Top page ( correct Bohr model )

Back to criticizing top journals.

*(NP-1) People do NOT know "phonon" is just "meaningless" math operator. *

Top journal Nature has made **NO** progress about **unreal** quasiparticle, *phonon*.

Quasiparticles such as phonon are **NOT** actual elementary particles ( see this, this ), so **meaningless**.

So they did **NOT** detect phonon itself, they just saw light **frequency** change.

"Frequency" means c/**wave**length, so photodetector based on frequency just detects light "**wave**" ( NOT *imaginary* photon ).

As seen in this, this, original paper p.2, **phonon** (= b^{†} ) and photon (= a^{†} ) are just **abstract** (= meaningless ) math operators with **NO** physical *shape*, which **cannot** describe "concrete" objects.

But ordinary people do **NOT** know that all the current quantum mechanics can express is "**rough**" actions of particle's "*create*" (= a^{†} ) and "*annihilate*" (= a ) ! ← completely **useless** forever.

Because commercial universities try to **hide** these facts, and **mislead** people into believing current physics is "*cutting-edge*", using "**fascinating**" images ( see Caltech, Stanford, MIT ).

*(LP-1) 10 dimensions, 10 ^{500} multiverse cause "fruitless" debates, forever.* vs.

Peter Woit argues that 10 spacetime dimensions and **10 ^{500}** many different worlds of string ( or M ) theory is

In spite of Woit's claims, string theory is the **only** "theory of everything accepted now.

In fact, almost all **important** posts (= "**professor**" ) are *occupied* by string theorists ( see this, this, this ).

So, string theorist, Lubos Motl, has repeatedly **attacked** anti-string theorists ( Woit and Smolin ) since 2006 till now. Lubos has also **repeated** the same criticism, made **NO** progress.

So **both** in string and antistring theorists, their claims and debate just **repeat** the same thing with **NO** progress. Because the current physics itself lacks reality and **useless** ( see this ).

Milner should **stop** *throwing* his big money collected from the Russian nation into **meaningless** theories (= "*fantasy*" extradimensions !? )

Witten should *notice* he clearly takes the lead in **obstructing** the progress in physics.

As I said, unless we drastically **change** the *basic* physics, these **fruitless** debates would continue **forever**.

*(He-1) NO helium wavefunctions "cancel" variable potential energy terms.*

As shown on this site, there **NO** analytical solutions of Schrodinger equation of helium atom.

because the helium is "**complicated**" *three*-body problem containing **interelectronic** distance (= r_{12} ).

As I said in this section, the "**solvable**" hydrogen wavefunction **obeys** the *single* ground state energy. Of course, total energy **must** be **conserved** ( E = *constant* in **any** positions ! ) in ground state.

But "**unsolvable**" helium variational wavefunction contains many **different** ground state energies depending on its **interelectronic** distance, because these *approximate* wavefunctions are ones chosen *freely*, **NOT** solutions of Schrodinger equation.

So, the ground state energy gotten by quantum mechanics is just "**average**" value of *infinite* "**different**" energies (← NOT single ! ), which means total energy is **NOT** conserved, and **unreal**.

**Only** classical helium orbits can *conserve* total energy !

To get the correct single ground state energy E, the second derivative ( ∇^{2}, **kinetic** ) parts must **cancel** three "*variable*" **potential** energy terms (= 1/r_{1}, 1/r_{2}, 1/r_{12} ). But it's **impossible** !

*(He-2) Kinetic derivative term cannot cancel three potential energy terms.*

Different from simple hydrogen, the helium contains **three** kinds of potential energy terms (= 2 × electron-nucleus + interelectronic r_{12} ). So it is **impossible** to *cancel* all these potential terms by **any** wavefunctions.

For example, we choose the simplest variational helium wave function (= ψ_{He} ) containing the distances between electrons and nucleus (= r_{1}, r_{2} ) and between two electrons (= r_{12} ).

As shown in He-2, the second derivative (= ∇^{2} ) of kientic energy term gives **complex** *eigenvalue* composed **both** of r_{1} and r_{12}, which **cannot** cancel any of three kinds of "isolated" potential energy terms.

Of course, as atoms get bigger ( Li, Be .. ), the kinds of interelectronic variables increases (= r_{13}, r_{23} .. ), so it's much more **impossible** to cancel all variable potential energy terms.

If you increase the number of terms of variational wavefunctions, you will find the denominator of their eigenvalue must contains multiple different terms, which **cannot** cancel potential terms, either.

*(Va-1) Helium has NO solutions = Total energy is NOT conserved !*

As Schrodinger equation of Helium contains **complicated** *interelectric* distance (= r_{12} ), this *three*-body helium has **NO** analytical solutions ( see this, this p.3 ).

As shown in **solvable** hydrogen atom, "**solvable**" means we *can* find **universal** solution which always gives the **constant** total energy (= E ) at **every** electron's position (= energy is **conserved** ! ).

Of course, total energy (= E ) **must** be *conserved* at **any** electron's positions in **ground** state.

So **No** solutions in helium means Schrodinger's helium does **NOT** satisfy total energy *conservation* at **any** electrons' positions. So, **unreal**.

They try to find **convenient** variational (= trial ) functions to give experimental values.

The point is these trial functions ( of helium ) can be chosen "**arbitrarily**". See this p.1, this p.2.

It's **meaningless** to find **convenient** helium trial functions giving exact (= lowest ) ground state energy, though they do **NOT** satisfy energy conservation. See this, this.

Because the total energy obtained by this variational methods is just "**average**" energy of **different** total energies *depending* on the electrons' positions, which do **NOT** obey the **single** ground state energy E !

*(ScA-1) Higgs boson is "useless" for our life, LHC just wastes money.*

" Scientific american" under Nature, its Japanese version Nikkei science ( which I often see at bookstores ), seems to like **unrealistic** concepts such as *parallel* universe ( this, this ) and extradimensions.

Recently, though this magazine mentioned Large hadron collider (= LHC ) at cern, this gigantic LHC is just *useless* **trash**. In fact, Higgs boson discovery had **NO** influence on our daily living.

So only the *media* ( bbc, cnn, nbc ) are making a big thing of "**imaginary**" Higgs.

Because Higgs "**boson**" (← *NOT* "field" ) in LHC is **NOT** related to "**mass**" ( see this, this ).

Weinberg's weak boson at β decay

So unless the media and bloggers ( Tommaso, Woit ) refer to Higgs, these imaginary particles and LHC would fall into **oblivion** as useless "**trash**". In fact, they **don't** think LHC is of any use ( except as "*news item*" ).

It seems Jennifer in scientific american does **NOT** understand why a *single* electron (= NOT composed of multi- charges ! ) of Bohr model doesn't radiate energy. Instead, she accepts "fantasy" superposition.

*(We-1) The media, news hide inconvenient facts, exaggerating "fake" images.*

Everyone knows the names of Weinberg, Feynman, and Higgs. But ordinary people **don't** know their *theories*, because the media **conceals** *unrealistic* parts, abusing **fake** images ( this, this ).

Weinberg's electroweak force is the heart of standard model. The media **hides** the *inconvenient* facts that Weinberg, Higgs model is **abstract** math symbol with **meaningless** symmetry, using "fake" images.

In fact, very **faint** Higgs *boson* (= doubtful ) is NOT Higgs "**field**". Higgs "**field**" can give mass.

So Higgs *boson* search at CERN is **meaningless**, *waste* of money, though Lubos and Tommaso like it.

According to "**charismatic**" *Feynman* QED, electromagnetic force is caused by unrealistic virtual photons violating relativity. Higgs, Weinberg's weak force are just **meaningless** math *symbols*.

Unfortunately, Weinberg (= living in multiverse !? ) is the present leading advocate of various **unrealistic** theories such as Big Bang (= **superluminal** expansion ! ) and inflation, like Hawking.

Their *charismatic* images are **used** by the media, and **misleading** new students and people into **wrong** theories, which clearly obstructs the science progress. So, "**Bad**" influences.

