Youhei Tsubono, Japan

Criticize the present physics. (18/ 5/18 )

*(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 ?

In Quantum mechanics, Schrodinger wavefuntion is useless, it 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 *10 ^{500}* different worlds, which

*(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* !

*(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.

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 → ∞*

Electron spin is faster-than-light rotation, so unreal.

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 )

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 and speed ).

*(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 spin has the **same** Bohr magneton as Bohr's classical orbit.

*(Fig.8) The current technology can manipulate a single atom.*

We already have technology of manipulating a single atom.

So we should be able to make and manipulate tiny molecular machine to cure fatal disease. But we **cannot**.

Basic physics theory, quantum mechanics is too old, with No change for 100 years, which clearly prevents advancing science.

*(Fig.9) ↓ 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 **wrong**, and disagrees with experiment.

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.10) 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.

They claim a hydrogen's small splitting called fine structure is caused by spin-orbit magnetic interaction. But if it's true, spin-orbit interaction is **too small** to explain other Alkali fine structure.

So the quantum mechanical idea that fine structure = spin orbit is **wrong**.

In this book p.659, they say, "for weak magnetic field, each component of *hydrogen* H_{α} 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.11) 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 Coulomb 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 ).

Triplet, ferromagnet, molecular bonds are not spin, either.

*(Fig.12) 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 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" fake solution and artificial parameters 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.

We prove that whatever trial function you choose, you can **never** get true Schrodinger solution. So quantum mechanics proves to be **wrong** !

*(Fig.13) "Choose" trial functions → integral over all space. → endless*

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 approximate (= **fake** ) 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. It causes useless quantum mechanics.

*(Fig.14) Helium true energy → three Coulomb terms must be independent !?*

If Schrodinger equation for Helium has "true" solution, all three Coulomb energy terms must be completely cancelled out by kinetic energy.

It means these three different Coulomb terms can be independently canceled by its corresponding kinetic energy term → three "*fake*" hydrogens !?

So in true Helium solution (= if it exists ), Helium can be **divided** into three "*fake*" hydrogen, one of which is **unreal** hydrogen (= ③ is electron-electron hydrogen ? )

It means choosing some approximate function (= basis set ) **cannot** give true "common" energy, but just "**fake**" energy.

Instead of Schrodinger's spreading wavefunction, two **clear** electrons have to classically *avoid* each other to obey a single total energy in **any** electrons' positions.

*(Fig.15) Electron interaction term is freely chosen. ← useless*

In larger atoms in condended matter physics, density functional theory (= DFT ) is the **only** computing method.

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 ).

DFT is useless with **No** ability to predict atomic behavior.

*(Fig.16) 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. Molecular mechanics is useless, too.

*(Fig.17) ↓ This was really a lucky coincidence ?*

The important point is that the fine structure (= small energy splitting ) of hydrogen was first obtained by Sommerfeld using Bohr's orbit.

Later, Dirac equation using spin-orbit interaction got exactly the same solutions as Bohr-Sommerfeld model ! Lucky coincidence ? ( see 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

Einstein relativity contradicts de Broglie wave, so heavier mass in Bohr-Sommerfeld model is due to increased resistance from field around an electron, **Not** by relativity.

*(Fig.18) ↓ This was really a lucky coincidence ?*

Quantum mechanical spin-orbit model should naturally contain much **more** split energy levels due to its spin, than Bohr-Sommerfeld model.

But hydrogen energy levels are far **less** than spin-orbit model expected.

The **same** fine structure solution is gotten from Sommerfeld and Dirac theories.

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 **un**natural coincidences.

Bohr-Sommerfeld fine structure is more natural and correct than artificial Dirac equation !

*(Fig.19) ↓ Linear Dirac equation contains spin ?*

In fact, Quantum field theory lacks reality, where 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

Furthermore, Einstein mc^{2} causes serious **paradox**.

*(Fig.20) ↓ 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 with flaw.

*(Fig.21) 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 Z^{4}/n^{3}, 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 !

It means fine structure energy splitting is caused **Not** by spin-orbit interaction, but by other Coulomb effect or something.

