Youhei Tsubono, Japan
Criticize the present physics. (16/ 2/5)
(Fig.1) Quantum mechanics = Many worlds = Fantasy.
The present physics is filled with unreal concepts such as parallel worlds even in academic organization.
Why did we fall into such a miserable situation ?
When did we stray from the right path ?
In Quantum mechanics, Schrodinger wavefuntion only gives vague probability density of each electron.
This dubious wavefunction is the origin of strange ideas such as many-worlds where an electron can be in all possible states at the same time.
And it misleads people and entangle them in an endless debate about "consciousness", which is philosophy rather than science.
(Fig.2) Quantum mechanics + Einstein relativity = string theory.
Theory of everything is an unified theory of quantum mechanics and Einstein's general relativity
The only theory of everything accepted now is string ( M ) theory, which relies on unreal extra-dimensions.
They believe quixotic idea that our universe is made of 10 ( or 11 ) dimensional spacetime instead of 4 (= x,y,z + time ) !
Unfortunately, this fanciful string theory is the only mainstream unified theory, so it monopolizes all important academic positions.
It means unless you believe this string theory, you'll be surelly kicked out of academy and cannot be professors, let alone famous.
Surprisingly, this only theory of everything depends on wrong math ( 1 + 2 + 3 = ∞ = - 1/12 ) and 10500 different worlds, which cannot predict anything.
(Fig.3) Multiverse = Parallel universe are rampant.
Surprisingly, the present mainstream physicists believe fantasy multiverse where many universes exist parallel to each other.
Even first-rate physicists are not exception.
The present cosmology is based on fanciful faster-than-light expansion of universe.
So they claim Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago spawned many bubble universes. One of them is the universe where we live ?
Of course, these quixotic ideas are all speculation, lacking physical evidence. In spite of it, many scientists all over the world waste their time in this fiction !
Why does the present science become so miserable ?
(Fig.4) Electrons in "s" orbital always crash into nucleus ?
When you solve Schrödinger equation of hydrogen atom, it always includes orbitals of angular momentum zero (= s orbital ).
It means electrons in "s" orbital always crash into and penetrate nucleus ?
Hydrogen, helium and sodium are all s orbital with zero angular momentum.
Wait, wait. The outer electron of sodium (= Na ) is 3s orbital.
This outer electron always penetrate inner electrons ( n = 1,2 ), too ?
Thinking commonsensically, strong Coulomb repulsions by inner electrons prevent 3s electron from penetrating them ! → angular momentum is not zero ?
Different from this absurd quantum mechanics, an electron in Bohr model is revolving around the nucleus (← not crash ). It's far more realistic.
(Fig.5) Schrodinger's 2p radial wavefunction, negative kinetic energy.
Schrodinger's hydrogen contains two classically forbidden areas with negative kinetic energy ( this p.2-, this ) Why such an stupid thing happens ?
On the right of a2, the potential energy is higher than total energy ( V > E ).
So kinetic energy must be negative to keep desirable total energy.
To begin with, the idea that hydrogen bound electron can reach r = infinity is unreasonable.
On the left of a1, to cancel the increasing tangential kinetic energy. radial kinetic energy must be negative.
Because tangential (= angular ) kinetic energy is inversely proportional to the square of the radius r. See the 3rd term of this (3).
In this region, the potential energy is lower than total energy ( V < E ), so tunnel effect doesn't apply.
The constant angular momentum keeps tangential kinetic energy always positive, but the radial kinetic energy can be negative. So Schrodinger hydrogen is contradictory.
(Fig.6) Point-like electron ( radius r → 0 ), rotation v → ∞
Angular momentum is given by mv × r ( v = velocity, r = radius ).
Electron spin also has angular momentum 1/2ħ, they claim
The problem is an electron is very tiny, point-like.
The point-like particle means its radius r is almost zero.
So to get the angular momentum 1/2ħ, the electron spinning must far exceed light speed ( this p.5, this p.2 )
So the electron spin lacks reality.
Even Pauli ridiculed the idea of "spinning electron".
But in "s" orbital of Schrodinger's hydrogen, this electron spin is the only generator of magnetic moment.
So they had no choice but to accept this strange spin ( Not as real spinning ).
(Fig.7) ↓ Lucky coincidence ? Same magnetic moment.
It's known that hydrogen atom has magnetism equal to Bohr magneton, which can be explained by Bohr's classical orbit and de Broglie theory.
After quantum mechanics was born, its Schrodinger wavefunction has No orbital angular momentum to explain this magnetism.
So the physicists at the time invented strange spin, and they artificially defined the spin's magnetic moment as the same Bohr magneton !
This is a very far-fetched interpretation.
Spin's angular momentum is 1/2ħ, which is half of Bohr's ħ angular momentum.
So they decided that spin g-factor is twice (= 2 ) the Bohr's orbit (= 1 ).
"g-factor" means the ratio of magnetic moment to angular momentum.
As a result, they claim spin can also has the same Bohr magneton.
We can only measure the magnetism, neither angular momentum nor g-factor.
The problem is there is No physical reason why "spin" cannot stop and it has the same Bohr magneton.
(Fig.8) ↓ Only sodium shows typical anomalous Zeeman effect.
Most textbooks say anomalous Zeeman spectrum patterns under magnetic field proved the existence of "spin". But it's very far-fetched interpretation.
In fact this anomalous Zeeman pattern was seen only in large atoms. Even if you try to find the cases, you can find only sodium case ( this p.3 ).
I bet you can never find similar anomalous Zeeman effect in small hydrogen and lithium atoms, which all show normal Zeeman triplet without spin.
Electron spin lacks reality, its spinning far exceeds light speed c.
Sodium (= Na ) has many inner electrons ( n=1, 2 ), different from one-electron hydrogen.
So it's more natural to think complicated anomalous Zeeman pattern is caused by inner electrons instead of unreal spin.
Furthermore, there is No direct quantitive proof of orbital Lande g factor, which, they claim, is the proof of spin 1/2.
(Fig.9) One electron H shows "normal" ← Not spin.
Despite textbook's exaggeration of "anomalous Zeeman = spin", one-electron hydrogen shows normal Zeeman effect, which doesn't need spin.
Lithium also shows normal Zeeman triplet pattern.
It is called Paschen-Back effect, which substantially means normal Zeeman.
Even hydrogen includes small splitting called fine structure.
It distorts typical normal Zeeman pattern a little ( this p.22 )
In this book p.659, they say, "for weak magnetic field, each component of hydrogen Hα doublet was separated in normal Zeeman triplet."
This doublet fine structure does not need unreal "spin".
In conclusion, anomalous Zeeman effect in large atoms is not a proof of spin.
(Fig.10) Spin-spin magnetic energy (= 0.0001 eV ) is too small !
Pauli exclusion principle claims that each electron can occupy a different spin-orbital state. Two 1s electrons of helium must have different spins, up and down.
So the 3rd electron lithium cannot enter the same 1s orbital, because spin states has only two versions up and down.
As a result, this 3rd electron of Li must enter far outer 2s orbital, resisting Coulomb attraction from nucleus.
How strong is this Pauli exclusion force overcoming Couloumb attraction ?
If all three electrons can enter inner 1s orbital, its total energy is 30 eV lower (= stable ) than the actual lithium.
It means "Pauli exclusion force" is as strong as about 30 eV !
But spin-spin magnetic energy is far smaller, only 0.0001 eV ( this p.6 ).
So strong Pauli exclusion principle has nothing to do with spin ( this p.7 )
(Fig.11) No solution → just "choose" trial functions ! = useless
Schrodinger equation of two-electron helium contains interelectronic Coulomb energy. So it has No solution of helium.
All other multi-electron atoms including H2+ molecule ion have No exact solution. Then how does quantum mechanics deal with multi-electron atoms ?
Surprisingly, they just choose artifical trial function as "imaginary" solution.
"Choosing" convenient hypothetical solution out of infinite choices means Schrödinger equation has no ability to predict multi-electron atoms.
And it's impossible to try infinite kinds of trial wavefunctions and find the one giving the lowest energy in them.
(Fig.12) "Choose" trial functions → integral over all space.
Here we explain why these "chosen" wavefunction cannot give true ground state energy of helium.
After choosing some trial wavefunction of unsolvable atoms, they integrate them over all space, and get, what they call, approximate total energy E'.