*(We-2) In usual β decay, W boson of "80 × proton" mass cannot be found !*

W boson in β decay, which Weinberg invented, is the **heart** of standard model.

Though Woit seems to **worship** Weinberg, this particle completely **lacks** *reality* from the beginning.

Standard model argues, in ordinary β decay, a **neutron** splits into a **proton** and very *heavy* **W** boson.

But the mass of this W boson is **80 ×** *protons*, **violating** energy conservation. See this, this.

Higgs theory insists only **Higgs** (= *125* GeV ) can give **mass** to W boson, when it is **produced**.

The lifetimes of Higgs and W boson are very **short** ( ~10^{-22} sec ), so they easily **decay**.

When we get some radioactive nuclides, *β decay* **can** be seen even in **ordinary** laboratory **without** gigantic accelerators (= LHC ). So if W boson inside LHC is real, we must detect it even in ordinary **laboratories** !

But it's **impossible** to detect W and Higgs boson decay (= **200 ×** protons energy per neutron ! ) in *ordinary* laboratory, meaning W and Higgs inside LHC have nothing to do with β decay, so **unreal**.

*(Fi-1) Sommerfeld and Dirac theory give the same hydrogen fine structure !*

Hydrogen fine structure is said to be small *energy* difference (= **0.000045** eV ) between *2p3/2* and *2p1/2* states. Bohr- Sommmfeld model gave this **exact** fine structure in 1916, **earlier** than quantum mechanics.

Later in 1926, Dirac equation ( see this p.9 ) gave the **same** solutions as Sommerfeld model using spin.

This **agreement** was **NOT** accidental, it's clear that *Dirac* intentionally aimed at *Sommerfeld*'s solutions.

In fact, the spin-orbit energy of quantum mechanics **cannot** explain *sodium* (= Na ) fine structure.

Because Na fine structure (= 0.0021 ev ) is **too big** to be explained by Dirac's spin-orbit model.

As shown in this p.4, this p.9, this p.11, this energy splitting is proportional to **Z ^{4}/n^{3}**.

"Z" is average central charge (= about

Dirac's hydrogen gives *wrong* fine structure (= **0.000013 eV** ), which is much **smaller** than the *experimental* value (= **0.0021 eV** ).

This wide discrepancy shows Na fine structure is caused by strong **Coulomb** force ( **NOT** spin-orbit ).

*(Fi-2) Central charge Z = 3.54, which is much bigger than Z = 1 in Na !? *

Both in hydrogen and sodium's outer (= 3p ) electron, the effective central (= core ) charges they feel are about Z = **+1e**.

Because this central charge Z is the **sum** of nucleus and all inner electrons.

But the discrepancy between these H and Na spin-orbital interactions are **too wide**.

This means the effective central charge in sodium is much **bigger** than Z = 1 (= about Z = **3.54** in Na ! ), which is very **unreasonable** and unrealistic.

Also in larger alkali atoms (= K, Rb ) and triplets (= Mg, Ca ), spin-orbit ( or spin-spin ) energies are **too weak** to explain experimental data.

Outer electrons in n = **3** feel stronger **Coulomb** force through "wider gaps" open in inner shell.

Orbital **shapes** of 3p3/2 and 3p1/2 are the **same** due to the **same** orbital angular momentum l = 1.

So the Coulomb energies of these states are the same. Only **weak** "*spin*" directions are different.

On the other hand,
Bohr-Sommmerfeld model has **different** orbital shapes, one is elliptical, another is circular. Elliptical orbits **approaches** the nucleus closer, which feels **stronger** *Coulomb* force.

*(Bi-1) The wavelength of radio wave (= one of lights = photon ? ) is 1000 meter !*

Though quantum mechanics claims that light is a photon, the existence of this *photon* is very **unrealistic**. The radio wave is one of lights with **long** wavelength ( > **1000** meters ! ).

As shown in this, this, low-frequency lights have wavelengths from 1 km to **100000 km** !

This means the **size** of a single photon in these radio waves is as **Big** as 100000 km ?

If a photon is so **Big**, we can easily **divide** a photon into **two** parts, which means a photon is **NOT** an elementary particle. So, a photon is just "media-hype". Compare
NBC and insidescience.

Though the media ( this, this ) and universities **routinely** use the word "photon", they **cannot** answer "what **size** and shape of a photon ?". So **vague** photon represents " NOT asking" quantum mechanics.

Some say a photon has
**NO size** ( this, this ), some say a photon is point-like. But thinking *commonsensically*, it is **impossible** that light with **1000 meter** wavelength is a **point**-like particle.

*(Mg-1) Photon is just abstract math operator (= a ^{†} ) without physical figure.*

In stackexchange, there are **NO** answers referring to "**unreality**" of virtual photons making magnetic field. *Feynman* QED says **electric** field is caused by **virtual** photons. See this, this.

The **square** of this **virtual** photon's mass is always negative ( **m ^{2} < 0** ),

And this

In cern and Sabine, though **convenient** *uncertainty* principle is used for **falsifying** *unreality* of **virtual** particles, it can **NOT** change the fact Einstein relativity is violated in virtual photons.

"Photon" obeys **Maxwell** ( not Schrodinger ) equation in quantum field theory (= QFT ).

But the quantization of electromagnetic fields just gives **meaningless** math symbol (= a^{†} ) as photon.

**All** QED can show is **simple** actions, a photon is created (= a^{†} ) or annihilated (= a ). That's all !

These "**abstract**" operators have **NO** ability to describe more *concrete* phenomena. See this, this p.96, this p.3,

As long as we **stick** to these *meaningless* math **symbols** (= photon !? ) and **virtual** particles, true *mechanisms* of the vacuum and **Coulomb** fields remain **unknown**, forever.

*(To-1) Very rare and unstable Higgs, quarks are of NO use, forever !*

Though Tommaso Dorigo often mention Higgs and quarks as if they were *real*, what he said are **NOT** true. The *lifetimes* of Higgs and top quarks are **too short** ( < 10^{-22} seconds ! ) to be observed.

Only **a few** Higgs ( this ) and top quarks ( this ) are produced in every **trillion** collisions inside accelerators. The existences of these "needle in a haystack" **rare** particles are very **doubtful**.

Though the media often say "*God*" particle Higgs is the origin of mass, it's **impossible** that this very **rare** and *unstable* Higgs is giving **mass** to everything *stably*. Higgs were NOT directly found. See NO Higgs.

In fact, what gives **mass** to everything is Higgs "**field**", *NOT* Higgs "**boson**" inside accelerator !

As shown in this, this, this, this important Higgs "**field**" related to *mass* can **NOT** been found.

So, **contrary** to the media's *excitement* ( this, this ), very **rare** Higgs boson, which has **nothing** to do with mass, is useless, and its investigation is **meaningless**.

Though standard model and Tommaso believe **wrong** math ( 125 = 160 ), can you really accepet what they are saying ? Quarks cannot be isolated. "Jet" (= electrons, lights ) is **NOT** the proof of *unreal* quarks.

*(Br-1) Schrodinger's hydrogen is also n (= integer ) × de Broglie wavelength ?*

Davisson-Germer *experiment* and electron diffraction **proved** de Broglie wave is **real**.

de Broglie wavelength (= λ ) is equal to h/p, where "h" and "**p**" are Planck constant and electron's **momentum**.

It is known that Bohr model's orbit is an **integer** (= n ) times de Broglie wavelength. See this.

Because in these cases, wave **phases** at *both* ends **fit** each other and **avoid** *destructive* interference.

Of course, de Broglie relation **confirmed** experimentally (← *real* ! ) **must** be used in Schrodinger equation. Actually Schrodinger 's hydrogen **depends** on de Broglie relation. See this , this .

This means orbitals of **Schrodinger**'s hydrogen also satisfy an **integer** times *de Broglie* wavelength like Bohr model ? Because Bohr model also gives correct energy levels.

PS. NBC and phys.org should read insidescience, and *admit* media-**hype** about photon's capture.

