team plans to refine ANI-1xnr (= potential without giving shape to each atom ) and allow it to work with more elements and in more chemical areas, and they will try to increase the scale.." ← just talking about speculative future, still useless now.
↑ This research tried to simulate some chemical reaction (= limited only to very short time reactions ) using extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamics (MD) whose fictitious potential energy called force field was partially trained based on quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron density functional theory (= DFT ) with (empirical) pseudo-potential. ← No quantum mechanical prediction, No practical use.
Due to the impractical quantum mechanics lacking real atomic or molecular figures or shapes, researchers are compelled to rely on artificially-created fictitious potential energy called force fields (= whose parameters are often adjusted to experiments, but often fail ) for performing unrealistically-time-consuming (pseudo-classical) molecular dynamical (= MD ) simulation ( this 3~5th-paragraphs, this p.3-right-1st-paragraph ).
Ab-initio molecular dynamics (= AIMD or CPMD ) based on quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron DFT and fictitious electron's mass model ( this p.20, this p.44 ) is much more time-consuming ( this p.2-intro-1st-paragraph ) and impractical ( this p.1-right-2nd-paragraph ).
The so-called machine-learning approaches try to create these fictitious force-field potentials by partially using the quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron DFT model.
But even this quantum mechanical DFT also relies on artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials ( this p.2 ) and empirically-fitting dispersion functionals called Grimme DFT-D3 ( this research-p.9-right-3rd-paragraph ). ← No quantum mechanical prediction.
↑ This research (= MD + machine-learning force field potential ) could only simulate impractically-short-time chemical reactions with less than 10 nanoseconds or 10 ns ( this Fig.3~6, p.10-11 ), which can Not simulate important chemical and biological reactions that happen with much-longer time scale of milliseconds ~ hours.
As a result, due to the unphysical quantum mechanical model with No concrete atomic shapes as shown in the current mainstream one-pseudo-electron DFT and extremely-time-consuming MD potential, researchers can Not utilize realistic atomic model (= with actual shape ) for designing and building useful molecular nano-machines curing diseases.
So all the current basic and applied science stop progressing.
This research is also only to publish papers in journals with No hope of practical use.
The 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 8th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"The polyatomic molecules created in this new study are composed of more than two atoms and have been successfully cooled down to 134 nanokelvin (= only 134 nK = impractically low temperature )
"his colleagues predicted a novel type of binding between polar molecules: If the molecules carry an asymmetrically distributed charge—what physicists call polarity—they can combine in an electric field to form weakly bound "supermolecules.
The supermolecules' bound state is far weaker (= very unstable, useless ) than typical chemical bonds,
"
"Ultracold polyatomic molecules contain a rich internal structure that offers exciting new possibilities (= just speculative possibility, still useless ) in cold chemistry, precision measurements, and in quantum information (= impractical forever ) processing. However, their high complexity compared to diatomic molecules poses a major challenge.."
↑ This experiment claimed that they could make very unstable (NaK)2 weakly-bound tetratomic molecules with only very short 8 milliseconds (= 8 ms ) lifetime at extremely cold temperature of only 134 nK ( this p.1-abstract ).
↑ Completely useless unstable molecules.
Typical examples of researchers wasting their time in meaningless researches only for publishing papers in academic journals.
They used the fictitious effective (aproximate) potential energy equation (= Heff ) containing many artificially-chosen parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.8-right, this p.2-right-approximate effective potential, p.9-Fig.S1-parameters δ, Ω used in fictitious potentials V can be artificially chosen, p.11-pseudo-potential )
The 1st and last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"An international research team has successfully conducted ultra-precise X-ray spectroscopic measurements of helium-like uranium.
.. testing one-electron two-loop and two-electron quantum electrodynamic effects for extremely strong Coulomb fields of the heaviest nuclei for the first time"
"The results, he says, will (= uncertain future, so still useless research ) therefore help to further our understanding of what holds the world together at the innermost levels. (← very ambiguous )"
↑ This research tried to measure some light emitted from ionized uranium accelerated to high speed, and explain some atomic energy levels using nonphysical ( useless ) quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) based on unreal virtual photons and artificially-chosen approximate potentials, wavefunctions (= basis sets ) with No ability to predict the observed energies (= different experimental methods and different artificial QED theoretical methods obtained different values, so meaningless ).
This p.1-left-unreal virtual photons, p.2-right-QED experiments are unreliable, p.4-Discussion- different QED methods gave different values with No valid prediction.
This p.2-QED has to artificially choose approximate potential V, nuclear parameters, and electron's basis set ( this p.2-2nd-paragraph ) with No ability to predict anything.