The point is this approximate energy E' is just an average energy in a collection of different energies depending on different electrons' position.
Originally, the sum of kinetic and potential energy in any electrons' positions must be equal to the single common ground state energy E.
But "unsolvable" multi-electron wavefunctions don't satisfy this basic condition.
So, this "average" energy E' does Not mean the single common ground state energy in any positions of helium.
(Fig.13) ↓All three states have the same total energy ?
Getting exact true ground state energy means finding the single common energy in all electrons' position in helium atom.
Because the total energy E must be conserved inside the same system.
So it's natural that there is a single ground state energy governing all states.
The problem is Schrodinger solution always spreads in all 3D space.
So it's much harder to satisfy this single common energy than Bohr's planetary orbit.
They often choose two hydrogen solutions (= ψH ) as approximate helium wavefunction. All three above states ( ① - ③ ) must have the same total energy.
But it's impossible that all these states give the same common ground state energy. Because interelectronic repulsions are different in them.
So choosing some approximate function (= basis set ) cannot give true "common" energy, but just "fake" energy.
Two electrons have to classically avoid each other to obey a single total energy in any electrons' positions and two axioms !
(Fig.14) Electron interaction term is freely chosen. ← useless
In larger atoms in condended matter physics, density functional theory (= DFT ) is the only computing method.
It is often said this DFT is successful "ab-initio" method ( this p.3 ).
"Ab-initio" means first-principle which can predict values without empirical parameter ?
Unfortunately this DFT has No ability to predict any values, so useless.
Like this, DFT just chooses some convenient functional out of infinie choices.
In DFT, "exchange correlation functional" means interelectronic repulsions. This functional is unknown, can be freely determined ( this p.2 ).
So DFT can be considered a semi-empirical method, different from media-hype ( this p.23 )
(Fig.15) Exchange, correlation functionals can be "freely" chosen.
The calculated results depend on correlation functionals we choose in DFT.
There is no restriction in choosing these functionals.
No functional is accurate for all properties of interest ( this p.17 ).
No matter what functional is invented, someone will always find a case where it fails.
As you see, quantum mechanics has No ability to predict any energy values due to its unsolvable property.
This useless quantum mechanics is the root of all evils, and destroys all students' careers in all science fields !
(Fig.16) ↓ This was really a lucky coincidence ?
The important point is that the fine structure (= small energy splitting ) of hydrogen was first obtaied by Sommerfeld using Bohr's orbit.
Later, Dirac equation using spin-orbit interaction got exactly the same solutions as Bohr-Sommerfeld model ! Lucky coincidence ?
It's regrettable that almost No textbooks mention this important coincidence. See histrotical magic and this last.
It's surprising that Bohr-Sommerfeld model with No spin gives the same fine structure solution as quantum theory.
Clearly, one of them (= latter Dirac hydrogen ) tried to aim at the same solution as the former Bohr-Sommerfeld, using some trick.
Compare this p.12 and this p.9
(Fig.17) ↓ This was really a lucky coincidence ?
Quantum mechanical spin-orbit model should naturally contain much more splitted energy levels due to its spin, than Bohr-Sommerfeld model.
But hydrogen energy levels are far less than spin-orbit model expected.
Detailed derivation is this and this.
Because Dirac hydrogen model contains many lucky coincidences in energy levels.
For example, 2s1/2 and 2p1/2 orbitals have the same total energy in Dirac hydrogen, though their figures are completely different.
In the same way, 3s1/2 = 3p1/2, 3p3/2 = 3d3/2, 4s1/2 = 4p1/2 ...
As you see, the present spin-orbit model relies on very unnatural coincidences.
They claim they have the same total angular momentum ( J = L + S ) despite different orbital angular momentum (= L ). But no more mentioned.
(Fig.18) ↓ Linear Dirac equation contains spin ?
Relativistic Dirac equation was gotten by dividing Einstein quadratic relation into linear functions.
In compensation for linear function, Dirac equation must contain 4 × 4 gamma (= γ ) matrices, which consist of spin Pauli matrices (= σ ).
This is the reason they claim Dirac equation succeeded in combining "spin" and relativity. But "σ = spin ?" is just artificial definition with No grounds !
To begin with, these Pauli σ matrices are just the result of changing quadratic → linear functions. They have nothing to do with unreal spin
The problem is the momentum (= p ) in this Dirac equation is always tied to spin (= σ ) operator, which causes serious flaws.
(Fig.19) ↓ H atom fine structure is relativistic effect ?
Hydrogen atom has small energy splitting (= fine structure ).
They say this splitting shows the difference between electron's spin up and down.
This spin-orbit interaction is said to be Einstein relativistic effect.
In H atom, an electron is moving around a proton (= nucleus ).
From the electron's point of reference, the proton appears to be moving.
Einstein relativity is based on purely relative ( not absolute ) motion.
So even if the proton is actually stationary, the electron feels the pseudo-magnetic field created by moving proton, which causes small energy splitting depending on spin direction ?
The point is this relativistic electromagnetic fields cause fatal paradox of Lorentz force ! So spin-orbit coupling model is completely false
(Fig.20) Na+ ion must have 3.5 positive charge, if spin-orbit is true.
They say Na large fine structure in D lines is also due to spin-orbit interaction. The problem is this Na fine structure splitting is too big.
Compare fine structure splitting in H (= 0.000045 eV ) and Na (= 0.0021 eV ) atoms.
It is known that this fine structure splitting is proportional to Z4/n3, where n is principal quantum number. See this last and this p.4.
Z is effective positive charge (= H+, Na+ ion ), which movement causes magnetic field at the electron's spin ?
To get the large Na fine structure, this central charge (= Na nucleus + all inner electrons ) must be unrealistically big ( Z is +3.5 ).
In other alkali atoms, the situation becomes much worse.
So relativistic "spin-orbit" interaction is too weak to cause alkali fine structure.
Students ( including dropouts ) suffering from debt should sue universities for destroying all students' careers by exorbitant tuition and wrong theories.
(Fig.21) Davisson-Germer experiment showed an electron is de Broglie wave.
In de Broglie relation, electron's wavelength λ is given by λ = h/mv, where m and v are electron's mass and velocity.
This important matter-wave relation was confirmed in various experiments such as Davisson-Germer and this.
So there is No room for doubt that this de Broglie wave is true.
(Fig.22) Quantum mechanical wavefunction is unreal.
So Schrodinger equation adopted this de Broglie relation as "derivative" form.
Momentum operator (= derivative of wavefunction ) links p and λ.
Of course, when momentum p is zero, its square p2 must be zero, too.
But only when a wavefunction has basic " cos" or "sin" form, it holds true.
The point is quantum mechanical wave functions distort original de Broglie relation. Fig.22 is hydrogen 2p radial wavefunction ( this, this last ).
This site (3) shows de Broglie derivative is valid in radial direction.
"2p" wavefunction has unreal negative kinetic energy on both sides.
On these boundaries, the second derivative is zero ( p2 = 0 ), but first derivative is not zero ( p is not zero ) ! This is ridiculous.
It's quite natural that when p is zero, its square p2 is zero, too !
So quantum mechanics distorts original de Broglie relation, and uses wrong math !
(Fig.23) Schrodinger's orbital is n × de Broglie wavelength.
Historical magic shows Bohr model agreed with experimental results and Schrodinger's hydrogen using de Broglie theory.
Bohr model's orbit must be an integer times de Broglie wavelength.
Then, Schrodinger's hydrogen also obeys "an integer times de Broglie wavelength" ?
In fact, Schrodinger orbitals also meet an integer times de Broglie wavelength like classical quantum thoery ! See Fig.1, this last.
"Boundary" condition at both ends ( r= 0,∞ ) in Schrodinger hydrogen corresponds to de Broglie condition ( see this p.11, 12 ).When we use u = rR as radial wavefunction, de Broglie relation is clearer ( this (3) and this p.3 ).
As you see, Schrodinger hydrogen clearly obeys "n × de Broglie wavelength" !
But its angular momentum = zero is contradictory, so useless as precondition.
(Fig.24) Simple circular old Bohr's helium gived wrong energy (= -83.33 eV ).
The most decisive reason for dismissing Bohr model is failure in explaining helium atom.
As shown in this section, simple helium model of Fig.24 right gives wrong ground state energy (= -83.33 eV ).
The helium experimental value is -79.005147 eV (= 1st + 2nd ionization energies, Nist, CRC ).