*(Br-2) Relation between Schrodinger's wavefunctions and de Broglie waves.*

When we use the replacement of u ( or χ ) = rR ( R is radial hydrogen solution ), we can easily confirm de Broglie relation ( p = h/λ ) in radial direction inside Schrodinger equation. See this (2,3), this p.18.

Surprisingly, Schrodinger's hydrogen also **satisfies** an **integer** times de Broglie wavelength, as shown in this Fig.1, this, this last. The square of rR (= wave *amplitude*, de Broglie wave ) is probability density.

In Schrodinger's hydrogen, the boundary condition applies to both ends of "**0**" and **infinity** (= ∞ ).

Thinking commonsensically, it is **impossible** that a *bound*-state electron can go back and forth between 0 and **infinity** !

So **Schrodinger**'s ( an integer times ) **de Broglie** wave spreading to **infinity** *lacks* reality.

Furthermore, the *angular* momentum of ground state electron is **zero**. See this, this.

"**Zero**" orbital angular momentum means Schrodinger's hydrogen electron is moving in some **linear** orbital, and often **crashes** into nucleus ! On the other hand, Bohr mode is realistic.

In **linear** motion, the **opposite** wave *phases* of electron's de Broglie wave **cancel** each other by *destructive* interference, and make it **unstable**, which **contradicts** Davisson-Germer experiment.

*(Sh-1) Schrodinger hydrogen 2p wavefunction, negative kinetic energy parts. *

Schrodinger's "**2p**" wavefunctions contain **radial** and *angular* (= tangential ) **kinetic** energies.

As shown in this, this (3),
**angular** kinetic energy **diverges** to *infinity* as the inverse square of r ( 1/r^{2} → ∞, r → 0 ).

To **cancel** this *increasing* **angular** kinetic energy, the **radial** kinetic energy must be **negative** ( 1/2mv^{2} < 0, see ① ). So, radial kinetic energy is **negative** (= *unreal* ), but angular kinetic energy is **positive** !

Because the angular momentum must be always **conserved** (= always *positive* ).

Schrodinger's hydrogen contains *two* **unrealistic** parts on its **both** sides ( see this p.2, this p.3, this Fig.1 ).

Of course, in this *real* world, **separating** total kinetic energy into *positive* (= angular ) and **negative** (= radial ) is **impossible**. So Schrodinger's wave functions lack reality from the beginning.

In multi-electron atoms, wavefunctions **cannot** satisfy energy *conservation*. So **unreal** and incorrect.

This means **asking** wavefunction itself is **meaningless**, like NYTimes and Sean.

*(Lo-1) If electric fields don't change, "magnetic" force "cannot" be cancelled. *

In the paradox of "bent wire", the **numbers** of wires counted at *detector* do **NOT** change under Lorentz transformation ( 5 → 5 ). See also this page and relativistic simultaneity.

Because each *spacetime* in **one** frame **corresponds** to each spacetime in *another* frame, **one-to-one**, in "**linear**" Lorentz transformation. So twin paradox **doesn't** happen within *special* relativity.

Here we consider electric field lines like some real "**wires**". So the number of *electric* field lines (= E ) is replaced by the number of **wires**, which expressing electric field **strength**.

In this case, the *strength* of each **electric** fields (= *number* of **wires** ) does **NOT** change under Lorentz transformation, because if the "wire" number **changes** at some point (= e- ) in another frame, it means **paradox** !

But as I said in this section, if the electric field does **NOT** change under Lorentz transformation, **new** *generated* Lorentz magnetic force (= evB ) **cannot** be cancelled out !

This Lorentz **magnetic** force, which strength **varies** depending on **velocity** (= v ) including *observer* is the **origin** of fatal paradox of electromagnetism.

*(Rw-1) Lorentz transformation (= "time" change ) can bend rigid wire ! *

As seen in Science comic, I'm surprised that fatal defects of special reltivity are **NOT** well understood by Scott, Sean (= living in *many*-worlds !? ) and Woit.

Each *box* with a **straight** *rigid* wire is moving **around** a square machine at a speed of "v".

In K frame, observer and machine frame are **stationary**. Each side of this machine is carrying **five** boxes.

From the perspective of the observer (= K' ) moving to the left at the same velocity (= v ) of moving boxes, the whole machine is moving to the **right**, so its width is Lorentz **contracted**, as seen in car-garage paradox.

On the other hand, boxes on the upper side look *stationary* in K', so **elongated** to their original length.

As a result, only **three** boxes are put on the **upper** side. *5 → 3* decreased ! See this page.

A **detector** can detect the number of wires. Its number is "**5**" in *K* frame.

Of course, to avoid paradox, also in *K'* frame, this detected number must be "**5**".

But in this case, **rigid** wires of "4" and "5" boxes are **bent** by Lorentz transformation !

Because in another frame, clock **times** are *different*, depending on **position**. See this.

*(Rw-2) "Time" manipulation of Lorentz transformation causes fatal paradox ! *

According to Lorentz transformation, *clock* times are **different** depending on *position* in another frame ! The **right** ( left ) side of **K'** frame means the **past** ( future ) events in **K** frame !

So when this **wire**'s motion includes **two** directions (= upper and left ), this wire is **bent** complexly in K' frame, though the wire is "**rigid**" body.

If we insert a **blocker** into the way of this box, the existence of this blocker can **change** the wire's *shape* ( bent → straight ! ) **without** touching the wire !

Because, when there is a blocker, box **cannot** turn toward left, as shown in Pw-2 lower.

This *supernatural* power of a blocker clearly shows special relativity is **false**.

If special relativity includes fatal **paradox**, of course, general relativity, black hole, Higgs are all **wrong**, because they are all **based** on relativity.

*(Sg-1) Gravitational light bend is due to "medium" attracted to the earth. *

Science argues gravitational lens (= **light bend** ) is caused by gravitational time dilation.

Journals and news ( yahoo, physicsworld ) should stop **deifying** Einstein, **ignoring** fatal paradox.

According to general relativity, clocks run **slower**, as gravity is **stronger** ( see this, this ).

As *light* comes **closer** to the earth, *gravity* becomes **stronger**, which **slows** down light speed.

They insist this difference in time dilation at different points causes light bending ( see this, this ).

This means "graviton" can influence **massless** photon (= light ) through *strange* time **dilation** ? How ?

An electron has **mass**, so it feels **gravity**. Charges are **always** accompanied by **electric** field.

This electric field consists of virtual photons, which violates Einstein relativity, according to QED.

When gravity *acts* on the electron, these **virtual** photons around it **must** be *attracted* by gravity.

This explanation by quantum field thoery and general relativity is self-**contradictory**.

Considering all electric **fields** around charges are **attracted** by gravity ( see this ), we naturally think some **medium** around the earth causes light *bending*, instead of **fantasy** "graviton" and virtual photons.

*(Nq-1) As of 2015, the lifetime of superconducting qubits is only ~μs ! *

Though Nature reported on quantum computer, NYTimes said "**Many** problems **preventing** quantum computer still **remain**", in the latter part, *inconspicuously*.

In fact, researches on quantum computer have already come to a dead end.

**Only** the *media* hype "**imaginary**" quantum computer, **misleading** ordinary people.

Since 1985, the *media* have repeated the *same* kind of "**boring**" phrases, "first **step**", "huge **step**", "key **step**", "first **step**", "Inch", "important **step**" towards quantum computer !

*How many* **more steps** do we have to advance for realizing quantum computer ? **Infinite** ?

Even now, the coherence time (= **lifetime** ) of quantum bit is only **micro**seconds ( see this, this p.1, this ).

So quantum computer **doesn't** have computer "shape". Even *several* bits **break** within very **short** time, **μs** (= short especially in "*solid*" qubits. Other ions, photons **cannot** form computer ).

In this paper p.3, computer's fidelity is only *78 ~ 59 %*, **many** errors in **3** qubits. **Impractical**.