*(Fig.22) Double-slit experiments proved electron's de Broglie wavelength.*

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 doube-slit, Davisson-Germer and this.

So there is **No** room for doubt that this de Broglie wave is *true*.

In these experiments, an electron is driven out from **destructive** interference regions by the "force" of de Broglie wave ( this p.25 )

This strong "**expelling** force" by de Broglie wave interference **can** explain strong Pauli exclusion force !

*(Fig.23) 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 p^{2} 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. Figure above is hydrogen 2p *radial* wavefunction ( this, this last ).

"2p" wavefunction has unreal **negative** kinetic energy on both sides.

On these **boundaries**, the second derivative is **zero** ( p^{2} = 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 p^{2} is zero, too !

So quantum mechanics **distorts** *original* de Broglie relation, and uses **wrong** math !

*(Fig.24) 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 theory ( this last ) !

"**Boundary**" condition at both **ends** ( r= 0,∞ ) in Schrodinger hydrogen corresponds to de Broglie condition ( see this p.11, 12 ).

As you see, Schrodinger hydrogen clearly obeys "n × de Broglie wavelength" !

But its angular momentum = zero is **contradictory**, so useless as precondition.

*(Fig.25) 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 circular helium model above 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 realistic orbits in 1920s.

So this lack of computers dealing with three-body atoms is the main reason we had gone the wrong way.

*(Fig.26) A single electron splits into parallel worlds !?*

Even a **single** electron can **interfere** with itself in two-slit experiment.

Quantum mechanics says an electron can pass both two slits simultaneously in two parallel worlds ! This is unrealistic.

We can naturally explain this double-slit using real electron with de Broglie wave interference. We don't need parallel worlds !

**Fantasy** parallel worlds originates from Einstein **denying** medium.

Einstein relativity cannot explain light refraction and paradox.

So quantum mechanics and Einstein relativity are the main reason why they adopt **unreal** parallel worlds in double-slit experiment.

*(Fig.27) ↓ 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.28) 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 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 / **wave**length, which means "wave" !

So this famous photoelectric effect just showed incident light is "**wave** having frequency", **Not** a photon particle.

A photon interacting with a electron must be "virtual", **not** real.

Photon particle cannot explain light refraction.

*(Fig.29) 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.

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 corrupt academia.

*(Fig.30) An electron emits and loses energy ? *

You may often see the boring cliche "accelerating electron radiates energy in classical orbit", so Bohr's hydrogen is unstable.

This logic is **wrong**. So Bohr's orbit is stable, Not radiating energy.

The right answer is "a **single** accelerated charge does **Not** radiate energy."

*(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 (= 1/2εE^{2} ) means the **potential** energies needed to **gather** infinitesimal charges to the spherical *conductor*

So, if there is Only a **single** electron, these electromagnetic energies
**cannot** be generated from the beginning !

Also the magnetic energy they use is "stored energy in **solenoid**", which needs **more** than one charges !

So using only a **single** accelerated electron as an example of radiating energy is nonsense and **wrong** ( this p.4 ).

*(Fig.32) ↓ A electron radiates a virtual photon with negative mass !? *

In fact, it's impossible that a **single** electron emits a **real** photon, because total energy and momentum are Not conserved.

If total energy and momentum are conserved between an electron and photon, this photon must be unreal virtual photon with negative mass squared ! ( this p.3 )

The 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 = 1/2mv^{2}.

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 of an electron and *nucleus* must emit electromagnetic wave.

*(Fig.33) ↓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, Weak boson is virtual, **disobeys** Einstein mass
formula.

So the current physics is unrealistic and **wrong**.

*(Fig.34) Spin magnet is too weak to explain ferromagnet.*

Electron spin **lacks** reality !

Its spinning far exceeds
light speed.

Spin-spin *magnetic* interaction is too weak to explain actual ferromagnet. See this p.6 this p.7.

Ferromagnetism needs strong interaction between atoms (= orbital motion + Coulomb ) other than unreal weak spin.

Then, what the heck does this spin model mean ?

