Top page ( Quantum mechanics and Einstein relativity are wrong )

*(Fig.1) Only Coulomb and gravity are realistic forces in these ↓.*

Quantum mechanical Pauli exclusion principle is unrealistic and inconsisten with the fact.

The present particle physics claims there are **four** fundamental forces such as Coulomb, strong, weak and gravity forces.

According to Pauli exclusion principle, **No** two electrons can simultaneously occupy the same quantum state with respect to orbital and spin.

So the 3rd electron in lihium is **expelled** from inner 1s orbital into outer 2s orbital, **resisting** Coulomb attraction between the electron and nuclues.

This Pauli exclusion force is such a strong **repulsion** that the nucleus cannot pull the electron closer to it. This Pauli repulsion isn't considerted to be a force.

Even Pauli himself was unable to give a logical reason for the exclusion principle ( this p.6 ). Electron spin-spin magnetic interaction is too **weak** to cause this strong repulsion.

*(Fig.2) Quantum mechanics gives unreal hydrogen model with spin ↓*

Bohr model first succeeded in explaining hydrogen energy levels, and was replaced by quantum mechanics in 1920s.

Surprisingly, quantum mechanics requires that s orbitals (= ground state ) have zero angular momentum ( this p.2 ). ←Electrons often **hit** nucleus ?

Magnetic moment of hydrogen atom is known to be equal to Bohr magneton, which was first predicted by Bohr model.

But the quantum mechanical hydrogen with **zero** angular momentum cannot generate the magnetic moment.

This is the reason why they fabricated artificial spin, which cannot be spinning realistically.

*(Fig.3) 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.4) ↓ 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.

In Stern-Gerlach experiment, they got some atoms through magnetic field to measure the magnitude of magnetic moment of each electron.

Surprisingly, the experiments showed that the magnitude of magnetic moment of electron spin is just **equal** to Bohr magneton in Bohr's classical orbit ( this p.4 )

We can safely say Stern-Gerlach experiment proved the magnetic property in Bohr's orbit ( **Not** unreaslitic spin ! )

*(Fig.6) Spin magnetic energy= 0.001 eV vs Pauli repulstion = 30 eV*

Stern-Gerlach experiment showed electron spin has the magnetism equal to Bohr magneton.

From this measured magnetic moment, we can get the **magnetic** interaction between two electron spins.

This spin-spin magnetic energy is very **weak** (= about **0.001 eV** ), compared with repulsive energy required for Pauli exclusion principle (= **30 eV** ).

It means spin magnetic moment has **nothing** to do with Pauli exclusion principle, and they created *artificial* concept such as "exchange force" ( this p.7, this p.6 ).

After finding the magnitude of electron spin **disagreed** with strong Pauli principle, they fabricated artificial new force (= exchange ? ). ← this is **NOT** a science !

*(Fig.7) Expelling lithium 3rd electron to outer 2s needs 30 eV repulsion !*

Pauli exclusion principle claims that 3rd electron of lithium (= Li ) must be expelled from outer 2s orbital, resisting Coulomb attraction from positive nucleus.

This Pauli **repulsive** force must be very strong (= about **30 eV** in Li ), so weak spin-spin magnetic interaction **cannot** explain it.

This means electron spin model **failed** in strong Pauli principle, and we have to find **other** plausible mechanisms as this replusion.

Spin-spin magnetic energy is very weak, 0.0001 eV when their distance is 1 Å. See calculation.

When even 3rd electron of Li enters inner 1s orbital, its total energy becomes -8.46 Hartree
(= **-230 eV** ), which is **30 eV** lower than the actual energy.

*(Fig.8) Anticommuting of nonphysical operators = Pauli exclusion ?*

It is said that "force" of Pauli exclusion prinicple can be explained by quantum field theory. But this is misleading.

Because the quantum field theory is too **abstract** and too far away from our actual world to specify **true** reason for Pauli exclusion principle.

So the present physics **cannot** tell you what *force* is involved in strong Pauli exclusion principle !