It means theoretical researches on quantum computer ( ex. Scott ) are "**fruitless**", forever.

*(Me-1) Photodetectors just see amplified "electric" current, NOT a photon itself. *

Though the media ( nbc, newsweek, phys.org ) *exaggerate* "first photon (= quantum of light ? ) picture", it is just "media-**hype**", and causes **misunderstanding** about "photon".

In abstract of original paper, you **cannot** find phrases, "photon particle photo", at all.

In fact, those media said **nothing** about the shape and *size* of a single **photon** in above websites.

**Feynman** QED just shows *abstract* math symbols **without** physical shape as a "*photon*" ( see this p.2, this ).
For example, a photon is created (= a^{†} ), or annihilated (= a ). That's all. **NOT** physics.

A single photon detector just measures amplified *electrons*, **cannot** see a **photon** itself. See this, this p.4
This photodetector depends on photoelectric effect, in which an electron is ejected by a photon (= **light** ).

Though textbooks ( this, this ) say photoelectric effect depending on light "**frequency**" proves photon "*particle*", the frequency (= c/**wave**length ! ) clearly means wave nature of light.

As seen in forum, "Orodruin" just said "photon is different from classical particle", but **cannot** explain about a clear **picture** of a *photon*, so a photon is just **electromagnetic** wave ( **NOT** a particle ).

*(Ce-1) Higgs gives only 2% of proton mass. ← NOT origin of mass at all.*

They say Higgs is the origin of mass ( this, this ), but Higgs gives only **2%** of *proton* and neutron masses. **98 %** of **nuclear** mass is caused by Non-Higgs mechanism ( see this, this, this 3. ).

Higgs found (← ? ) at LHC accelerator easily **decays** into other particles.

Higgs *lifetime* is very **short**, only **10 ^{-22}** seconds ! See this this p.1. Completely useless.

Furthermore, Higgs itself cannot be detected. Only from final products (← ? ), they "*imagine*" **unreal** Higgs boson. So Higgs is just "**imaginary**" particle, as seen in this, Higgs fake !

As you notice, this very **unstable** Higgs **cannot** be left to give *mass* to other particles.

So scientists **invented** very *convenient* word, "Higgs **field**" ( see this, Lisa ).

This *Higgs* "**field**" (← **NOT** Higgs boson !? ) filling all space and giving us *mass* is "**virtual**" Higgs ( see this, this ). So LHC has **NOT** found stable Higgs *field* giving mass to everything.

*(Ce-2) In usual β decay, W boson of "80 × proton" mass cannot be found !*

Though Tommaso and Woit often mention *Higgs* at LHC, this Higgs is **NOT** real Higgs **filling** all space. This Higgs seen in news is just "**imaginary**" transient particle **only** inside accelerators.

It is said this Higgs boson is so **rare** that only one Higgs is produced in every **trillion** collisions ( see this, this, this ). The existence of this "**needle** in a haystack" Higgs is very doubtful.

Standard model argues, in ordinary β decay, a neutron splits into a proton and very **heavy** W boson.

But the mass of this W boson is **80 ×** *protons*, **violating** energy conservation. See this, this.

Higgs theory insists only **Higgs** (= *125* GeV ) can give **mass** to W boson, when it is **produced**.

The lifetimes of Higgs and W boson are very **short** ( ~10^{-22} sec ), so they easily **decay**.

When we get some radioactive nuclides, β decay **can** be seen even in **ordinary** laboratory **without** gigantic accelerators (= LHC ).

But it's **impossible** to detect W and Higgs boson decay (= **200 ×** protons energy per neutron ! ) in *ordinary* laboratory, meaning W and Higgs inside LHC have nothing to do with β decay, so **unreal**.

*(Po-1) "Photon" is just abstract math symbol (= a ^{†} ), without physical shape.*

Quantum mechanics claims that the classical Coulomb force is caused by photon exchange.

But **clear** mechanisms of "*attractive*" and "**repulsive**" Coulomb forces remain **unknown**.

In fact, this **photon** causing *Coulomb* force is **virtual** photon, so **NOT** real ( see this, this, this ).

Surprisingly, this **virtual** photon is superluminal tachyon, **violating** Einstein's relativity ( see this, this ).

By the way, what is the physical **shape** and *size* of a single photon ?

Unfortunately, quantum mechanics cannot answer this **basic** question.

In QED, these *photons* must be described using **abstract** Feynman diagram.

This Feynman QED has **NO** ability to show photon's **clear** picture at all.

It just shows **meaningless** math *symbols* ( see this, this p.3 ).

For example, a photon is **created** (= a^{†} ), or *annihilated* (= a ). That's all, **NOT** physics.

As seen in various forums ( this, this, this, this ), responders just **fudge** their answers, **hiding** *unreality* of virtual photons.

*(Bl-1) It's impossible to form black hole within finite time from a star.*

Though journals ( Nature, Science, this ) argue that **black hole** was born **after** big bang, it's **impossible** due to severe time *dilation* (= **stop** ! ) on its event horizon.

Black hole swallowing *everything* (= light ) **cannot** be observed directly ( see this, this ).

They just **imagine** "black hole" from **X-ray**. So its images ( abc, cbc, nbc ) are just **fabricated**.

This is the reason why we can see news of "**NO** black hole" ( see this, this ) even now.

Black hole is said to form when dying **star** is **compressed** by its gravity ( this, this ).

But seen from **distant** observers (= *earth* ), the time **stops** on event horizon by its strong gravity.

As dying star is more compressed, its gravity is stronger, causing more time dilation.

For this time dilation to be "time **stopping**" by star's collapse, it takes **infinite** time. So it's impossible for stars to become black hole **within** age of universe ( see this, this, this ).

So bloggers ( Lubos, Sabine ) are **wasting** their time in **imaginary** black hole, firewall, Hawking radiation. They **cannot** answer these important questions ( paradox, this, this ).

*(Nh-1) Spin energy (= 1 K ) vs. actual ferromagnetic energy (= 1043 K ). *

In Nature, they ( Rice ) **imitated** superconductor using cold Li atoms and *light*, which is NOT real antiferromagnetism. The present physics just aims at **virtual** circumstances like Higgs analogue.

Though ferromagnetism ( ex. permanent magnet of iron ) is said to be caused by spin ( see this ), this is **impossible**. Because spin-spin *magnetic* energy is **too weak** to explain this ferromagnet.

As shown in this p.6 , this p.1, this (= intro ), **spin**-spin dipole *magnetic* energy is only **0.0001** eV (= 1 K in temperature expression ), which is much lower than iron ferromagnetic temperature (= 1043 K ! ).

So they argue this ferromagnetism is caused by "**quantum** exchange" interaction (= Pauli ).

But quantum mechanics **NEVER** tries to *clarify* what this exchange force **really** is.

To express this strange exchange force, all they can do is rely on *abstract* math symbols.

In Hubbard spin ( see this p.5 ), it just shows **meaningless** electron operators, **without** ability to describe **concrete** atomic states, **useless**, forever.

*(Pa-1) Only in the moving frame (= S' ), the charge "feels" new magnetic force ?*

In Lorentz transformation of special relativity, each space-time *coordinate* in one frame **corresponds** to spacetime in another frame, **one-to-one**. So twin and car-garage paradoxes do **NOT** happen.

So we have to rely on other unrealistic **phenomena** to prove special relativity is **wrong**.

If we use general relativity, we can show GPS time correction includes **twin** paradox, so **false**.

Lorentz transformation of electromagnetic fields and *charges* (= ρ ) is one of fatal **paradoxes**.

In Pa-1, an electric current flows through a wire, which contains the **same** amount of ± charges, so electrically **neutral**.

Magnetic field (= B ) perpendicular to the wire is generated around the electric current (= -J ).

In the **rest** frame of observer (= **S** ), a **stationary** charge feels **NO** magnetic force, so **stops**.

But from the viewpoint of the observer **moving** (= **S'** ), this stationary charge is **moving** in the opposite direction, so **feels** *magnetic* force (= evB ), and is **attracted** toward the *wire* **only** in *S'* !