It uses old "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 ).

Electron spin is **unreal**, too small to explain ferromagnet, and too abstract to be useful.

*(Fig.35) Quantum equation cannot handle multi-electrons.*

Schrödinger equation in quantum mechanics is **useless**, cannot predict atomic behavior.

So the present physicists give up clarifying true microscopic mechanism.

They focus on fabricating unreal quasiparticles or quantum computer **scam** to deceive taxpayers and governments.

*(Fig.36) Quasi-particles will remain "fake" forever*

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.

These fake quasi-particle **cannot** exist independently outside the material.

The current condensed matter physics just focuses on creating **fictitious** quasi-particle, instead of clarifying true *underlying* mechanisms. ← nonsense.

Quasiparticle is unreal with fake mass and charge.

*(Fig.37) Quasiparticle = trick with nonphysical symbols.*

A recent 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.3 ).

Polariton is also *unreal* quasiparticle. Polariton consists of a pair of exciton and photon ( this (15) , this ). That's all. It's **not** a modern physics !

In this way, all the present physics can do is make unreal quasiparticles ( this, this ). So **useless**.

*(Fig.38) ↓Bogoliubov quasiparticle lacks reality.*

The present superconductor model relies on **unreal** phonon quasiparticle, and fictitious Bogoliubov quasiparticle.

Relying on "not actual" quasiparticle means the present science **stops** pursuing the *truth* ! It hampers all applied science.

Furthermore, this
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.

*(Fig.39) Parallel computing using parallel worlds ?*

Quantum computer is **fantasy**. They say it can compute different things simultaneously using unreal parallel worlds.

But there is **No** evidence of fantasy parallel worlds nor faster quantum computer.

Quantum computer is impractical forever, so science **scam**.

*(Fig.40) Quantum computer (= parallel worlds ) vs. d-wave*

Quantum computer is said to be faster exploiting fantasy parallel-world computing.
But there is **No** evidence of faster quantum computer.

Quantum computer is one of the biggest science scams where all corrupt academia, corporations, media collude to **defraud** taxpayers of money.

IBM and Intel's 50-bit quantum computer is still theoretical, Not viable. D-Wave 2000-bit computer is Not quantum computer, Not faster.

They say each quantum computer bit can be two different energy states simultaneously using two **parallel** worlds like a dead and alive cat.

This is untrue. They are just alternating between two states (= Not simultaneous ! ).

**Fraud** quantum computer is an easy way to defraud taxpayers of money.

*(Fig.41) ↓ 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.42) Pauli exclusion principle is just anticummutation ?*

Pauli exclusion principle claims that two electron cannot have the same state with regard to orbital and spin.

In fact, electron spin magnetic energy is too weak to explain Pauli strong exclusion force.
So quatum mechanicsl spin is **wrong**.

Pauli principle. by quantum mechanics is too abstract and nonphysical.

Dirac combined "spin" and special relativity to derive Pauli exclusion.

The problem is in his relativistic theory, each electron is just a **non**physical 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.

As shown the above figure, if two electrons are the same ( c_{1} = c_{2} ), these electrons are zero ? ← Pauli exlusion ? This too simple model explains **nothing**.

*(Fig.43) 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.

Quantum mechanics says **No** more detailed mechanism about electron emitting photon than this ! ← **useless** quantum mechanics.

*(Fig.44) Einstein mc ^{2} = paradox → Dirac equation → unreal particles !*

They developed Einstein mc^{2} to quantum field theory, which **lacks** reality, only describing each particle as abstract **non**physical math symbol.

Quantum field theory uses **unreal** virtual particles as interacting particles, and all particles inside collider are unstable and unreal.

They suddenly started to claim out nature obeys some "symmerty", but later its symmetry is broken ! So "symmetry" is **meaningless**.

All these mess originates from the fact Einstein mc^{2} is illusion due to its serious paradox.

*(Fig.45) Fractional charge quark, Higgs field cannot be detected !*

The present particle physics seeks only unreal particles.

Fractional-charge quarks can neither be separated nor confirmed.