*(Fig.9) Dirac equation explains Pauli exclusion principle ?*

Dirac equation is the **most** important one which forms the basis of **all** quantum field theories. The problem is its form is out of touch with reality.

And the present physics claims that this Dirac equation tells us why Pauli exclusion principle occuurs. But in fact, it **doesn't**.

Relativistic Dirac equation was gotten by dividing Einstein quadratic relation into **linear** functions.

In compensation for linear function, Dirac equation must contain 4 × 4 gamma (= γ ) matrices, which consist of spin Pauli matrices (= σ ).

This is the reason they claim Dirac equation succeeded in combining "spin" and relativity. But "σ = spin ?" is just *artificial* definition with **No** grounds.

*(Fig.10) Quantum field theory cannot describe a concrete electron.*

All quantum field theories are based on relativistic Dirac equation.

How is each **electron** described in this quantum field theory ?

The problem is these quantum field theories have **No** ability to describe **concrete** figure and motion of each particle.

All it can show is an *abstract* and simple **symbol** "c" as an **electron**.

And anticommutation relation represents Pauli exclusion force ( this p.3 ) ?

*(Fig.11) It can do only two simple actions: create and vanish !*

Any quantum field theories **cannot** describe *actual* electrons.

It only shows a single **letter** (= "c ") as an electron.

Using this single letter, all quantum field theory can do is **two** actions: create and annihilate each electron !

When you see an electron ( here "a" ) and
a photon, you will find the quantum field theory is valueless and **useless** for us.

This unrealistic quantum field theory makes the present condensed-matter physics useless using fictional photon.

*(Fig.12) Pauli exclusion principle = anticommutation of two symbols ?*

Pauli exclusion principle claims two electrons cannot be in the same kind of state in orbital and spin, though spin is too weak to cause this.

It is said relativistic quantum field theory can explain why this Pauli exclusion principle occurs. But it is a big **lie**.

All quantum field theory can show is anticommutaton of two electrons' symbols. That's all. **No** more detailed is mentioned.

If two electrons are in the same state ( c_{1} = c_{2} ), these c must be **zero**, when exchanging them reverses the whole sign (= anticommutation ).

So c_{1} and c_{2} must be different states from each other.
**No** more detailed mechanism in Pauli principle is mentioned in quantum field theory !

Quantum field theory does **NOT** try to clarify further mechanism in Pauli exclusion than this meaningless exchange relation.

*(Fig.13) ↓ Spin model is broken at room temperature !*

Quantum mechanics claims that (anti)-ferromagnetism is caused by electron spin. But this is a big **lie**.

The **magnetic** energy by electron spin is too **weak** to cause ferromagnet.

Spin-spin interaction is easily broken at low temperature ( ~ 0.3 K ).

But actual iron can keep ferromagnetic at 1043 K ( this p.7 ).

In fact, electron's spin **disagrees** with many experimental results !

"Spin" is used only as a "mark" with **No** physical meaning.

So we must give up contradictory spin model to investigate further mechanism !

It's natural to think that ferromagnet is maintained stably by Coulomb interaction among electrons' **orbits** ( not spin ! )

*(Fig.14) 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.

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.15) Double-slit, Davisson-Germer 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.16) Quantum orbit satisfies an integer times de Broglie wavelength.*

Only Coulomb force is insufficient to explain why atomic energy levels are quantized, abd why an electron doesn't fall into nucleus.

Bohr model succeeded in getting actual atomic energies, proposing each orbit is an integer times de Broglie wavelength, as well as Schrodinger's hydrogen .

An integer multiple of de Broglie wavelength means an electron can **avoid** destructive interference and be stable.

Without this de Broglie wave, each electron can be attracted to positive nuclei, until they **stick** to each other and its energy is **unlimitedly** lower !

So the repulsive force by electron's de Broglie wave is **strong** enough to cause Pauli exclusion force.

*(Fig.17) Two de Broglie waves cross perpendicularly = stable. *

If two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits are in the same plane in old Bohr's helium model, their **opposite** wave phases cause **destructive** interference and vanish.

To **avoid** *vanishing* de Broglie's wave, two electron orbits in actual helium must be 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.