To solve this *paradox*, special relativity claims that the **net** charge of wire changes into **positive**, when the observer is **moving** in S', and this **newly** produced electric force (= eE ) **cancels** the magnetic force (= evB ). See this, this, Pa-2.

*(Pa-2) Positive charge (= e+ ) is OK, but negative charge starts to move in S' !* ←

Surprisingly, electric **charge** (= ρ ) and *current* (= J ) densities **transform** into each other under Lorentz transformation ( ρ ↔ J ). See this p.3, this p.27. It produces **new** electric field around originally **neutral** wire !

The point is the negative charge (= **e-** ) in Pa-2 is **attracted** toward the *positively* charged wire **only** in **S'** frame, because Lorentz magnetic force (= evB ) **cannot** cancel this direction **parallel** to the wire.

This is clearly fatal **paradox**, and shows special relativity is **wrong**. See this page.

In **neutral** closed circuit, *upper* wire becomes **positive**, *lower* wire becomes **negative** in S' frame !

So under external electric field E, the whole wire **rotates** in S' frame, though it *remains* at **rest** in S.

The recent Mansuripur's pradox is based on this mechanism ( see this, this ).

Though they claim that this paradox has been solved, they have to rely on **fictitious** concepts.

They **artificially** define "**virtual**" center of *rotation* (← **unreal** ! ) at the moving observer.

Furthermore, they make up **fictitious** *hidden* momentum, by force. See
this, this p.10.

The distance (= "d" ) between the wire and observer becomes **longer**, as observer is moving to the right.

They consider hidden momentum × "d" as angular momentum (← **unreal** ! ), and its change as **torque**.
But the **true** center of rotation is at the center of **wire**. So this solution is **unrealistic**.

*(An-1) Quantum mechanics cannot solve many-body atoms → quasiparticle ! *

According to phys.org, even *recent* journals (= Phys.Rev., PNAS ) deal with **unreal** anyon with **fractional** charge, though fractional charge ( ex. 1/3e ) cannot be isolated.

As shown in this, this, it's **impossible** to *isolate* and observe **quarks** with fractional charge in actual experiments. So these anyons with fractional charge are just **fictitious** quasiparticles.

Quantum mechanics **cannot** solve and predict **multi**-electron atoms, and **lacks** reality in wavefunctions ( see many-worlds, Sascha ), causing "camouflage" *target*, **quasiparticle**.

Quasiparticle are **fictitious** (= *unreal* ) elementary particles ( see this, this ).

But all the current condensed matter physics can do is **invent** these **unreal** particles.

Of course, we **cannot** directly observe fractional charges themselves.

They just **artificially** defined fractional charge only from *fractional* quantum Hall effect.

From the fact that electrical conductance can be a **fraction** × e^{2}/h, they **imagine** *fictitious* anyons with **fractional** charge, which is just abstract math symbol with **NO** shape. See this (1.1).

*(Ou-1) Energy is NOT conserved in every interelectronic distance (= r _{12} ). *

Schrodinger equations of **multi**-electron atoms (ex. helium ) **cannot** be solved.

So all they can do is *artificially* **choose** trial functions ( ex. 2 × 1s hydrogen = helium !? ).

*Choosing* wavefunctions means quantum mechanics has **NO** ability to **predict** atomic *energies*, so **useless**. Furthermore, total energy is NOT conserved in **every** interelectronic distance, so **lacks** reality.

To **hide** these defects in quantum mechanics, they **pretend** that density functional theory is ab-initio.

They needed to invent "**camouflage**" *targets*, fictitious quasiparticle and symmetry to *publish* papers.

Though *unreal* W boson (= **80** × protons ! ) and Higgs **cannot** be observed in **daily** life and β decay ( see this
, this ), the media ( Forbes, Independent, abc ) **instigate** people to *waste* their **tax** in these imaginary particles.

This is the reason why 10-dimensional *string* theory **invades** condensed matter physics ( see this ).

Though supersymmetry is **hypothetical**, it appears as *unreal* quasiparticle in condensed matter ( this, this ).

**Useless** quantum mechanics **cannot** predict *multi*electron atoms, so all physicists can do is **invent** *fictitious* targets, instead of pursuing **deeper** mechanism ( ex Pauli exclusion ). So science **stops**.

*(Sy-1) If LHC results are right, enormous energy must be detected in β decay !*

Though Peter Woit said, "Standard model is built on **beautiful** mathematics, and **agrees** with *every* experiment", this is **NOT** true. First, "beautiful" does **NOT** mean "*correct*" theory.

As shown in this section, accelerators such as *LHC* **cannot** measure each particle's **energy**, and it depends on unreal virtual particle and **artificial** simulations.

Standard model argues, in ordinary β decay, a neutron splits into a proton and very **heavy** W boson.

But the mass of this W boson is **80 ×** *protons*, **violating** energy conservation. See this, this.

Higgs theory insists only **Higgs** (= *125* GeV ) can give **mass** to W boson, when it is **produced**.

The lifetimes of Higgs and W boson are very **short** ( ~10^{-22} sec ), so they easily **decay**.

When we get some radioactive nuclides, β decay **can** be seen even in **ordinary** laboratory **without** gigantic accelerators (= LHC ).

But it's **impossible** to detect W and Higgs boson decay (= **200 ×** protons energy per neutron ! ) in *ordinary* laboratory, meaning W and Higgs inside LHC have nothing to do with β decay, so **unreal**.

*(Sy-2) Lagrangian is NOT invariant with "mass" term ← Higgs needed !?*

When I read various media ( abc, bbc, cnn ), I *noticed* these media **avoid** the *true* reason why Higgs is needed. Only NYTimes mentioned symmetry (= gauge ) as the **root** of Higgs.

Quantum mechanics stops science, so "

For Lagrangian to be invariant under phase and gauge transformations ( ex. photon, A ), **mass** term (= *mAA* ) is **obstructive**, and has to be *deleted*. See this p.4, this p.17. So photon is **massless** ?

But W boson has large **mass** different from photon, so mass term (= mWW ) **must** be added, *keeping* gauge **invariance**, which needs *Higgs* mechanism, they insist ( see this p.5,6 ).

This concept, "gauge" invariance was just **artificially** introduced, with **NO** physical grounds. They just **play** with **meaningless** math "**analogy**". = 2 × *2* matrix called SU(*2*) symmetry.

Though Higgs is just **abstract** math *symbol*, the media and bloggers ( nbc
, Sean
) **mislead** people into believing Higgs as if it was real, using "**fake**" images (= video ).

*(Li-1) Light frequency (= f ) equal to c/λ (= light wavelength ) proves "Wave" !*

Though almost all textbooks say photoelectric effect proposed by Einstein proved **particle** nature of "**photon**", this *far-fetched* interpretation is clearly "**brainwashing**" by textbooks.

Electrons are "**emitted**" from metals, when illuminated by *light* of higher **frequency** than some threshold, irrelevant to its intensity. So they ( this, this, this ) affirmed that light is "**particle**".

But as you know, light **frequency** (= f ) is equal to c/λ (= **wavelength** ). See this site.

"Frequency" and "**wave**length" clearly mean "**wave**" ( NOT particle ! ) nature of light.

So, the idea "photoelectric effect = light *frequency* = photon " is one of **mind-controls** by textbooks and media, like Bohr's accelerating electron ( though it does **NOT** lose energy ).

In fact, Lamb (= Nobel winner ) argued that the photoelectric effect happens without photon.

ZapperZ should **stop** *blindly* believing photon **particle**, and stop spreading the **forced** idea.

**Imaginary** "photon" is necessary for quantum field theory such as Higgs and string theory.

But these photon's **operators** (= a^{†}, this, this ) are just **abstract** math *symbols* with **NO** realistic shapes.

*(Pa-1) Spin-spin dipole energy (= 0.0001 eV ! ) vs. Pauli exclusion energy= 27 eV.*

According to Pauli exclusion principle, two electrons **cannot** be in the **same** state in "spin".