Weak-force boson is virtual, *unreal* and violating conservation law.

Higgs field giving mass to everything **cannot** be detected in our daily lives ! Doubtful Higgs boson is too unstable to observe directly, too

There are the same amount of supersymmetric particles (= SUSY ) around us ? But SUSY cannot be detected except as *suspicious* "missing energy".

The present physics seeks only **undetectable** imaginary particles, which cause fantasy theory.

*(Fig.46) "Symmetry" has NO physical meaning, so Higgs is unreal.*

Particle colliders such LHC just waste taxpayer's money, they pursue unreal particles which are too short-lived to confirm their reality, **useless** for us.

Physicists suddenly introduced artificial **baseless** rule symmetry and nonphysical gauge but later said "symmetry is broken!" ← **nonsense** !

They started to say unreal weak and strong force are SU(2,3) symmetry which is just nonphysical math.

All these doubtful particles such as Higgs, Weak boson, quarks remain **useless**, just waste money in gigantic colliders. So they are **unreal**.

*(Fig.47) Light medium moving "with" the earth is OK ↓*

Michelson-Morley experiment showed that light speed is constant c, which agrees with light medium moving **with** the earth.

Einstein rejected "medium", so his relativity causes **occult** phenomena that clock time of moving object is slower.

But from moving object, stationary clock is moving, so we **don't** know which clock is slower ! They have to give up real "absolute" time.

In fantasy Einstein relativity, concepts such as time, length, mass are **illusion**, changing depending on *observers* ! ← **nonsense**.

Einstein relativity without medium needs more **unrealistic** virtual photon as electromagnetic force, artificial dark matter.

Einstein photon **cannot** explain light refraction !

*(Fig.48) Different clock times in different positions.*

Einstein special relaivity is unrealistic.

Clock time ticks differently depending observer.

Rigid rod moving upward is bent by moving observer !

Because clock time speed is **changing** in different positions and observers.

When the rod is moving upward and then horizontally, it is **contorted** unrealistically, though the rod is rigid !

So Einstein relativity is **wrong**.

*(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 !

This is clearly a **fatal** paradox, so special relativity is wrong.

*(Fig.50) Neutral current → "Positive" by observer's movement !*

In fact Einstein relativity includes fatal paradox also in **electromagnetic** force.

Magnetic field B is generated around a neutral electric current, and there is a stationary positive charge an observer in abobe-left figure.

But when this observer starts to move to the right, he sees the stationary charge moving in the opposite, so this charge feels **downward** magnetic force from the current.

To cancel this downward magnetic force, the above right current has to change from neutral to **positive**-charge ( this p.2 ) !

As a result, this charge don't move downward, seen by both obervers.

But strange phenomena.

*(Fig.51) ↓ Einstein relativity shows "fatal" paradox !*

This observer-dependent charged electric current causes **paradox**, when there is a stationary negative charge next to it.

When the observer starts to move and the current is *positively* charged, this negative charge is **attracted** to the current !

So a stationary observer in the above-left sees the nagative charge is **Not** attracted to neutral current.

But a moving observer in the above-right sees the negative charge is **attracted** to the positively-charged current !

This is serious **paradox**, and Einstein special relativity is **wrong**.

Lorentz transformation of horizontal electric field E_{||} cannot handle the current charge ρ change ( this p.3 )

*(Fig.52) ↓ Mass (= energy ) change is "relative", NOT absolute value.*

Most textbooks claim that Einstein famous equation of E = mc^{2} contributes to nuclear power plant and atomic bomb. But it's a total **lie** !

Because Einstein mass increase proportional to total energy has **nothing** to do with **true** energy. It changes depending on *observer* !

Seen by stationary observer (= K ), the upper object is moving at v and increases its total kinetic energy and mass.

But seen by moving observer (= K' ), the upper object appears to *stop*, so its relativistic mass and energy do **NOT** increase.

In Einstein relativity, there is **NO** *absolute* true energy ( and mass ), because they change depending on observer's motion.

So you **cannot** utilize these "*illusory*" energy (= mass ) in actual atomic power generation and bombs.