Of course, there were NO convenient computers in 1920s to simulate three-body motions (= two electrons + one nucleus ) like helium.
On the other hand, quantum mechanical variational methods can get approximate helium energy, though it does Not mean truth.
Even wrong approximate solution was far better than the dire situation where physicists had nothing to study without computers in classical orbits in 1920s.
So this lack of computers dealing with three-body atoms is the main reason we had gone the wrong way.
(Fig.25) Real de Broglie wave in "medium".
It's known even a single electron can interfere with itself in two-slit experiment. Using real medium of de Broglie wave, we can easily explain it.
But Einstein relativity denied any medium !
So they use "many-path worlds" where a single electron passes both slits at the same time.
This quixotic idea is called "Feynman-path-integral", where a single electron can enter infinite different paths at the same time !
The problem is physicists jumped to the conclusion that atom interferometry using de Broglie wave interference showed "superposition = parallel worlds".
Though if we suppose some real medium, we can solve all fatal paradoxes such as two-slit and magnetic force.
Law of action and reaction forbids a single electron from being kicked out from destructive interference. Interference needs some external things.
(Fig.26) ↓ A single photon is bigger than 1000 meter !?
You may often see "photon", a quantum particle of electromagnetic wave ? in various academic sites and news.
OK. Then how big is a single photon ?
In fact, the present physics cannot answer even this basic question !
For example, radio wave is one of electromagnetic waves, which have very long 1000 meter wavelength. A single photon is so big ?
We have never confimed so big photon. So a photon is just a fictional particle.
Even Nobel laureate, Lamb (= photon experimentalist ) did Not believe a photon.
(Fig.27) Electron is ejected above some light frequency.
Quantum mechanics claims Einstein's photoelectric effect proved a photon.
But I bet you won't be able to find any clear photon images in them.
The point is in photoelectric effect, all you can detect is electrons' current ejected by light (= photon ? ). No photons can be seen directly.
When you shine light above the threshold frequency (= f ) on to a metal, electrons are emitted from the metal, which is detected. That's all.
As you see, there is No proof of a photon particle here.
Light frequency is equal to c / wavelength, which means "wave" !
So this famous photoelectric effect just showed incident light is "wave having frequency", Not a particle.
Besides it, a photon interacting with a electron must be "virtual", not real, when the total energy and momentum are conserved. So a photon is fiction.
(Fig.28) Increased ejected photoelectrons = a photon ?
Then what is a "photon" in university and the media based on ?
They claim a single photon detector can detect each photon particle.
Again, this explanation is misleading. Because a single photodetector detects Not a photon, but electrons' current excited by incident light. ( this Fig.1 ).
Only when frequency and intensity of an incident light exceed some threshold (= which can be adjusted ), they call its electric signal "photon".
So there is No experimental proof of a photon.
Fictional photon is needed for useless quantum field theory.
This bogus science has No benefits for you, except imposing exorbitant tuition. So students including dropouts should sue universities for deceiving them !
(Fig.29) ↓ Light splits into 1 and 2 at beam splitter.
This nature claims even a large object can be in two states at the same time. In this "superpositon", a grotesque cat can be dead and alive at the same time ?
Unfortunately, this many-world like idea is just illusion.
Quantum computer using " parallel-world" is just a scam to extort money from people.
Even when the original light just splits into path 1 and 2 at the beam splitter, the present physics call it "superposition = parallel worlds 1 and 2".
This far-fetched idea is caused by defining a fictional light particle (= photon ). But this photon has No direct evidence. Even "how big" is unknown.
So the strange quantum physics misinterprets "just classically split light" as parallel worlds. That's all.
(Fig.30) An electron emits and loses energy ?
You may often see the boring cliche "accelerating electron radiates energy in classical orbit" in textbooks.
But in fact, these explanations are false and physically impossible.
They consider an electron as a spherical conductor storing repulsive charges.
This "stored energy" electron model is inconsistent with the smallest stable-charge electron. So textbooks are completely wrong.
Even Schrodinger equation has to rely on "stable wavefunction", where de Broglie wave's phases agree with each other at ends.
The truth is it's physically impossible that only a single electron emits or absorbs a photon quantum mechanically.
(Fig.31) Bohr model electron is Not falling into nucleus.
They uses Poynting vector (= E × H ) as the energy flow ( this, this ), which is equal to the change of the electric and magnetic energy densities stored in the vacuum.
This stored energy (= 1/2εE2 ) means the potential energies needed to gather infinitesimal charges to the spherical conductor (= an electron ? )
But a single electron is NOT made from smaller charges. ( A single electron is the smallest charge. )
There is NO concept such as "electric energy density" around a single electron.
It means the vacuum electric energy (= 1/2εE2 ) in a single electron is NOT energy, as a result, Poynting vector itself is meaningless in this single electron's case.
So this wrong explanation is a kind of brainwashing about Bohr model.
Only when more than one charges are involved, they can radiate energy.
(Fig.32) ↓ A electron radiates a photon (= energy ) ?
It's known that light (= photon ? ) has an energy proportional to its frequency as E = hf, and its momentum p = E/c.
An electron has its momentum p = mv and its kinetic energy E = 1/2mv2.
Suppose this electron emits a photon and loses its kinetic energy.
Of course, total energy and momentum must be conserved.
But it's impossible to satisfy both energy and momentum conservation !
In general, when a particle emits ( or absorbs ) another particle of different mass, one of energy or momentum is Not conserved.
Because in a photon with No mass, its momentum is much smaller compared to its great energy.
So only Compton scattering without emitting or absorbing is allowed.
Or the whole orbit must emit "transverse" electromagnetic wave.
(Fig.33) ↓ Virtual photon has negative mass m2 < 0.
As I said, emitted ( or absorbed ) photon cannot conserve both energy and momentum at the same time.
Then what the heck is a photon which quantum mechanics says about ?
In fact, these photons are called "virtual", which disobey Einstein relation.
Surprisingly, these virtual photons have negative mass ( m2 < 0 ).
All forces such as Coulomb, weak, strong forces are virtual, Not real.
This is the reason why experimental results in LHC lack reality, just wasting our tax.
The problem is all the media, universities and bloggers are hiding these virtual particles from people ! So probably you don't know it.
They are one of main factors destroying your precious careers.
Academic frauds are rampant openly now !
(Fig.34) ↓Coulomb, Higgs depend on fictional virtual particles.
In fact, the present physics completely depends on unreal virtual particles as four fundamental forces.
All particle physics reactions need virtual particles, too.
Even Coulomb force depends on unreal virtual photon.
What is "virtual particle" ? Move faster than light ?
In beta and Higgs decay, W boson is virtual, disobeys Einstein mass formula.
The problem is ordinary people don't know about these virtual particles, which are indispensable for the present physics ! Why ?
Because the media and university shut off all true informations.
The square of mass of virtual photon is always
(Fig.35) Spin magnet is too weak to explain ferromagnet.
You may think Spintronics and excitonics are useful (← ? ) for your career.
But almost nobody knows electron spin lacks reality !
Its spinning far exceeds light speed ( see this p.2 ).
You may hear spin is tiny magnet with the magnitude of Bohr magneton.
But this is not true, and disagrees with experiment.
Spin-spin magnetic interaction is too weak to explain actual ferromagnet. See this p.6 this p.7. Spin can be replaced by more realistic model.
Then, what the heck does this spin model mean ?
It uses "Heisenberg" spin model ( this p.3 ).
But this Heisenberg spin model is too old, which was introduced in 1920s, and it's too abstract to describe actual phenomena ( this p.2 ).
This spin model just puts nonphysical symbols side by side. So useless.
Parameter J is arbitrarily chosen. J > 0 = antiferromagnet, J < 0 = ferromagnet.
(Fig.36) Quantum equation cannot handle multi-electrons.
As I said, Schrodinger equaiotn of quantum mechanics cannot solve multi-electron atoms. They just choose trial function.
Even Pauli exclusion force cannot be explained by too weak spin magnetic moment. So all they can rely on is abstract determinant as muli-electron function ( this p.3 )
Choosing "imaginary" wavefunction means quantum mechanics has No ability to predict any physical values. So useless.
To conceal this inconvenient fact, they introduced fake "ab-initio" DFT. Under this useless quantum mechanics, phycisists had nothing to do.