So they argue that the third electron of Li must enter *higher* **2s** state instead of lower 1s. See this.

Of course, if this third electron of Li can enter the ground **1s** state, its total energy becomes much **lower** (= stable ), because the **shorter** distance between an electron and nucleus **lowers** *Coulomb* energy.

As shown on this site, *3 × 1s* electrons in Li gives **-230 eV** (= 8.46 Hartree ), which is much **lower** than the true Li ground state energy (= **-203 eV**, 7.48 Hartree ). This energy difference is "**27 eV**" !

But electron **spin-spin** *magnetic* dipole interaction is **too weak** to explain this **strong** Pauli *repulsive* force. Electron **spin**'s magnetic moment is Bohr magneton. Classical dipole-dipole energy is this.

In this and this, when the interelectronic distane is **1 Å** (= hydrogen diameter ), the spin-spin magnetic energy is very *weak* (= **0.0001 eV** = 1.7 × 10^{-23} J, use this ), which **cannot** explain *Pauli* exclusion.

*(Pa-2) Anticommutation ( a _{1}a_{2} = -a_{2}a_{1} ) is the cause of Pauli principle ?*

In this p.6, this p.7, this p.5, spin-spin *magnetic* dipole interaction is **too** *weak* (< **0.0001 eV** ), so easily **breaks** even at extremely low temperature ( < **1 K**, use this ), which **cannot** explain Pauli principle and ferromagnetism at *room* temperature (= **300 K** )

As shown on this and this, this **Pauli** repulsive force is **NOT** fundamendtal force such as Coulomb.

In fact, quantum mechanics **cannot** show *clear* mechanism of Pauli exclusion principle at all.

According to this, this p.2, this p.3, they argue Pauli exclusion principle is a consequence of anticommutation relationship between electron **operators** (= a^{†} ).

Thinking *commonsensically*, it is **impossible** to express actual Pauli repulsive force using **only** these **very** abstract math operators. These are just meaningless math *symbols*, **NOT** real physics.

Quantum mechanics ( Dirac equation ) **avoids** clarifying **detailed** atomic picture, instead, **escapes** into *abstract* operators. We have to rely on other strong ( **wave** ) force, instead of very **weak** spin.

PS. "No Big Bang" is uncommonly **good** topic for Phys.org. Lubos Motl **cannot** answer these questions ( this, this ), indicating Lubos himself **admits** that black hole and inflation are **impossible**.

*(Ph-1) Fictitious "phonon" remains unreal, abstract operator (= b ^{†} ), forever.*

In the latest Phys.Rev.Lett., you still see **old** concept "phonon", which is **fictitious** quasiparticle.

Though **quasiparticles** are **NOT** real ( see this, this p.10 ), they **NEVER** give up these *unreal* particles.

As shown in this and this p.7, "**phonon**" is just another **name** for atomic **vibration** ( energy ), so **NOT** real particle. They just **replaced** total atomic *energy* (= H ) by abstract **phonon** operators (= b^{†}, b ).

Surprisingly, though acoustic *phonon* is **massless**, it moves at *sound* speed (= **slower** than light ! ), which clearly **contradicts** special relativity. See this, this, this (= sound speed, see this p.2 ).

Furthermore, when phonon **interacts** with electrons, it becomes a faster-than-light **virtual** phonon.

See
this, this p.89, this p.1. Again "*phonons*" are completely **unreal** particles in **all** respects.

Since "**phonon**" was first introduced in **1932**, the quantum mechanics **NEVER** investigated **concrete** atomic motions, which they call "phonon".

Even now in **2015**, this phonon remains *abstract* math operator (= b^{†}, b ). So science **stops**.

*(Vi-1) Virtual photon in quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) violates relativity.*

After "**aether**" was denied ( ? ), the **Coulomb** force between electrons has to be explained by virtual photons using *Feynman* diagram in quantum electrodynamics (= QED ). See also this site.

Surprisingly, this **virtual** photon is always moving **faster**-than-light like "*tachyon*", which means special relativity is **violated**, even if "*aether*" was denied. See this, this, this.

Furthermore, these virtual particles do **NOT** obey energy **conservation**. See this.

Standrd model argues Higgs (= **125** GeV ) *splits* into 2 × W boson ( 2 × 80 = **160** GeV ). **Impossible**.

**All** reactions in LHC
depend on **unrealistic** *virtual* particles, so all transient particles such as Higgs and W boson **lack** reality, and they do **NOT** really exist, though Tommaso likes them.

The current quantum mechanics **cannot** answer the basic question "What are a photon's *shape* and *size* ? ", as shown in this and this. Just **endless** debate continues like in this forum

*(Vi-2) Reason why virtual photon in Feynman diagram is "unreal".*

Here we explain why **virtual** photon in Feynman diagram (= QED ) always becomes **faster**-than-light tachyon, which has **negative** m^{2} ( = the square of mass < 0 ) !

In Vi-2, "m_{e}" is an electron's rest mass, "c" is light speed.

"**E**" and "*p*" are total **energy** and *momentum* of an incident **electron**.

According to special relativity, each particle must satisfy energy-momentum relation.

After the incident electron **emits** a ( virtual ) *photon*, it **stops** (= only *rest* mass energy, m_{e}c^{2} ).

If energy and momentum are **conserved**, emitted photon has "*E- m _{e}c^{2}*" in energy, and momentum "

As you see Vi-2, the

This result shows that the Coulomb force **cannot** be expressed by "photon exchange" in QED.

Even if you *denied* "aether", this virtual photon **disobeys** special relativity , anyway.

*(CM-1) Proof of gravitational wave (= 0.4 μK ! ) can NEVER be trusted.*

As I said in this section, the proof of primordial gravitational wave which was emitted (← ? ) from **superluminal** inflationary expansion after *Big Bang* was **rejected**. They turned out to be just "**dusts**".

When I read various blogs ( Sean Carroll, Matt Strassler ) and news ( BBC, Forbes, Nature ), I noticed they **conceal** the *inconvenient* fact that the proof of this gravity wave is unbelievably **weak** light polarization (= B-mode, **0.4 μK** ! ).

As shown in this, this (Fig), this (p.20), this **B-mode** *light* polarization patttern is only **0.4** microKelvin (= **0.4 × 10 ^{-6} K** ! ) in temperature, which is embedded in

Thinking *commonsensically*, it's **impossible** that this very **faint** light polarization **remains** as it was for **13.8** billion years, because **infinite** *dusts* in the space clearly **scatter** and *change* these faint light patterns during 13.8 billion years.

Because bloggers and the media **know** this *inconvenient* facts (= 0.4 μK ) clearly **cause** ordinary people **distrust** of proof of gravitational wave, they **never** write this inconvenient fact in their websites.

*Sean* Carroll ( who believes "**fantasy**" many-worlds !? ) and *Matt* Strassler should **NOT** *instigate* ordinary people to believe **unrealistic** inflation, if they are educators.

*(PF-1) Chosen approximate wavefunctions do NOT meet energy conservation !*

In physicsforums ( see #45 ) , *vanhees71* (= 2014 award ? ) does **NOT** seem to be aware that Schrodinger's wavefunctions **cannot** handle multi-electron atoms such as **helium**.

According to **basic** physical rule, total energy (= kinetic + potential energies ) must be always **conserved**. Of course, *solvable* hydrogen atom **satisfies** energy conservation at **all** points.

But Schrodinger equation of **helium** atom cannot be solved due to three body problem.

So they just **artificially** choose approximate trial functions ( see this, this. ).

It means quantum mechanics **cannot** *predict* energies of *multi*-electron atoms, **useless** forever.

Furthermore, total **energy** *conservation* is **violated** at all points in helium wavefunction.

As shown in PF-1 and this, when **two** electrons of helium come **closer** to each other, *repulsive* potential energy **increases**. They often use 2 × **hydrogen** 1s wavefunction as approximation.