Furthermore, Einstein mass relation causes serious paradox about force, so mc^{2} is **wrong**.

*(Fig.53) ↓ Electron's de Broglie wave vanishes !?*

The important point is Einstein relativity contradicts de Broglie relation. So special relativity is **false**.

Electron's de Broglie wavelength was confirmed in various experiments.

In the abobe-left figure, an electron moving at v causes interference pattern at its de Broglie wavelength in two-slit experiment.

But seen by a moving observer at the same speed, this electron **stops** and generates **No** de Broglie wave, so **No** interference pattern is detected !

This is clearly a **paradox** of special relativity.

*(Fig.54) "Medium" solves every Einstein's problem !*

Einstein special relativity causes serious paradoxes such as electromagnetic force, de Broglie wave, light refraction.

By introducing "real **medium**", we can solve every Einstein **flaw**.

When an electron is moving with respect to "medium", it generates de Broglie wave and magnetic field, which avoids paradoxes caused by observers.

Furthermore, "real medium" can explain dark matter, uniform cosmic microwave, gravity lens, increased mass, without unreal virtual photon.

*(Fig.55) "Relativistic" QED disobeys Einstein !*

Quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) is based on **unreal** virtual particles.

All calculation results by QED diverge to **meaningless** infinity.

They arficially subtract infinity from infinity to get finite value they like !

Due to this unreasonable math ( finite = ∞ - ∞ ), they can **pretend** to get accurate values. So QED is Not accurate theory, but **fraud** method.

Many QED founders such as Dirac and Feynman criticized QED as **wrong** and"hocus-pocus".

QED has **No** influence on atomic behavior, but suddenly it claims infinite virtual particles appear to modify slightly small negligible value. ← **nonsense**.

Methods of renormalization (= subtraction of infinity ) are artificially **chosen** to get conveninet values, so QED cannot predict any useful values, nonphysical.

*(Fig.56) ↓Positron emission is impossible.*

PET is said to use positron (= antimatter ) emission.

But it is **untrue**, because this reaction is **unrealistic**.

First, positron itself **cannot** be detected, they just infuse some nuclide into patient and detect gamma rays. That's all.

Positron emission is the same as electron capture, which **don't** need antimatter !

They assume that proton changes into heavier neutron and positron, which idea is **ridiculous** like perpetual machine.

There is no other way than to produce positive positron from proton, which is too **firm** to break ! Positron emission is **unreal**, replaced by electron cature.

Unstable antiparticle is illusion, just statistical artifact of **other** particles.

*(Fig.57) 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 **mis**leading.

Furthermore, antimatter disobeys energy and momentum conservation !

When a light (= energy 2mc^{2} ) produces a pair of positron and electron at **rest**, the initial light *momentum* is **gone**, because the resultant 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** !

So antiparticle production is based on unrealistic idea that **only** momentum ( without kinetic energy ) can transfer to other particle !

As a result, antiparticle **doesn't** exist.

*(Fig.58) Time stopping on black hole prevents its formation. *

Black hole **doesn't** exist.
Time stop around black hole prevents its formation. Black hole contradicts special relativity.

Black hole has **No** evidence. Even stars around black hole can Not be seen due to dense dusts.

They say the motion of S2 star (= closest to Milky way black hole ? ) might have proved massive black hole, but it is **untrue**.

This black hole mass is said to be 4 million Sun, so the cube root of this mass indicates that big star with 150 times Sun radius (= far **shorter** than the distance between S2 and black hole ) can explain this S2 motion.

So *fantasy* black hole is **unneeded** except for unreal
extra dimension.

X-ray, they speculate, emitted from around black hole is based on **doubtful** assumption.

These high-energy lights are naturally thought from other sources such as nuclear fusion or something instead of fantasy black hole.

*(Fig.59) Driving force to expand universe is dark energy ← NOT diluted ?*

Big Bang theory claims our universe is expanding, but earth and Sun are Not expanding ! This is strange.

If accelerating universe is true, its driving force = dark energy ? is Not diluted by expansion !