The 2nd and 2nd-last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"the researchers measured specific energy shifts within the array of strontium-87 atoms due to dipole-dipole interactions. With a high density of atoms, these mHz-level frequency shifts—known as cooperative Lamb shifts (= allegedly caused by unreal virtual photons )—were spectroscopically studied. "
"Beyond controlling and minimizing these dipole-dipole interactions in the cubic lattice, the JILA researchers hope (= uncertain future, still useless ) to use these interactions to explore many-body physics in their clock system."
↑ This research tried to explain negligibly-tiny energy shift called coorperative Lamb shift caused by dipole-dipole interaction between multiple strontium atoms (= which tiny energy shift = mHz = 10-18 eV is actually too small to precisely distinguish from background fluctuation, this p.5-left-2nd-paragraph ) using unreal virtual photon model ( this p.2-abstract, this p.1 ) and freely-fitting parameters with No prediction of quantum mechanics nor QED.
↑ This p.7-3th~5th-paragraphs-freely-fitting parameters, p.3-Fig.2e-The modeled signals are obtained by fitting NA to a Fermi-Dirac distribuion na (= freely-fitting parameter, p.7 ) = No quantum mechanical prediction.
Quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) based on unreal virtual particles failed to explain the strong nuclear force allegedly mediated by unseen fractional quarks and virtual gluons.
QED method is called "perturbation" that is invalid in nuclear strong force where uncertain non-perturbative (= Non-analytical ) quantum chromodynamics called lattice QCD using unreal imaginary time is applied ( this 3rd-paragraph, this p.8 ).
↑ But this (incorrect) QCD takes too much time.
This p.1-right-upper says
"Unfortunately, the case of real (3+1) dimensional QCD is still out of reach for the existing quantum
hardware, as well as for real-time simulations on classical
computers."
Hence, physicists use its toy model (= which simple model does Not describe reality ) called massive Schwinger model ( this-intro-1st-paragraph-toy-model = this-2nd-paragraph ) to approximately explain the imaginary quark jets.
This (incorrect) toy model massive Schwinger model has No analytical solution (= unsolvable, this-p.7-2.1 ), so it has to artificially choose parameters, which means these models have No power to predict any values, and it is useless due to its nonphysical equations lacking real particle picture.
The 3rd and 6th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"This research performed quantum simulations that have detected the modification of the vacuum by the propagating (quark) jets. The simulations have also revealed quantum entanglement (= entanglement itself does No work and sends No real information, so meaningless concept ) among the jets.. The work is also a step forward in quantum-inspired classical computing. It may (= just speculation, still useless ) result in the creation of new application-specific integrated circuits.
That situation has changed with the advent of quantum computing (= Never happen ). "
This p.3-right-4th-paragraph artificially chooses parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.5-2nd-paragraph ).
↑ This research did Not compare the simulating result with experiments, and their toy model with artificially-chosen parameters can Not prove (illusory, unnecessary) entanglement or unseen quarks.
The 1st, 2nd, 11th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"The simplest possible molecule H2+ (= hydrogen molecule ion with two protons and one electron ) was one of the very first molecules to form in the cosmos.. However, it is difficult to study in experiments."
"A team of physicists.. has now succeeded in measuring the vibrations of the molecule (= H2+ molecule ion ) with a laser for the first time. The result matches the theoretical prediction very closely (← false, quantum mechanics can Not predict any atomic energies except for the simplest hydrogen atom )"
"In the future, the physicists are aiming to improve their measurement results further (= even if physicists try to continue measuring only the already-known particular physical values more precisely, it is going nowhere, No practical use, just wasting their time in experiments and theories out of touch with reality ). "
↑ This research tried to compare the measured H2+ molecular ion's vibrational energies to the alleged theoretical prediction of quantum mechanics or quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) which just artificially chooses or adjusts free parameters with No real prediction.
As shown in this research's reference papers, quantum mechanics is unable to solve Schrodinger equation of H2+ molecule ion, so it has to artificially choose ( fake ) arbitrary trial wavefunctions or basis sets with many freely-adjustable parameters.
This p.2-(4),(5) says
"Parameters αi and βi (of H2+ ion's chosen trial wavefunctions ) are generated in a quasi-random manner (= meaning freely-adjustable parameters )"
This p.1-right-(1) says
exponent (= parameters of H2+ molecular ion's chosen wavefunctions ) are generated in a pseudo-random way (= Not theoretically-obtained )"
We proved Schrodinger equation of H2+ molecular ion can never find true solutions, no matter what (fake) trial wavefunctions or basis sets are artificially chosen (= true Schrodinger equation's solution or wavefunction must always give the constant total energy E in any electron's position, which is impossible in H2+ molecular ion except for the simplest hydrogen atom ).