Potential energies between electron and **nucleus** do **NOT** change, and **cannot** cancel this repulsive potential, so *total* energies are **changing** depending on the interelectronic **distance** (= r_{12} ).

Because helium approximate wavefunction is **NOT** the one gotten by solving Schrodinger equation, it does **NOT** consider energy conservation at all points. So it **lacks** reality.

*(Inf-1) Weak B-mode (= 0.4 μK ! ) cannot be kept for 13.8 "billion" years !*

Recent news ( NYTimes, nbc ) say *Planck* group **rejected** *BICEP2*'s discovery of gravitational wave. But these media, universities ( Harvard, Caltech, BICEP3 ? ), Hawking still **incite** people to believe this **unrealistic** inflation.

According to this, this, this (p.2), gravitational wave emitted from inflation caused "*curling*" light polarization (= B mode ) **380000** years after big bang, which **remained** as it was for **13.8 billion** (= *13800000000* ) years !

But thinking **commonsensically**, it is impossible that very **weak** CMB and B mode (= **0.4 microK** in temperature ! see this, this ) *remain* as they were, through **infinite** dusts for **13.8** billion years.

Lubos Motl is a "**religious**" man, rather than *scientist*, because his remarks completely **lack** scientific grounds. Hontas Farmer also believes this **unreasonable** experimental process.

I don't understand why she accepts **11** dimensional M theory including **infinite** *different* solutions, which **cannot** predict anything.

Though Peter Woit seems to give up BICEP2, he is still a **believer** in this "*unreal*" BigBang.

*(NM-1) All things (= charges, electric fields ) are moving with the earth. *

The recent Nature ( see news, this-Fig.1 ) argues the **magnetic** field **didn't** change by **earth**'s motion, measuring energy *difference* in trapped Ca ion. Did it prove Lorentz symmetry ?

The important point is that Michelson-Morley experiment did **NOT** reject "**ether**" moving **with** the earth. They just **denied** the earth moving **through** the *rest* ( wrt. absolute space ) ether.

But as you see, **all** things including charges and **electric** fields among them, are moving **with** the earth, which shows some **medium** *transmitting* electic fields is **moving** with the earth.

**Denying** this "earth ether" means you **depend** on unreal virtual photons to describe **Coulomb** force, though virtual particles **violate** special relativity. ( see this, this, this ) with Lorentz-force paradox.

Why can **Matt** Strassler give public talk, **ignoring** *contradictory* virtual particles and fatal paradox ?

New students and ordinary people should be told about these **true** paradoxes **NOT** to be *victims* of **wrong** theory.

*(SP-1) Relativity cannot explain why "photon" becomes slower in medium.*

Though the recent Science paper (15/1/22) uses the word of "**photon**", they completely depend on the property of **electromagnetic** waves ( **NOT** photon *particle* ).

As shown in physicsworld and original paper (Fig.1), some rays of a **single** (← ? ) photon are *diffracted* and travel **farther**, which slows **group** velocity of a photon.

Though BBC and newscientist say a **single** photon's *shape* can be changed, **dividing** "photon" into **multi**-components ( → "shape" changed !? ) proves that a photon is **NOT** a *particle*, but **wave**.

If a photon is a **single** elementary particle, the concept of "**group**" velocity is **contradictory**.

In fact, special relativity **cannot** explain why photon (= **light** ) becomes **slower** in *water*.

In various forums ( this, this, this ), some people say **absorption** and reemission between a photon and water molecules cause slower photon.

But in these cases, light spectrum must be **discrete**, which **cannot** be observed.

So we have to **give up** "*photon*", and accept that "**medium**" influences **light** *wave* velocity.

*(Ha-1) Fictitious magnetic monopole, fractional charge → skyrmion ?*

The recent Harvard physics reported "Skyrmion ", which means tiny swiling magnetic spin **patterns**.

So "skymion" just means "magnetic-pattern" of material, **NOT** elementary (= real ) particles.

This skyrmion is a hotbed of **unrealistic** quasi-particles such magnetic monopole ( see also this ) and **fractional**-charge anyon ( see also this ). Physicstoday **must** mention this *unreality*.

As shown in the original paper (p.1,2), they use very **abstract** math operators such as "*phase*" and **virtual** boson (= b ). Because the present quantum physics cannot handle **many**-body effects.

As shown on this (116-1), skyrmions are "**mathematical**" rather than physical objects.

The current condensed matter physics is *tied* down by old rules such as fictitious concepts.

As long as we depend on abstract operators, it's **impossible** to describe *dymamic* concrete motions of particles and use them in applied fields such as medicine, forever. Harvard has to "**advance**" science.

*(PF-1) Momentum is NOT conserved, unrealistic virtual particles !*

The mentor of physicsforums says **antiparticles** ( with positive mass ) is "**mainstream**" science.

But antiparticles are *unreal* (= virtual ) **violating** basic physical law of "*momentum*" conservation.

As shown on this and this, when the incident light ( photon ) energy is exactly **2mc ^{2}** ( "m" is electron's mass ), the generated pair of electron and positron become

The incident light is always **moving** at "c", which means it has **momentum**.

But the resultant pair of electron and positron are *at rest* with **NO** momentum. See this page.

According to Feynman diagram, **annihilation** of electron and positron generates **unreal** *virtual* photon.

Because when they come from the **opposite** directions, the resultant **photon**'s momentum is **cancelled** out and **at rest** (= "*hearvy*" photon, see this (p.6) ).

If momentum is conserved, this annihilation must create two photons (= 2 γ ).

But as shown on this (p.5), this case also causes unreal **virtual** electron **violating** relativistic relation.

*(PF-2) Na-22 changes to Ne through electron capture (= EC ) or positron emission (= β+ ).*

In this (p.6,7) and this, **Na-22** can change into more stable **Ne-22** through electron capture or positron emission. Both reactions change one **proton** into a **neutron** (= atomic number decreases ).

In electron **capture**, outer electron enters the Na nuclues, and a pair of positron and electron generates a neutron. This reaction is **real**, because a neutron is heavier than a proton.

But in positron emission (= beta+ decay ), they say a *stable* **proton** inside nucleus **splits** into a *positron* and a **neutron** !

This answer is **wrong**, because this **contradictory** reaction happens in quark ( **NOT** atomic ) level.

As you see PF-2, a part of transition *energy* is "**teleported**" to unrelated **external** electron *beforehand* only in **positron** emission. Because the **total** emitted energies are the **same** in both reactions.

In this (p.18), they argue that **positron** emission may be **possible** only when the decay *energy* is **greater** than 1.022 MeV (= *2mc ^{2}* ). This is

**Artificial** "positron" can be considered to be positive (Na) ions (= explains positronium, vacancy trap, "pushed-back" at moderator ), high-energy **proton** or *electron* **scattered** at each detectors.

*(Hi-1) All experiments in LHC depend on "unreal" virtual particles.*

According to this and this, standard model argues that Higgs with 125 GeV mass decays into two W bosons (= 2 × 80 = **160 GeV** ) ! So, the energy *conservation* is **violated** in these reactions.

In spite of this **wrong** physics, why Lubos (= living in 11 dimensions !? ), Tommaso ( in comments, "fluid dynamics" has nothing to do with it ), and Matt Strassler believe these **unrealistic** *virtual* particles ?

These unrealistic virtual particles always **violate** special relativity, and appear (← ? ) in **all** standard model reactions, which means experiments about LHC and Higgs **lack** solid foundations.

As shown in NYTimes and forum mentor, though they **habitually** say "Standard model *agrees* with **all** experiments", these comments are **incorrect**, like artificial QED.

*(Hi-2) Interpretation of accelerator depends on very "rough" speculation.*

In fact, Experiments in accelerators depend on very rough (= **doubtful** ) estimation.

They **cannot** measure each *kinetic* energy and each light *frequency* of secondary particles and photons.

As you see Hi-2, to measure kinetic energy of a particle, you have to **stop** them trying it under **different** electric fields, repeatedly in the **same** condition in each particle.