This helium model considering actual de Broglie wave interference just agrees with experimental results of all atoms !

*(Fig.18) 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.19) Pauli exclusion principle by de Brolgie wave interference.*

There is **NO** space for the third electron to enter in this helium model based on de Broglie wave interference (= 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.20) Only de Broglie wave interference can cause strong repulsion.*

Electron spin lacks reality, and its magnetic moment is too weak to generate strong repulsion in Pauli exclusion principle.

So there is only **one** thing left to cause this strong repulsion in lithium 3rd electron. This is **de Broglie** wave interference !

Actually destructive interference in doube-slit experiment proved this de Broglie wave has **power** enough to expel each electron, and compatible with hydrogen.

*(Fig.21) to generate strong repulsion in Pauli exclusion principle.*

In conclusion, electron spin magnetic moment is too weak to kick out electrons from inner orbitals in Pauli exclusion principle.

Quantum fiel theory has **NO** ability to describe the reason for this Pauli exclusion in detail. It just shows
meaningless anticommutation of **non**physical operators.

From actual experiments and quantized hydrogen energy levels, we can conclude that de Broglie wave interference is the cause of strong Pauli exclusion principle.

*(Fig.22) Why Schrodinger equation cannot handle multi-electron atoms ? *

Schrodinger equation is also based on two postulates such as Coulomb force and de Broglie wave relation.

In the only solvable one-electron hydrogen, total energy E is *conserved* as the single **common** value in **any** electron's positions (= Coulomb ).

And its solution naturally obeys an **integer** times de Broglie wavelength as *boundary* condition (= de Broglie ).

It is quite natural that we **can** predict any values even in multi-electron atoms **obeying** these basic *common* postulates.

The problem is quantum mechanics **violates** these two basic postulates in **multi**-electron atoms except hydrogen !

No solution in multi-electon atoms means we **cannot** find the single common energy value in any electrons' positions.

In the same way, **No** solution means the "integer times de Broglie wave rule" is **ignored** and violated.

So *violating* two basic postulates is the main reason quantum mechanics **cannot** predict any values in multi-electron atoms.

*(Fig.23) "Choose" trial functions → integral over all space.*

Here we explain why these "**chosen**" wavefunction **cannot** give *true* ground state energy of helium.

After choosing some trial wavefunction of unsolvable atoms, they integrate them over **all** space, and get, what they call, approximate total energy E'.

The point is this approximate energy E' is just an average energy in a **collection** of *different* energies depending on different electrons' position.

Originally, the sum of kinetic and potential energy in **any** electrons' positions must be equal to the **single** common ground state energy E.

But "unsolvable" multi-electron wavefunctions **don't** satisfy this basic condition.

So, this "average" energy E' does **Not** mean the *single* common ground state energy in **any** positions of helium.

*(Fig.24) We must use experimental data to predict "real concept" !*

In the present quantum mechanics, even when we get some new experimental **data**, we **cannot** use them to clarify real mechanisms !

Instead, quantum mechanics forces us to use these data to create **artificial** quasiparticle, effective mass .. So our science stops its progress.

This is a very *serious* problem. We must address it immediately not to increase more educational victims under **false** science.

*(Fig.25) Coulomb energy conservation and an integer times de Broglie wavelength.*

It's quite natural that if we **keep** basic postulates, we **can** predict any physical values ( with the help of modern *computer* ).

These two postulates are Coulomb energy conservation ( in **any** electrons' positions ) and an **integer** times de Broglie wavelength generating Pauli force.

There is **No** way other than computing each Coulomb force and changing electrons' position in orthodox way to *keep* the single **common** ground state energy.

Of course, to obey an integer times de Broglie wave rule, this computing method using concrete orbits is the **only** one.

So the first thing for researchers to do is determine the more precise electronic motion model step by step, **comparing** experiments and the model's prediction.

I'm sure this realistic model based on two postulates will contribute to **curing**
fatal diseases such as cancer, ALS, dementia someday.

2016/4/15 updated. Feel free to link to this site.