They say the most decisive proof of Big Bang is uniform cosmic microwave
background. But this is **untrue**.

They believe **insane** hypothesis that very weak microwave is intact (= Not affected by space dust ) even after it travels through space for 13.8 billion years !

It's natural to think uniform microwave proves the existence of uniform light medium in space, instead of fantasy Big Bang or multiverse.

Red-shifted lights from far away stars is due to loss of energy by being scattered by space dusts, rather than expanding universe.

All other gravitational wave, dark matter are **unreal**.

*(Fig.60) Tunnel current occurs only between very narrow gap ( ~ 1 Å )*

Scanning tunneling microscope is said to utilize tunnel effect where an electron can tunnel through "air", when some voltage bias is applied.

**Only** when the tip of microcope approaches the surface of material very **closely** (~ 1 Å ), the electric current flows between them.

They claim the "air" is an *insulator* which never allows an electron to pass. So this microcope uses "magical" quantum tunnel effect ?

But it's **natural** that when two atoms get so **close** to each other, an electron can move into another atom from realistic (= classical ) viewpoint.

So tunnel has **nothing** to do with "*occult*" quantum mechanics.

*(Fig.61) ↓ Weak light = eavesdropping is detected ?*

"Quantum spooky action becoming practical" is **fake** news.

Entanglement (= spooky action ) can not send real information faster-than-light.

So physicists try to apply this **useless** concept to *security* in "cryptography". But even in this communication security, quantum mechanics is useless.

Quantum key is just polarized classical light. Weak light is fragile and easily destroyed by eavesdrop. ← Eavesdropping is detected by seeing destroyed light ?

But the weaker the light becomes, the more difficult it is for you to send light to distant place. ← Impractical, forever.

*(Fig.62) ↓ Entanglement is nonsense, Not science ! *

Quantum entanglement (= spooky action ? ) can not send any real informations fastet-then-light. So **useless**, waste of money.

In the above figure, the source emits a pair of lights with the same *polarization* (= vertical or horizontal is unknown ) in the opposite directions.

When you know the light A is vertically polarized, it means light B is vertically polarized, too.

They just call this state as "polarized lights A and B are **entangled** !" ← Nonsense, **Not** science, this entanglement cannot be used for anything.

Quantum teleportation sending nothing is useless, too.

*(Fig.63) Two de Broglie waves cross perpendicularly = stable. *

When two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits **overlap** on the same plane (= above-left figure ), opposite phases of electron's de Broglie cancel each other.

This is destructive interference between two electrons' de Broglie waves.

To avoid this cancellation, two electrons' orbits have to be **perpendicular** to each other.

This new Helium model gives surprisingly **accurate** experimental energy !

This calculation needs computer, which could **Not** be done in 1920s when they chose wrong theory = quantum mechanics.

*(Fig.64) Old Bohr's circular helium = electrons are expelled. *

In Old Bohr's circular helium, electrons are kicked out from orbits due to **destructive** interference between **opposite** de Broglie wave *phases*.

Two 1 × de Broglie wavelength electron orbits must cross each other **perpendicularly** to *avoid* cancellation.

No more electron orbit cannot enter this new Halium, so it can explain **Pauli** exclusion principle using de Broglie wave interference.

*(Fig.65) 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.

This new helium model 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.

*(Fig.66) Two same-shaped orbital planes are perpendicular to each other. *

Next we calculate the new helium using simple computer program.

Fig.66 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.67) The two electrons have moved one quarter of their orbitals.*

In Fig.67, after electrons move a quarter of their orbits, the electron 1 is crossing y axis **perpendicularly**, while electron 2 is crossing z axis.

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

Python program.

As shown in Fig.66 and Fig.67, 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.68) New units of time and length.*

From Fig.68, the accelaration is

*(Fig.69)*

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.

*(Fig.70)*

First we input the *initial* x-coordinate r1 = **r** (in MM) of electron 1 (see Fig.70 1 ), and press "enter" key.

In Fig.70, 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.70, when we input "**79.0**", and press enter key, it means total energy of this helium is **-79.0 eV**.