But of course, in accelerators, almost **infinite** secondary particles with **different** kinetic energies are produced in all directions. So these precise measurements are **impossible**.

As shown on this, this, this (p.11), they **roughly** estimate total energy only from the *amount* of electric currents based on **artificial** simulation and algorithm.

Furthermore, the energy loss ( > 25 % ) by heavy **nuclear** movement and breakup **cannot** be detected, as shown on this (p.9).

Also in photon detection, they use photomultiplier, which shows only **single** threshold frequency, **NOT** measuring each different wavelength.

*(Pu-1) Neutron star is 4 × 10 ^{14} times denser than the Sun !?*

Though recent news ( phys.org, BBC, huffin ) argue that *neutron* star's large mass can be measured using space-time **warp** by gravity, this insistence is very **doubtful**.

According to this and this, neutron is **heavier** than the Sun, but much **smaller**.

So its density is about 4 × 10^{14} times that of the Sun !

Furthermore, to explain **rapidly**-changing radio *pulses* ( this, this ), physicists hit upon **unrealistic** idea that this **dense** neutron star is spinning on its own axis more than **20** times per seconds !

It is said that the pressure by Pauli exclusion principle plays an important role in forming neutron star, the spin-spin *magnetic* dipole coupling is too weak to explain this Pauli exclusion.

Though **true** mechanisms of Pauli exclusion principle are **unknown**, why can they *assert* the existence of neutron star ? Because this neutron star is important as "early" stage of "**fantasy**" black hole.

*(Pu-2) Oscillation of high-energy interstellar medium is more natural.*

Neutron star is **so far** away from the earth that we **cannot** see if neutron star is **really** spinning ( and orbiting ). We have to depend on some *hypotheses* to estimate its mass and radius.

The "classical" measurement (= doppler and its timing ) is **NOT** enough to estimate them.

They rely on very **faint** space **warp** ( ? ) to determine its mass ( this, this, this ).

But this time **dilation** (= red shift ) by the relativity ( in **periodic** system ) always includes fatal twin paradox, because they say neutron star is moving at extremely **high** speed.

And the neutron star is very **far** away ( > 20000 light years ), so it is **natural** that some **interstellar** material *influences* and **modifies** this pulse signal on its extremely **long** way.

Instead of this **unrealistic** neutron star, we can think that some high-energy **material** in space is rapidly **oscillating** with *mixed* (= rapid and slow ) frequencies.

The prediction of gravity wave is also **artificial** with many **different** solutions.

*(NA-1) Forming black hole takes "infinite" time ← NO black hole.*

Though the recent Nature, Science, NASA argue as if black hole *really* existed, there are **NO** direct evidence of black hole, because black hole swallowing everything **cannot** be observed.

This is the reason why we see the news "there are **NO** black holes" ( this, this, this ) even now.

They just **speculate** the existence of black hole **only** from **X-ray**

As I say on this page, the severe time dilation (= time stop from the earth ) on the event horizon **prevents** black hole from forming **within** age of universe. So it is **impossible** to observe black hole now.

So the media such as Time, NYTimes just **incite** people to believe "**unreal**" black hole.

NASA should stop **wasting** national *tax* in **imaginary** black hole and quantum computer ( ex. D-wave = appears only as *news items* ).

As shown on this site (p.9-), they come to a **hasty** conclusion that rapid-*changing* brightness indicates black hole is very **small**.

But it is natural that high-energy stars such as Sun are made from "**variable** gas" emitting **complex** lights.

*(PF-2) Helium wave functions "disobey" energy conservation at any points.*

As helium atom contains **two** electrons, the equations of helium **cannot** be solved.

So we have to **choose** some *approximate* trial wavefunctions for helium. See this and this.

The important point is that energy **conservation** law is **violated** in all atoms and molecules in quantum mechanics except for hydrogen, if their wave functions represent "*stationary*" probability.

In stationary wavefunctions, the kinetic energies and potential energies between nucleus and electron at each point are **constant**.
But the **repulsive** energy between two electrons **changes** depending on the **distance** (= r_{12} ) between two electrons.

Surprisingly, when the distance between two eletrons are close to *zero*, the potential energy increases to **infinity** !

So depending on positional **relationship** between two electrons, total energy of helium **changes**, which shows total energy conservation is **violated**.

In **solvable** hydrogen atom, of course, total energy (= H ) is always **constant** (= conserved ) in **any** position of an electron. So quantum mechanics **cannot** deal with *many-body* atoms. Only this model **satisfies** energy *conservation* in any positions in the specific orbits.

*(NP-1) Higgs in superconductor → gigantic LHC "unnecessary" !?*

According to phys.org and dailymail, **Higgs** boson *analogue* has been found in superconductor ?

If we can get Higgs in **cheap** superconductor, "expensive" **gigantic** accelerator ( see this, this ) is a **waste** of money ?

The point is Higgs in superconductor is "**analogue**", which means "**fake**" Higgs.

So this is a *representative* example of the "media **hype**" about *God* particle, Higgs.

Surprisingly, this Higgs gives **mass** to photon (= light ) in Meissner effect. See this, this, this #2.

This "**massive**" photon (= light ) clearly **contradicts** Einstein's relativity. See this this.

Higgs in standard model **cannot** interact with photon, so it keeps photon *massless*. See this, this.

This shows Higgs in superconductor is completely **inconsistent** with original Higgs, so **unreal**.

According to this and this p.4,5, *Higgs* corresponds to Cooper pair and decays into Bogoliubov **quasiparticle**.
But as shown in this and this, quasiparticle are **NOT** actual particles.

In original paper Fig.2,3, they just measure conductivity and energy *gap* (= Δ ), **NOT** Higgs itself.

In conclusion, these Higgs and quasiparticles are **self-contradictory** and **lack** reality.

*(Fe-1) "Real" de Broglie waves can explain double-slit interference naturally. *

Though Caltech and Princeton try to show off "**Feynman**", his thought on double-slit experiments is completely **unrealistic** and "*fantasy*", which is the heart of many-worlds in quantum mechanics.

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

Quantum mechanics (= Feynman ) claims that the single electron can pass through **both** slits **simultaneously** ! See this and this.

Because according to Feynman's sum over states (= path-integral ), even a **single** electron can pass "*infinite*" **different** *paths* at the **same** time ! See this p.2 and this.

As a result, quantum mechanics discarded "**reality**", and Feynman started to say "Nobody understands quantum mechanics.", which is **inappropriate** as "*scientific*" attitude.

"The world of **every** experience is in **one** equation" ( see Sean ) is just "**fantasy**".

Considering fatal paradox, we can think an electron's "**real**" de Broglie wave through *real* medium causes this interference.

*(Qu-1) "Independent" protons, electrons are just the "same" amount !? *

It is said that the proton is composed of three quarks with **fractional** charges.

But this *fractional* charges ( +2/3e, -1/3e ) can **NEVER** be *isolated*, so quark has **NO** real evidence. See this and this.

They just **jumped** to a conclusion that Jets (= only electrons and lights can be detected ) may be quark or gluon. In standard model, quarks are just **meaningless** math symbols with **NO** physical shapes.

Originally, fractional charges such as +2/3 (= up ) and -1/3 (= down ) quarks are completely **independent** from (= *NO* relation with ) electrons. ( Why 3/4e, 4/7e is **impossible** ? )

But the **sum** of them (= 2 × up + 1 × down quarks ) becomes just **+e** charge *proton*, which number is "*accidentally*" just the Same as **-e** charge **electron** in the universe ! ← **Too good** to be true!

On the other hand, the number of positron, which is said to be the **partner** of electron, is much **smaller** than electrons, and **unstable** antiparticles *disappear* **instantly** (= within 10^{-12} seconds ! ).

And these antiparticles **disobey** *basic* physical law such as total **momenum** conservation.

So standard model based on these quarks **lacks** reality, *contrary* to
Tommaso's boring phrase (= "triumph" ).

2015/4/18 updated. Feel free to link to this site.