This is the reason they created "imaginary" target such as quantum computer and quasiparticles.
Unfortunately, Nobel prize and top journals are exploited as "virtual" reward for unreal physics !
(Fig.37) Quasi-particles will remain "fake" even 1000 years from now !
According to Nature, a fundamental electron can split into three components such as "spinon" (= spin ! ), holon (= charge !) and orbiton (= orbital motion ! ).
Of course, these are fictitious (= unreal ) quasi-particle.
So, these quasi-particle cannot exist independently outside the material.
As you see, the current condensed matter physics just concentrates on creating fictitious quasi-particle instead of investigating true underlying mechanisms. See also list and quasi-electron.
Taking the trouble to create fictitious quasi-particles means physicists have NO intention of clarifying their true underlying mechanism using "real" particles, from now on.
So science stops due to quantum mechanics.
(Fig.38) Measuring photoelectron → "massless" electron ?
Boring cliche,"Quantum mehanics is the most successful theory" is a big lie, fabricated by universities to justify their exorbitant tuition.
Though quantum mechanics is unrealistic, why they pretend that it's successful ? Because physicists fabricated "artificial phenomena" by force.
Quasiparticle in condensed matter is a typical example of it.
"Dirac node" in this means massless Dirac fermion ( this ).
Massless Dirac and Weyl fermions are unreal quasiparticle, which don't really exist ! "Artificial" objects just to fit the present theory ( this p.9 ).
This massless Dirac fermion is slower than the light speed, which violates relativity. They claim this massless fermion was observed by photoemission using this.
"Photoemission" means observing ejected " electron" with mass, but they misinterpret it as "massless". So this "massless fermion" is self-contradictory.
It's based on wrong assumption that parallel momentum of ejected electron is invariant. Topological insulator = Nobel prize candidate uses this unreal particle.
(Fig.39) Quasiparticle = trick with nonphysical symbols.
A recent top journal still deals with unreal quasiparticle, exciton
So the present science stops in condensed matter physics.
Quasiparticle "exciton" is just a pair of electron (= c† ) and its hole (= β† ).
NO physical shape in this nonphysical symbol ( this p.2 ).
Polariton is also unreal quasiparticle. Polariton consists of a pair of exciton and photon ( this (15) , this (12) ). That's all. It's not a modern physics !
In this way, all the present physics can do is make artificial quasiparticles ( this, this ). So useless. People are deceived, because universities hide this truth !
As a result, almost No ordinary people know the present solid physics is filled with unreal "quasiparticle" and does harm to all applied science.
(Fig.40) ↓Bogoliubov quasiparticle lacks reality.
The present superconductor model relies on unreal phonon quasiparticle. This paper (p.2) mentions another Bogoliubov quasiparticle, too.
Relying on "not actual" quasiparticle means the present science stops pursuing the truth ! It hampers all applied science.
Bogliubov quasiparticle contradicts normal particle.
This quasiparticle consists of creation and annihilation of electrons ( this p.4 ).
So "create + annihilate = zero" is what this quasiparticle is !
The problem is the current superconductor model stops at old BCS model, forever.
Why did we fall into so serious situation ?
It all comes down to unreal (= useless ) wavefunction and faster-than-light spin.
(Fig.41) Physicists need imaginary target = quantum computer.
If basic quantum theory remains useless, physicists have nothing to do.
So they needed to create "imaginary" target = quantum computer.
They paid attention to doubtful probabilistic nature in quantum superposition where a cat can be dead and alive at the same time.
Of course, we cannot see a grotesque "dead and alive" cat directly.
But they abused this absurd logic in entanglement and quantum computer.
They misinterpret "1 or 2 unknown" as "1 and 2 states coexist" !
So the moment they see "1 state", entangled "2 state" is confirmed (= spooky ) ?
Quantum computer calculates "different numbers" using parallel worlds ? Of course we cannot confirm this "fantasy" parallel worlds, so a waste of money.
(Fig.42) Spin Hall, Berry, topological insulator → quantum computer ?
Though we often see the words of "quantum computers move a step" in various news, its research has substantially made NO progress at all.
As of 2013, the quantum computer consists only of two unstable trapped ions ( independently controllable ) or superconducting qubits with NO computer's shape.
Their average working (= coherent ) time is only microseconds ( this ).
So this easily broken computer is useless.
The point is present quantum mechanics abuses this impractical ( ← forever ) quantum computer as "camouflage" target !
So, all roads (= spin Hall, quasiparticle Majorana, topological insulator, Berry phase ) lead to illusory quantum computer !?
Very week spin Hall effect is useless ( this p.10 ).
They adopted fictitious monopole to explain spin Hall effect.
Physicists don't say what Berry phase really is, which means it's just artificial mathematical (= unreal ) phase.
(Fig.43) ↓ Electron, photon are just meaningless math symbols.
What figure does each electron and photon have ?
Unfortunately the present physics has No ability to describe it.
Electron and photon are just abstract math symbols with No shape.
Quntum field theory is based on quantum mechanics and special relativity.
In this theory, all physicists can do is two simple actions; create or annihilate each particle. That's all.
So this useless physics clearly prevents all applied science from developing, and is harmful to all science students.
(Fig.44) Pauli exclusion principle is just anticummutation ?
Though the media likes the title, "Einstein's dream", it's about general relativity. Special relativity forms the basis of the present physics.
They argue spin-orbit interaction and fine structure in all atoms are Einstein's relativistic effect. But electrons spin far exceeds light speed !
In fact, fine structure does not need unreal spin.
Actually, relativistic spin-orbit disagrees with experiment, which they hide.
They argue even Pauli exclusion principle is Einstein's relativistic effect.
Dirac combined "spin" and special relativity to derive Pauli exclusion.
The problem is in his relativistic theory, each electron is just a nonphysical symbol (= a† ) with no shape, and having flaws.
So this theory just says Pauli exclusion is due to abstract anticommutation of fermions' operators. No detailed mechanism is mentioned.
This abstract relativistic field theory made the present solid physics useless, filled with unreal quasiparticle.
(Fig.45) Only particle creation and annihilation in photon emission ?
All quantum mechanics can do is two simple actions: create or annihilate each particle. Electron is expressed by Dirac fields (= ψ ), and photon is Maxwell equation (= A ).
When an electron emits a ( virtual ) photon, incident electron is annihilated, a photon is created, and outgoing electron is created. That's all they can express. So, useless !
This process is one simple interaction term ( this, this ). Dirac and Maxwell fields in this term include creation and annihilation operators of electron and photon.
Universities and the media must tell people honestly that the present physics can do nothing, and useless. So they must reduce exorbiant tuition drastically now !
(Fig.46) ↓ Relativistic Dirac equation governs all particles.
Though the media likes to mislead people using showy images about particle physics, these images are all fake.
Ordinary people don't know the fact that abstract Dirac equation governs all particles such as electron, quark and neutrino ..
This Dirac equation is so abstract (= out of touch with reality ) that the media and universities seem to desperately hide it.
Einstein relation of mc2 is applied to this relativistic Dirac equation, which is the basis of unreal QED, Higgs and forces.
In fact, they hide true paradox of Einstein relativity, which destroys all student's careers now ! Black hole cannot form.
(Fig.47) ↓ Einstein denied real light "medium".
It's a famous story that Einstein relativity denied "ether" (= light medium ).
Instead, he introduced strange idea that "spacetime" is distorted by observer.
In fact, Michelson-Morley experiment didn't deny aether.
Relativity without absolute space is based on relative motion.
We and the light are approaching each other at speeds "v" and "c" in Fig.47.
This "observed" light speed must be "c+v" in this case.
But Einstein used tricky idea to make "c+v" remain the original "c" !
Light interference and its refraction clearly prove the light is "wave" traveling through some "medium".
This "light medium" moving with the earth agrees with "constant" light speed c irrespective of its energy in Michelson-Morley experiment.
(Fig.48) Different clock times in different positions.
Einstein relativity is NOT successful theory at all.
People are brainwashed by universities and the media
In Lorentz transformation, clock times (= t' ) seen from moving observer are different in different positions ( x = 0, 1 ) under the same t (= time from rest observer ).
A straight rigid rod is moving along a square frame as shown in Fig.48 left.
But special relativity claims this rigid rod is bent when the observer is moving !
For this time t' to be the same, we have to adopt smaller t (= past ) in the position x = 1. So moving observer sees the past event in the right position ( Fig.48 right ).