*(Fig.71) 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.71 becomes

*(Fig.72) Initial total potential energy V.*

The first term of right side in Fig.72 is the potential energy between two electrons and 2e+ helium nucleus.

The second term is the repulsive potential energy between two electrons.

*(Fig.73) 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.70, we can get the initial velocity of each electron.

The initial velocity of electron 1 ( 2 ) is in y ( z ) direction.

*(Fig.74) Change unit of velocity.*

Using the new unit of Fig.68, 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.75) 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.66 and Fig.67 ).

So the x component of the acceleration ( m/sec^{2} ) of the electron 1 is,

*(Fig.76) 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*.

(rm) is an electron's reduced mass.

*(Fig.77) 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.77.

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.78) Reduced mass of one electron.*

See also reduced mass of three-body helium.

In the same way, the y component of the acceleration (m/sec^{2}) is,

*(Fig.79) 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. 64 upper.

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.80) 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.81) 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.82), 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.66 and Fig.67.

*(Fig.82) 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.83) 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.82, 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 |
---|---|---|---|

-78.80 | 3082.0 | 0.250323 | 1.001292 |

-79.00 | 3074.0 | 0.250006 | 1.000024 |

-79.003 | 3074.0 | 0.250001 | 1.000004 |

-79.0037 | 3074.0 | 0.250000 | 1.000000 |

-79.005 | 3074.0 | 0.249998 | 0.999992 |

-79.01 | 3074.0 | 0.249990 | 0.999960 |

-79.20 | 3067.0 | 0.249690 | 0.998760 |

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.84) Two-electron Atomic Model ( He, Li+, Be2+, B3+, C4+ ... )*

Surprisingly, this new atomic structure of Bohr's helium is applicable to **all other** two and three electron atoms ( ions ).

JAVA program to compute two-electron atoms.

These program method is almost same as upper Helium, except you should input another information = atomic number (= Z ) after run this program.

See detailed computing method.

Atoms | r1 (MM) | WN x 4 | Circular orbit | Result (eV) | Experiment | Error (eV) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

He | 3074.0 | 1.000000 | -83.335 | -79.0037 | -79.0051 | 0.001 |

Li+ | 1944.5 | 1.000000 | -205.78 | -198.984 | -198.093 | -0.89 |

Be2+ | 1422.0 | 1.000000 | -382.66 | -373.470 | -371.615 | -1.85 |

B3+ | 1121.0 | 1.000000 | -613.96 | -602.32 | -599.60 | -2.72 |

C4+ | 925.0 | 1.000000 | -899.67 | -885.6 | -882.1 | -3.50 |

N5+ | 788.0 | 1.000000 | -1239.8 | -1223.3 | -1219.1 | -4.20 |

O6+ | 685.3 | 1.000000 | -1634.38 | -1615.44 | -1610.70 | -4.74 |

F7+ | 607.3 | 1.000000 | -2083.3 | -2062.0 | -2057.0 | -5.00 |

Ne8+ | 544.5 | 1.000000 | -2586.7 | -2563.0 | -2558.0 | -5.00 |

Table 4 shows three electron atoms such as lithium.

See detailed computing method.

Atoms | r1 (MM) | WN x 4 | Result (eV) | Experiment | Error (eV) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Li | 1949.0 | 1.000000 | -203.033 | -203.480 | 0.47 |

Be+ | 1427.0 | 1.000000 | -388.785 | -389.826 | 1.04 |

B2+ | 1125.0 | 1.000000 | -635.965 | -637.531 | 1.56 |

C3+ | 928.0 | 1.000000 | -944.46 | -946.57 | 2.11 |

N4+ | 790.5 | 1.000000 | -1314.25 | -1317.01 | 2.76 |

O5+ | 688.0 | 1.000000 | -1745.70 | -1748.82 | 3.12 |

F6+ | 609.4 | 1.000000 | -2237.60 | -2242.21 | 4.61 |

Ne7+ | 546.0 | 1.000000 | -2791.15 | -2797.12 | 5.97 |

As shown here, we prove when two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits cross perpendicularly, they give surprisingly accurate energy results !

