Youhei Tsubono, Japan

Criticize the present physics. (16/ 5/20)

*(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 *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* !

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 )

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 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* 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.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 ).

Triplet, ferromagnet are not spin, either.

*(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. It causes useless quantum mechanics.

*(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 (= ψ_{H} ) 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 ), and our basic science stops !

*(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 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 ?

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 **un**natural 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 ?*

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

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 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.

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 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. 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** ( 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.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 ).

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 / **wave**length, 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 (= 1/2εE^{2} ) 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 (= 1/2εE^{2} ) 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 = 1/2mv^{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 must emit "transverse" electromagnetic wave.

*(Fig.33) ↓ Virtual photon has negative mass m ^{2} < 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 ( m^{2} < 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 ^{2} < 0 ) ! **Impossible**.

*(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** "*quasi*particle" 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.

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.

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 **micro**seconds ( 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 **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.

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** exorbitant 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 mc^{2} 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 **approach**ing 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 mc^{2} 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 = mc^{2} ).

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 **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** !

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 **mis**interpret unrelated ones as **imaginary** antimatters.

*(Fig.60) Only 0.01 ^{o} 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 (= **0.01 ^{o}** per

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 **un**realistic 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

Python 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

*(Fig.79)*

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.80)*

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/sec^{2} ) 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/sec^{2}) 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 |
---|---|---|---|

-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.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) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

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.

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 |

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,
Carbon bonds.,
Biot-Savart.

♦ 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.