When the rod is moving only in one (= horizontal ) direction, this rod is Lorentz contracted, related to different clocks.
When the rod is moving in two directions (= first vertical, later horizontal ), it is bent from moving observer ! So Einstein can bend rigid rod just by moving !
(Fig.49) "Block" changes the rod "future" direction.
The problem is that the only right part of the rod has NOT arrived at the turning point. So this rod doesn't know whether there is some obstacle in the turning point.
If we insert some "block" in the turning point before the rod (= right part ) has arrived there, the whole rod cannot turn to the left, because the rod is rigid.
This means, the instant we insert a block, even the left horizontal part of the rod turns upward, though the block doesn't touch the rod ! See the detail.
This is clearly a fatal paradox. It's caused by strange relativistic "time change" in moving observer.
In special relativtiy, Lorentz transformation is everyhing, which can bend any rigid rod, when the observer is moving without touching it !
When the rod is moving in two different directions, the fatal paradox is made clear. So universities must reduce exorbitant tuition, when they teach "unreality".
(Fig.50) Neutral current → "Positive" by observer's movement !
In fact Einstein relativity includes fatal paradox also in electromagnetic force. Relativity is a basis of spin-orbit and fine structure.
So while universities accept Einstein, all fields ( ex. biology ) are useless, and students must pay exorbitant tuition for worthless degree !
Magnetic field B is generated around a neutral electric current in Fig.50.
An external charge (+) stops, so it feels neither magnetic nor electric force from the current.
But when an observer moves, he sees the charge "moving" in the opposite.
So this "moving" charge feels Lorentz magnetic force, only when observer moves !
To cancel this magnetic force, the neutral current changes into positive, when observer moves ! = new electric force cancels magnetic force ( this p.2 ).
This relativistic world is ridiculous.
(Fig.51) ↓ Einstein relativity shows "fatal" paradox !
The point is when an external charge (-) is at the side of the electric wire.
This negative charge is attracted toward positively charged wire, only when observer moves !
This is clearly a fatal paradox. Electric force acting on this negative charge cannot be cancelled by Loretnz magnetic force.
How does special relativity handle this phenomenon ? Charge (= ρ ) and current (= J ) are Lorentz-transformed ( this p.3 ), which causes positive ρ' from neutral current ( ρ = 0, J isn't zero ).
But Lorentz transformation of electro (= E ) magnetic (= B ) fields contradicts it. Parallel electric field (= E|| ) remains zero, even when the current turns positive !
This contradiction originates in magnetic force disobeying Einstein relativity. So universities must honestly tell students about these paradoxes, before destroying their career.
(Fig.52) Relativistic momentum (= p ), energy (= E ).
How was this Einstein's famous mc2 relation made ?
Einstein's relativity relies purely on "relative" ( not absolute ) motion.
When an observer and an electron stop, the stationary electron has zero momentum ( p = 0 ) and only rest mass energy ( E = mc2 ).
When the observer starts to move at speed v, from his viewpoint, the electron is moving in the opposite direction at v (= Fig.52 right ).
So from his viewpoint (= frame ), electron's momentum and energy becomes this.
All these relativistic energy (= E ) and momentum (= p ) satisfy Einstein relation in any observer's speed v.
(Fig.53) ↓ Electron's de Broglie wave vanishes !?
The serious problem is this Einstein momentum contradicts de Broglie relation ! Relativistic version is this.
de Broglie wavelength was confirmed in two-slit and various experiments. So if Einstein relation disagrees with de Broglie relation, his theory is wrong.
In Fig.53 left, an electron is moving at v, causing its de Broglie wave, and double-slit interference pattern is seen on the screen.
But from the viewpoint of the moving observer, the electron appears to stop in Fig.53 right. So he sees No interference due to vanished de Broglie wave !
This is clearly one of true paradoxes. So if students ( including dropouts ) suffering from debt sue universities for destroying their careers, they could win !
(Fig.54) Electron moves relative to "medium" → de Broglie wave !
Lorentz magnetic force is perpendicular to particle ( or observer ) velocity. It causes serious paradox in different directin.
Electron's de Broglie wave disobeys Lorentz contraction (= independent of observer's motion ). How can we fix this serious situation ?
The only way to fix it is we admit some real "medium", which relativity rejected. Medium moving with the earth agrees with Michelson-Morley experiment.
If we admit when an electron moves with respect to this medium, it causes de Broglie wave, we can solve all serious paradoxes above.
Furthermore, this real medium can explain electron's double-slit without fantasy parallel worlds.
In fact, light speed c is affected by various different mediums ( ex. water ).
Uniform and isotropic cosmic microwave background just fits this medium.
And we don't need artificial dark matter, if we admit some medium in space from the beginning.
(Fig.55) "Relativistic" QED disobeys Einstein !
Though the media repeats "Einstein dream", his theory "special relativity" already forms the basis of the current physics through Dirac equation.
It is called quantum electrodynamics (= QED ). The problem is in this QED, all fundamental forces such as Coulomb are unreal virtual particles !
Then why this unrealistic theory is called "most successful" ?
The point is QED calculation always diverges to infinity (= ∞ ).
So we have to artificially eliminate this infinity by renormalization.
This is an absurd math trick by dividing it like ∞ = ∞ + finite value.
And only infinite (= ∞ ) part is artificially removed (= renormalization ), leaving arbitrary finite values, as they like.
In this way, QED can get any experimental ( finite ) value, as we like.
So this theory is useless. Even founders Dirac, Feynmen hated it.
In Lamb shift, they just manipulate "not-analytical" Bethe values ( this p.6 ). Lamb shift can be explained by Sommerfeld fine structure realistically.
(Fig.56) "Symmetry" has NO physical meaning, so Higgs is unreal.
In fact, god-particle Higgs has NO physical meaning.
They say it's based on "symmetry". What the heck is symmetry ?
This says, when the equation of motion is invariant under some ( ex. gauge ) transformation, it's called gauge symmetry, which is the basis of Higgs.
This gauge is NOT physics but artificial concept ( see this p.13 )
Under useless theory, they needed to create imaginary target (= symmetry ).
They extended it to "matrix" form ( this p.2 = SU(2) symmetry ).
SU(2) means weak force, and SU(3) means fractional-charge quarks, which cannot be isolated, so unreal.
When these particles have "mass" ( term ), this artificial symmetry is broken. So they transfer "mass" term to other Higgs equations ( this p.6 ). This is the reason Higgs is necessary. Nonsense.
Let me remind you that this symmetry has NO physical ground, so Higgs and quark are just artificial math concepts with NO reality !
Even after Higgs and quarks were discovered (← ? ), our daily livings had NOT changed at all. It's safe to say these doubtful particles don't exist, except the media ( this ).
(Fig.57) ↓ This heavy W boson violates energy conservation.
Neutron is unstable, which decays into a proton and an electron within 10 minutes. This process is called " beta decay".
The problem is W boson, which they claim mediates this beta decay, is 80 times heavier than a proton !
This is very strange. Because they claim an initial neutron decays into a proton (+) and very heavy W boson (-).
The mass difference between a neutron and a proton is very small, which can never reach "80 times proton" mass !
So they start to claim this very heavy W boson is virtual (= not real ), which can appear for only so short time that we cannot detect.
This "far-fetched" interpretation is the preset particle physics.
Even in Higgs decay, this W boson is virtual, lacking realtiy.
So it's impossible to say the standard model "giving up reality" is the most successful theory. In fact, LHC cannot detect correct energies.
(Fig.58) ↓Positron emission is impossible.
Worthless university degree is the biggest problem all over the world.
Research on antimatter is really worth exorbitant tuition ?
They say antimatter is useful (← ? ) as PET in hospital.
The point is they do not detect antimatter but emitted electromagnetic wave.
In fact, "positron emission" in PET can be replaced by real "electron capture", because they both have the same effect on a nucleus ( this p.3 ) !
In Na nuclide, they argue both positron ( β+ ) emission and electron capture produce the same Ne. ← Emitted "light" energy is the same, indistinguishable.
Positron emission is unrealistic, because a proton decays into a heavier neutron, causing "fantasy" perpetual machine !
So real "electron capture" is what actually happens in PET instead of unreal "positron emission". = antimatter is useless.
(Fig.59) Light → positron + electron at rest ?