*(Fig.85) ↓ Helium two electrons e1,e2 orbits are perpendicular.*

Here we explain why there are only **two** 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits as shown in Pauli exclusion principle without unreal spin.

Helium has two **1** × de Broglie wavelength orbits.

Each orbit has only **one** electron because of *1 × wavelength*.

1 × wavelength orbit consists of electron's phase (= thin line ) and its **opposite** phase (= **thick** line ).

Due to Coulomb repulsion between two electrons, each electron tend to be near the opposite phase of another electron.

To avoid destructive interference between two electrons, these two orbits have to be **perpendicular** to each other.

*(Fig.86) ↓ Midpoint of de Broglie wave doesn't expel another electron.*

Each electron has to do a U-turn at some point keeping **avoiding** destructive interference from another electron's de Broglie wave.

In this Helium model, electrons do a **U-turn** when another de Broglie wave is **midpoint** between electron's same and opposite phases.

This midpoint is *neutral* phase, so it does't affect or destroy another electron's de Broglie wave.

So electrons can do a U-turn **smoothly** and safely, Not affected by aother de Broglie wave in this Helium model.

*(Fig.87) ↓ When there are four 1 × wavelength orbits, an electron is expelled. *

Here we explain why the **maximum** number of *1 × de Broglie* wavelength orbits is **two** (= Pauli exclusion principle ).

When the total number of orbits is odd number, it's unstable due to unbalanced charge's distribution, so we think about **four** orbits.

When an atom contains **four** 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits, each electron (ex. e3 ) is **surrounded** by **opposite** wave phases of other two orbits (= thick lines of e1, e2 ).

When an electron does a U-turn, it is **expelled** by destructive interference from other two opposite de Broglie wave phases.

So the two of four electrons in Beryllium can**not** enter 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits.

We can explain Pauli exclusion principle using de Broglie wave destructive interference without unreal spin !

*(Fig.88) ↓ Elecrons cross the opposite phases perpendicularly like Helium.*

Like Helium, Neon can be explained by the **same** principle.

Neon has eight electrons.

We assume Neon consists of **four** *2 × de Broglie* wavelength orbits, each orbit contains two electrons, so total is eight electrons.

As shown above figure, **all** electrons cross the opposite de Broglie wave phase of other electrons perpendicularly at vertices of hexahedron.

So Neon's electrons can **avoid** destructive interference of waves just like Helium.

*(Fig.89) ↓ Electrons do a U-turn at midpoints.*

When Helium comtains **two** *1 × de Broglie* wavelength orbits, electrons can do a U-turn safely at neutral midpoints of other waves.

But when it contains four orbits, electrons are **expelled** , surrounded by other **opposite** wave phases, which is Pauli exclusion.

In case of **2 × de Broglie** wavelength, **four** orbits enable electrons to move smoothly at *midpoint*, Not disturbed by destructive interference from other electron waves.

This is why 2 × de Broglie wavelength allows four orbits (= total electron number is eight. )

*(Fig.90) Orbits of Neon cross each other "perpendicularly".*

As shown on this page, we can show the appropriate new **Neon** model, in which orbits can cross each other "**perpendicularly**".

"Perpendicular" crossing means they can **avoid** "*destructive*" interference. Neon consists of four 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits ( total 4 × 2 = **8** electrons )

*(Fig.91) Maximum orbits = midpoint lines + 2 (= two perpendicular orbits )*

In fact, all atoms use the same principle as Helium where two de Broglie waves cross perpendicularly.

Krypton consists of **six** *4 × de Broglie* wavelength orbits.

If there are six 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits, electrons are expelled surrounded by other opposite wave phases.

As a result, our new atomic model not only agrees with experimental results, but also explain Pauli principle without unreal spin !

♦ Valence electrons

♦ Bohr's Neon,
Carbon bonds,
Biot-Savart.

♦ de Broglie waves determine all atomic structures.

♦ Truth of electromagnetic waves.

♦ Four fundamental forces atomic size.

Japanese version

2018/ 4/25 updated. Feel free to link to this site.