Negligibly-tiny energy splitting between 2s1/2 and 2p1/2 (= these energy levels cannot be seen directly ) called Lamb shift is said to be "predicted" using (unreal) virtual photons of quantum electrodynamics (= QED ), but this is untrue.
All calculation results by QED are known to diverge to meaningless infinities which must be artificially removed by ad-hoc counter parameters called renormalization, which illegitimate QED renormalization trick was harshly criticized by Dirac and Feynman ( this 1st-paragraph ).
Furthermore, even after artificially removing infinities by ad-hoc renormalization, QED cannot give analytical Lamb shift values, and physicists must artificially adjust or choose parameters called Bethe logarithm (= nonrelativistic average pseudo-excitation energy ) in numerical way ( this p.21, this p.2-lower, this p.2-2nd,6th-paragraphs ).
This p.3-left-6th-paragraph says
"Bethe could not have known
it on his train journey. His calculation included this value that
we suspect that was entered ad hoc to match the theoretical value with the experimental value. In the field of physics, this trick is known as a fudge factor".
↑ Later, Schwartz ( this p.1-introduction ) tried to obtain these ad-hoc artificially-chosen Bethe logarithm parameters in some way, but he also had to rely on artificially-chosen perturbation Hamiltonian energy (= H1 ) and wavefunctions (= ψ1 ) irrelevant to the original hydrogen atom's Hamiltonian energy (= H0 ).
As shown in his paper ( this p.1-(1), p.2-(2)~(5) ), he introduced new fictitious perturbation H1 hamiltonian energy (= different from the original hydrogen's H0 Hamiltonian equation ) and ψ1 perturbation wavefunction to manage to obtain the Bethe logarithm energy close to ones chosen by Bethe.
In helium and H2+ molecule ions that cannot solve Schrodinger equations, physicists have to artificially choose ad-hoc (fake) trial wavefunctions and adjust free parameters to obtain Bethe logarithms (= this p.2-left-2nd-paragraph- parameters generated in a quasirandom manner ).
In H2+ (or HD+ = proton + deuterium ) molecular ion, this paper ↓
p.2-(5) a linearly divergent term, electron’s mass renormalization
p.5-(23) unknown coefficients D, Q, and S are obtained
by fitting of the numerically evaluated integrand
p.7-1st-paragraph Parameters αi and
βi are generated in a quasi-random manner (= No analytical solution )
As a result, quantum mechanics and QED are unable to predict Lamb shift tiny energy values, contrary to an incredible amount of hypes such as "QED is the most successful theory ! (= but this is eventually useless, because nobody uses this 'successful' QED in our daily life )"
The very tiny energy splitting called hyperfine structure is said to be caused by the nuclear magnetic moment interacting with (unrealistic) electron spin. ← But this quantum mechanicsl hyperfine structure is contradictory and wrong.
Quantum mechanics (or QCD ) itself cannot predict hyperfine structure, instead, it has to rely on (pseudo-)classical parameter called Fermi contact interaction which unrealistically says this tiny hyperfine energy splitting happens only when an electron in 1s energy level with No orbital angular momentum enters the tiny nucleus expressed by wavefunction ψ(0) ( this p.2, this p.2-lower, this p.19 ).
↑ When an electron with spin is outside the nucleus, the total average magnetic ( dipole-dipole ) interaction between the electron spin and nucleus spin becomes zero ( this ① and ② have the opposite magnetic energies or magnetic directions canceling each other, this p.10-last-paragraph, this p.1-(5.3)-p.2-upper ).
↑ It means quantum mechanical hyperfine enregy splitting needs the illegitimate violation of energy conservation law. ← When an electron is outside the nucleus, No hyperfine energy splitting, but when the electron enters the tiny nucleus, suddenly the hyperfine energy splitting should occur (= gain energy or lose energy ) depending on the electron's spin direction (= violating energy conservation law between outside and inside the nucleus, so wrong ).
In hydrogen molecule H2+ ion's hyperfine structure, physicists have to artificially create ( fictitious ) effective Hamiltonian energy equation ( this p.1-(1), this middle-definition ).
The coefficients of spin-spin energies in this fictitious effective Hamiltonian energy have to be artificially adjusted ( this p.2-(3), p.3-(5),(6) ) compared to experiments ( this p.5-(19)(20), this p.8-5-uncertain proton radius ) instead of being predicted by (useless) quantum mechanics or (unsuccessful) QED.
Each time there is discrepancy between their ad-hoc theory and experimental results, they try to add new artificial concepts such as "fifth force ( this p.3-left-lower )."
So contrary to the hypes dominating the current media, quantum mechanics and QED are just "unsuccessful" useless pseudo-theories unable to predict any physical values.
Feel free to link to this site.