It is said antimatter can be produced from high energy light (= γ ray ). But we cannot generate it only from light !
They claim collision between accelerated electrons and nuclei is needed to generate antimatter. Light involved in antimatter is vitual photon.
So "antimatter is produced from high enegy (real) γ ray" is misleading.
Furthermore, antimatter disobeys energy and momentum conservation !
When a light (= energy 2mc2 ) produces a pair of positron and electron at rest, the initial light momentum is gone, because the resusltant pair is stationary.
The incident light always has momentum (= p ). But after the light spends all its energy in producing a pair particles at rest, the initial momentum is missing !
Collisions among electrons and nuclei generate a large number of unrelated particles. We cannot measure the trajectry of each particle independently in magnetic.
So, random Coulomb scattering in infinite unrelated particles is one of main reason they misinterpret unrelated ones as imaginary antimatters.
(Fig.60) Only 0.01o per century is relativity ?
Though Einstein is still celebrated even after 100 years have passed, his theory is one of main factors of worthless university degree.
His general relativity is too faint, so it's useless and doubtful.
For example, advance of Mercury's perihelion is useful for our daily life ?
They say general relativity can explain a slight change (= 0.01o per 100 years ! ) But this change is too small to believe, so useless, despite the media-hype.
It's impossible to know correct mass ( distribution ) and shape of each star, which influence this slight change for 100 years !
Also in pulsar, which is 21000 light years away, its orbital change is too small to believe ( only 0.000076 seconds per year ! ).
Other various factors and artificial parameters can affect these interpretation of very faint general relativity. So doubtful.
(Fig.61) Without Einstein, GPS works "correctly".
So all general relativistic effects made no contribution to us, so worthless to teach. Gravitational deflection of light is natural due to attracted dusts around stars.
GPS really cannot be available without Einstein relativity ?
They argue GPS needs relativistic correction of only 38 microseconds per day !
This effect is too small to believe. And relativistic clock time cannot avoid fatal twin paradox. The point is Einstein relativity is useless also in GPS.
Because the variable atmosphere (= medium ) around the earth has a great influence on GPS electromagnetic signal and its velocity change.
So even if relativity is right, we cannot predict GPS time correction !
We have to rely on empirical model for correction of variable atmospheric effect.
Or we can use atmospheric time correction in some known location.
Discrepancy between clocks on the earth and satellite can be corrected by the 4th satellite ( not general relativity ! )
Atomic clock is based on the frequency (/s) of electromagnetic wave emitted by Cs transition. between very small split energy levels.
It's no wonder that density difference in atmospheric medium ( on the earth and satellite ) affects these energy levels or light oscillating frequency slightly.
(Fig.62) Time stopping on black hole prevents its formation.
What does black hole look like ? Like this or this ?
Unfortunately these images are all just fiction only inside the media.
The reason of the name "black hole" is no light can get out, so black hole cannot be seen directly. No experimental proof.
Furthermore, the clock time stops on the surface of black hole from viewpoint of distant observer ( on earth ).
So it needs infinite time to form black hole from collapsed star.
It means black hole does Not exist now, different from these claims.
Black hole is one of the largest scams in science history.
In fact, this bogus black hole just reflects basic flaws of the current physics which does harm to all students' careers !
(Fig.63) Impossible to form black hole within age of universe.
Einstein general relativity got the famous relation indicating stronger gravity slows clock time. M is the mass of black hole.
For a star with mass M to be a black hole, it needs to contract to some radius r. But as the star is denser, the time on its surface is slower.
To be black hole, it needs to be dense enough to stop the clock time !
It takes infinite time, so black hole cannot be formed ( this #2 ).
So if you accept this black hole, you must give up Big Bang theory which claims the universe is 13.8 billion years (= finite ) old.
The present physics claims the oldest black hole formed 900 million years after Big Bang. But it's impossible, as I said.
Of course, if many black holes existed from the beginning of Big bang, our earth would have been already swallowed into one of them.
And it contradicts nucleosynthesis of the present Big Bang theory.
So the black hole is just a scam, destroying new students instead of stars !
(Fig.64) Uniform microwave cannot be "remnant" of early universe !
Though the present cosmology claims out universe is expanding, the earth and the sun is not expanding. So Big Bang theory is too good to be true.
Surprisingly, it claims our universe is expanding faster-than-light !
Strangely, this expansion energy is not diluted (= minus pressure ? )
All these researches rely on the unrealistic assumtion that microwave (= CMB ) filling universe is the remnant of the early universe.
The point is this cosmic microwave is too uniform and isotropic with extremely small variaion ( ± 0.00003 Kelvin ), indicating uniform medium.
Thinking commonsensically, it's impossible that all these very weak microwave remain intact for 13.8 billion years from the early universe !
Not only microwave but also high-energy gamma rays fill all space.
The fact the earth is moving through cosmic microwave at 370 km/s indicates medium moving with the earth.
Red-shift (= longer light wavelegnth ) from distant stars means Not expansion but the light losing energy.
(Fig.65) We can choose "convenient" gravitational pseudotensor !
It is often said that gravitational wave, ripples in the spacetime, is the result of Einstein general relativity. But it's a big lie.
In fact, general relativity has No concept of energy conservsation. So they created gravitational wave as fake " pseudotensor".
This pseudotensor has nothing to do with Einstein relativity.
So many artificial gravitational waves were invented ( this p.2 )
Surprisingly, this gravitational wave energy (= pseudotensor ) vanishes depending on observer's motion (= coordinate ). See this p.1, this p.1. So gravitational waves do NOT exist.
Read this website ! Physicists just choose convenient coordinate (= observer's motion ) for experimental results. So Einstein himself said "gravitational waves do NOT exist !"
In conclusion, many different choices in gravitational pseudotensors make it useless ( this p.2, this p.2 ).
Different artificial gravitational wave pseudotensors give different energy values depending on different space condition (= coordinate, this p.3, this p.17 ).
So the media should stop misleading expression like "Einstein greatest prediction" in gravitational wave.
(Fig.66) Many-worlds, quasiparticle are a basis of science ?
Rising university fee is the biggest problem all over the world.
Even if you study biology and physics, the degrees are useless, causing skill mismatch.
I wonder why almost No governments question whether universities really teach useful (?) things. Getting Nobel prize is everything ?
Without Nobel prize, science in university is of no use ?
The media hiding true Einstein paradox is also destroying students' career.
Their main reason is the basic physics lacks reality ( see many worlds ).
Schrodinger equation cannot solve muti-electrons, so useless.
Electron spin lacks reality, its spinning exceeds light speed ( this p.2 ).
So quantum mechanics relies on unreal quasi and virtual particles !
If basic physics lacks reality, all applied science is hampered !
So all students including lawyer are forced to pay exorbitant tuition for nothing.
(Fig.67) Tunneling happens only in very short ( ~nm ) barrier.
Quantum mechanics is used every day in smartphones ?
But the present physics lacks reality. They mention quantum tunnel.
Though quantum tunnel argues an electron can tunnel through some barrier (= insulator ), the definition of this "barrier" is very vague.
The point is quantum tunnel doesn't mean a ball penetrating a wall !
It's just like point-like electron passing some empty vacuum (= insulator ? ).
In fact, the length of this barrier (= insulator ) needs to be very short (= nanometer ! ) to cause tunnel.
See scanning microscope ( ~1 nm ) and transistor ( 12 nm ).
It's natural some electrons pass very short "insulator" ( including large empty space ) under some voltage.
So "everyday Einstein and quantum mechanics !" is false advertisement for universities to justify exorbitant tuition !
(Fig.68) Entanglement is a far-fetched interpretation.
Quantum computer uses parallel-world computation.
This parallel world idea is just fantasy, so quantum computer is reduced to just a tool for universities to collect money from tax and people.
Entanglement is just "classical" phenonemon, different from this claim.
They make two spins the same by illuminating them with light in Fig.68.
So when spin A is "up (down)", spin B is always "up (down)".
These spin up and down just mean two energy levels, ( not seeing spin ).
In this state, when we measure A and know its state is "up", B state is determined as "up" instantly (= faster-than-light ? )
Unfortunately, this is not "superluminal" process at all.
These A and B states are just "up"-"up" before measurement.
There is No spooky superluminal action (= nonlocal ) between two spins. These states are just classically manipulated by illuminating them.
(Fig.69) Entangle is just classically "unknown" state.
In Fig.69, we don't know whether "up-up" or "down-down" in Be+ and Mg+ energy levels. This is just classically unknown state.
Surprisingly, the present physics intentionally misinterprets this "unknown" states as "parallel worlds = superposition".
"Superposition" means a grotesque cat can be "dead" and "alive" at the same time, where the moment we know Ba+ is "up", Mg+ is determined as "up".
Though they claim this determination process is superluminal (= spooky ? ), these ions are just "up-up" just before measurement, classically.
So "entanglement", "quantum computer" rely on far-fetched idea, unreal parallel worlds to claim they are non-classical (← ? ) phenomena.
There is No mystery here. They are just "classical" phenomena.
(Fig.70) Old Bohr's helium. Two de Broglie waves cancel each other.
In old Bohr's helium, two electrons are moving on the opposite sides of the nucleus in the same circular orbit (= one de Broglie wavelength ).
Considering Davisson-Germer interference experiment, two electrons of old Bohr's helium are clearly unstable.
1-de Broglie wavelength orbit consists of a pair of the opposite wave phases (= ±ψ ), which cancel each other by destructive interference.
Due to Coulomb repulsion between two electrons, one is always on the opposite side of another where the opposite de Broglie wave phases cancel each other.
Actually, old Bohr's helium of Fig.70 gives wrong ground state energy of helium, when you calculate it.
Old helium gives the total energy of -83.33 eV, which is a little lower than the actual value of -79.005 eV (= 1st + 2nd ionization energy of this ).
(Fig.71) Various old Bohr's helium atom.
In 1910s - 1920s, Lande (= outer and inner orbits, Fig.71A), Langumuir (= two parallel orbits, Fig.47B, two linear oscillating orbits, Fig.71C) failed in finding true helium model.
Other Kramers (= 120 degree angle crossed orbits, Fig.71D ), and Heisenberg (= coplanar and inclined orbits, Fig.71E,F ) failed in Bohr's helium, too.
No old helium models could explain the correct ground state energy, stability, and closed shell property of helium atom.
Because about that time, they did not have computers to calculate three-body realistic helium atom.
(Fig.72) Two de Broglie waves cross perpendicularly = stable.
To avoid the problems of vanishing de Broglie's wave in the upper section, we suppose another model as shown in Fig.72.
This new Bohr's helium consists of two electron orbits which are perpendicular to each other. Each orbit is one-de Broglie wavelength.
If the two orbits are perpendicular to each other, their wave phases are independent from each other and can be stable, not canceling each other.
If the electron tries to obey repulsive Coulomb force completely and lay down its orbit, the destructive interference of their de Broglie waves expels the electron.
So as shown in Davisson-Germer experiment, the interference of two de Broglie waves forces them to cross perpendicular to each other.
(Fig.73) Old Bohr's helium = electrons are expelled. New Bohr helium = stable.
In 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbit, the opposite sides of nucleus contain the opposite wave phases, which cancels another phase.
When two de Broglie waves are just perpendicular to each other, they can avoid destructive interference between these opposite phases.
There is NO more space for the third electron to enter this helium (= Pauli exclusion principle can be explained ).
We succeeded in expressing Pauli exclusion principle in all atoms using this de Broglie wavelength.
(Fig.74) New Bohr's helium (= A.) is not electrically polarized.
As you know, helium atom does NOT form any compounds with other atoms, and has the lowest boiling point in all atoms.
Unfortunately, the quantum mechanical electron spin has NO power to stop forming compounds, because the magnetic moment of spin is very weak in comparison with Coulomb force.
Spin interaction is as small as fine structure level ( < 0.0001 eV ).
So ONLY de Broglie waves is left to explain this important stability and independence of helium.
As shown in Fig.74 left, when the two electron orbits are perpendicular to each other, the space around 2e+ nucleus becomes just neutral.
In this case, two negative electrons are equally distributed around the 2e+ nucleus both in vertical and horizontal directions.
In other helium models, the space is electrically polarized, and their wave phases easily become chaotic when other atoms are close to them.
(Fig.75) Pauli exclusion principle by de Brolgie wave interference.
Of course, there is NO space for the third electron to enter in Fig.72 model (= Pauli exclusion principle ).
Because, if the third electron enters the orbit of 1 × de Broglie wavelength in this new Bohr's helium, it cannot be perpendicular to both of two other waves.
On the other hand, in old Bohr helium, the third electron of Li can enter this orbit, because it does NOT depend on cancellation between de Broglie waves.
Spin-Spin magnetic dipole moment interactions are too week to explain strong Pauli exclusion principle.
For example, fine structure of hydrogen is ONLY 0.000045 eV. Spin-spin coupling is weaker than it.
As a result, Only de Broglie wave's interference is left for describing strong Pauli exclusion principle also in bonding number.
(Fig.76) Two same-shaped orbital planes are perpendicular to each other.
Next we calculate the new helium using simple computer program.
Fig.76 shows one quarter of the whole orbits.
We suppose electron 1 starts at ( r1, 0, 0 ), while electron 2 starts at ( -r1, 0, 0 ).
(Fig.77) The two electrons have moved one quarter of their orbitals.
In Fig.77, the electron 1 is crossing y axis perpendicularly, while electron 2 is crossing z axis.
When the two orbits are crossing perpendicularly, the motion pattern as shown in Fig.76 and Fig.77 is the most stable one (= potential energy is the lowest ).
I thank Tao greatly for giving youtube of this helium !
Here we investigate how the electrons of the helium are moving by calculating the Coulomb force among the two electrons and the nucleus at short time intervals.
The computer programs of JAVA ( version 1.5.0 ), simple C languages and Python ( 2.7 ) to compute the electron orbit of the helium are shown in the link below.
Sample JAVA program
C language program
As shown in Fig.76 and Fig.77, the helium nucleus is at the origin.
The electron 1 initially at ( r1, 0, 0 ) moves one quarter of its orbit to ( 0, r2, 0 ), while the electron 2 initially at ( -r1, 0, 0 ) moves to ( 0, 0, r2 ).
As meter and second are rather large units for measurement of atomic behavior, here we use new convenient units
(Fig.78) New units of time and length.
From Fig.78, the accelaration is
If you copy and paste the above program source code into a text editor, you can easily compile and run this.
When you run this program ( for example, JAVA ) in command prompt, the following sentences are displayed on the screen.
First we input the initial x-coordinate r1 = r (in MM) of electron 1 (see Fig.80 1 ), and press "enter" key.
In Fig.79, we input "3060", which means the initial x coordinate of electron 1 is 3060 MM = 3060 × 10-14 meter. The initial x coordinate of electron 2 becomes -3060 MM, automatically.
Next we input the absolute value of the total energy |E| (in eV) of helium.
In Fig.80, when we input "79.0", and press enter key, it means total energy of this helium is -79.0 eV.
(Fig.81) Initial states. "r" is initial x coordinate of electron 1.
From the inputted values, this program aturomatically calculates the initial velocity of the electron 1 ( = 2 ) in y ( z ) direction.
Total potential energy (= V ) of the initial state of Fig.81 becomes
(Fig.82) Initial total potential energy V.
The first term of right side in Fig.82 is the potential energy between two electrons and 2e+ helium nucleus.
The second term is the repulsive potential energy between two electrons.
(Fig.83) Initial velocity "v".
Total kinetic energy of two electrons is given by total energy (ex. -79.0 eV ) minus potential energy (= V ).
So from inputed values of Fig.80, we can get the initial velocity of each electron.
The initial velocity of electron 1 ( 2 ) is in y ( z ) direction.
(Fig.84) Change unit of velocity.
Using the new unit of Fig.78, this program changes "m/s" into "MM/SS" in the initial velocity.
Because it is convenient when calculating each acceleration and de Broglie wave at intervals of 1 SS (= 10-23 seconds ).
(Fig.85) Positions of two electrons (= perpendicular and symmetric )
At intervals of 1 SS, we compute the Coulomb force among the two electrons and the nucleus.
When the electron 1 is at ( x, y, 0 ), the electron 2 is at ( -x, 0, y ) due to their symmetric positions ( see Fig.76 and Fig.77 ).
So the x component of the acceleration ( m/sec2 ) of the electron 1 is,
(Fig.86) x component of the acceleration.
where the first term is the Coulomb force between the nucleus and the electron 1, and the second term is the force between the two electrons.
(Fig.87) Distances among two electrons and nucleus.
Due to symmetric positions of two electrons, when electron 1 is at ( x, y, 0 ), the electrons 2 is at ( -x, 0, z ), in which z = y.
As a result, the distance between electron 1 and nucleus is given by the first relation of Fig.87.
The second relation is the distance between two electrons.
Considering the helium nuclear mass (= alpha particle), we use here the reduced mass (= rm ) except when the center of mass is at the origin.
(Fig.88) Reduced mass of one electron.
See also reduced mass of three-body helium.
In the same way, the y component of the acceleration (m/sec2) is,
(Fig.89) y component of the acceleration.
Based on that calculation value, we change the velocity vector and the position of the electrons.
We suppose electron 1 moves only on the XY-plane, so the z component of the acceleration of the electron 1 is not considered.
If we consider all components of the Coulomb force against the electrons, the electron's motion becomes as shown in Fig. 70.
But in this state, the two electrons are packed in one orbit of one de Broglie's wavelength where de Broglie wave oppsite phases (= ±ψ) are cancelled (= destructive interference ).
(Fig.90) De Broglie waves in each segment.
We also calculate de Broglie wavelength of the electron from the velocity ( λ = h/mv ) at intervals of 1 SS.
The number of that wave ( λ in length ) contained in that short movement section is,
(Fig.91) Number of de Broglie wavelength in the short segment.
where (VX, VY) are the velocity of the electron 1 (in MM/SS ), the numerator is the movement distance (in meter) for 1 SS. the denominator is de Broglie's wavelength (in meter).
Here we use 1 MM = 10-14 meter.
Here, the estimated electron's orbit is divided into more than one million short segments for the calculation.
When the electron 1 has moved one quarter of its orbit and its x-coordinate is zero (Fig.92), this program checked the y-component of the electron 1 velocity (= last VY ).
Because "the last VY is zero" means two electrons are periodically moving around the nucleus in the same orbitals as shown in Fig.76 and Fig.77.
(Fig.92) Computing results ( input: 79.00 eV, r1 = 3060 MM ).
After moving a quarter of the orbit, the program displays the above values on the screen. The initial r1 automatically increases per each calculation of 1/4 orbit.
VX and VY are the last velocity of electron 1 ( MM/SS ).
preVY is the last y velocity 1ss before VY.
We pick up the values when this last VY is the closest to zero.
(mid)WN means the total number of de Broglie wavelength in one quarter of the orbit.
(Fig.93) When total energy is just -79.00 eV, 1/4 de Broglie wave is 0.250006.
This program gives results when r1 increases from inputted value (ex. 3060 ) to r1+100 (= 3160 ).
As shown in Fig.92, when r1 is 3074 MM, last VY velocity of electron 1 becomes the smallest ( VY = 0.000000 ).
This means when r1 ( initial x coordinate ) = 3074 × 10-14 meter, these electron's orbits become just symmetric and electrons are stably moving in the same orbits.
In this case, the number of de Broglie wavelength contained in a quarter of its orbit becomes 0.250006.
So, one orbit is 0.250006 × 4 = 1.000024 de Broglie wavenlength. ( ← NOT 1.000000 )
As shown in Table 1, when inputted energy is -79.0037 eV, de Broglie wave becomes just 1.000000.
Table 1 shows the results in which the last VY is the closest to zero in different inputted total energies E.
This result shows when the total energy of new Bohr's helium is -79.0037 eV, each orbital length is just one de Broglie wavelength.
|E (eV)||r1 (MM)||WN||WN x 4|
WN × 4 is the total number of de Broglie's wavelength contained in one round of the orbital. This computed value is -79.0037 eV.
The experimental value of helium ground state energy is -79.005147 eV (= 1st + 2nd ionization energies, Nist, CRC ).
This result shows the relativistic correction (= resistance when closer to c ) to the energy = -79.005147 - (-79.0037 ) = -0.001447 eV.
The theoretical ground state energy value of the helium ion (He+) can be gotten from usual Bohr model or Schrodinger equation using the reduced mass.
This value is -54.41531 eV.
And the experimental value of He+ ground state energy is -54.41776 eV (Nist).
So the relativistic correction to the energy in He+ ion is -54.41776-(-54.41531) = -0.00245 eV.
The theoretical ground state energy value of the hydrogen atom (H) can be gotten from usual Bohr model or Schrodinger equation using the reduced mass, too.
This value is -13.5983 eV.
And the experimental value of H ground state energy is -13.59844 eV (Nist).
So the relativistic correction to the energy in hydrogen atom is -13.59844-(-13.5983) = -0.00014 eV.
The electron's velocity of the neutral helium atom is slower than helium ion, but faster than hydrogen atom.
So the relativistic correction in neutral helium atom should be between -0.00245 eV and -0.00014 eV.
The above calculation value of -0.001447 eV is just between them !
As a control program, we show the program of hydrogen-like atoms ( H and He+ ) using the same computing method as above. Try these, too.
JAVA program ( H or He+ )
C language ( H or He+ )
Here we use the new unit ( 1 SS = 1 × 10-23 second ) and compute each value at the intervals of 1 SS.
If we change this definition of 1 SS, the calculation results of the total energy (E) in which the orbital length is just one de Broglie's wavelength change as follows,
|1 SS = ? sec||Result of E(eV)|
|1 × 10-22||-79.00540|
|1 × 10-23||-79.00370|
|1 × 10-24||-79.00355|
|1 × 10-25||-79.00350|
This means that as the orbit becomes more smooth, the calculation values converge to -79.00350 eV.
The programs based on other 1 SS definition is as follows,
Sample JAVA program 1 SS = 1 × 10-25 sec, calculation takes much time.
Old sample JAVA program 1 SS = 1 × 10-22 sec--fast but the result and Eq.no are a little different
(Fig.94) Hydrogen and Helium atoms.
These orbits are all just one de Broglie's wavelength.
In this new helium, the two symmetrical orbits crossing perpendicularly are wrapping the whole helium atom completely.
The Bohr model hydrogen which has only one orbit, can not wrap the direction of the magnetic moment completely.
It is just consistent with the fact of the strong stability and the closed shell property of helium.
In helium, the opposite ( same ) phases of two orbits move in the same ( opposite ) direction, which cancel de Broglie wave effect (= magnetic field ) at a distance.
Surprisingly, this new atomic structure of Bohr's helium is applicable to all other two and three electron atoms ( ions ).
|Atoms||r1 (MM)||WN x 4||Circular orbit||Result (eV)||Experiment||Error (eV)|
Table 4 shows three electron atoms such as lithium.
|Atoms||r1 (MM)||WN x 4||Result (eV)||Experiment||Error (eV)|
About the calculation method, see this page.
This excellent agreement with experimental results shows this new helium model is true.
(Fig.95) Eight valence electrons = regular hexahedron.
Neon is stable noble gas, and has eight valence electrons in n = 2 orbitals.
Considering symmetric distribution due to repulsive Coulomb forces, regular hexahedron is natural.
♦ New Bohr's Neon,
♦ de Broglie waves determine all atomic structures.
♦ Truth of electromagnetic waves.
♦ Four fundamental forces
(Fig.96) Each electron is harmonizing with other de Broglie waves.
Fig.96 shows the periodic movements of all eight electrons in Bohr model Neon.
8 electrons of neon can move smoothly, NOT crashing into other electrons.
And all four de Broglie waves can cross each other perpendicularly, avoiding destructive interference !
(Fig.97) Maximum orbits = midpoint lines + 2 (= two perpendicular orbits )
When each orbit crosses another orbit perpendicularly, they can avoid destructive interference.
When atoms contain more than two orbits, other orbits must be on the midpoint lines (= zero phase ) NOT to be disturbed.
So, the maxium number of orbits in Ne becomes "4" (= 2 × perpendicular + 2 × midlines ).
4 × de Broglie wavelength contains 4 midlines, so the total orbital number of Kr becomes "6".
The odd numbers of "3", "5", "7" orbits are asymmetrical and unstable.
So the orbital numbers of "Ar" (= 3 × waveslength ), "Xe" (= 5 × waveslength ) remain the same as "Ne" and "Kr".
So we can get the generalized common rules, "perpendicular orbits" and "avoiding destructive interference" in all atoms based on de Broglie wavelength. See also this page.
2016/ 1/10 updated. Feel free to link to this site.