Important flaws in quantum mechanics.

Top page ( correct Bohr model )
Back to criticizing top journals.

How commercial universities "falsify" unreal "phonons" ?

[ Phonon is just unreal "quasiparticle", useless math operator (= b ). ]

(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.

As shown on this site, they passed laser light (= electromagnetic wave ! ) through vibrating (= phonon !? ) silicon, and considered resultant light frequency change as unreal "phonon".

So they did NOT detect phonon itself, they just saw light frequency change.
"Frequency" means c/wavelength, 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 ).

Dispute about "unreal" string theory is endless.

[ 10 dimensional string theory = the only unified theory obstructs physics progress, forever. ]

(LP-1)  10 dimensions, 10500 multiverse cause "fruitless" debates, forever.    vs.

Peter Woit argues that 10 spacetime dimensions and 10500 many different worlds of string ( or M ) theory is unrealistic and cannot predict anything.  He is right, but just repeats the same criticism also in 2014.

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.

Helium quantum wave function is impossible, so "unreal" !

[ There are NO helium wavefunctions giving the "single" ground state energy. ]

(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 (= r12 ).

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/r1, 1/r2, 1/r12 ).  But it's impossible !

"Variable" potential energy terms of helium "cannot" be cancelled.

[ NO helium wave functions can "cancel" three kinds of potential energies. ]

(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 r12 ).  So it is impossible to cancel all these potential terms by any wavefunctions.

For example, we choose the simplest variational helium wave function (= ψHe ) containing the distances between electrons and nucleus (= r1, r2 ) and between two electrons (= r12 ).

As shown in He-2, the second derivative (= ∇2 ) of kientic energy term gives complex eigenvalue composed both of r1 and r12, 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 (= r13, r23 .. ), 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.

Quantum mechanics cannot predict any energy values.

[ Three-body helium cannot be solved → "arbitrary" variational functions. ]

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

As Schrodinger equation of Helium contains complicated interelectric distance (= r12 ), 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 !

Large hadron collider (= LHC ) is just wasteful "trash".

[ Very "rare" Higgs boson cannot give mass. Weinberg weak boson is unreal. ]

(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 ).

Very rare Higgs boson (= appear only one in 100000000000 collisions ? ) cannot give mass stably.
Weinberg's weak boson at β decay lacks reality, too, though the media exploits his charisma.

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.

Weinberg, Higgs, Feynman's theories are NOT real !

[ People don't know the current physics is just "meaningless" math symbols. ]

(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.

Weinberg's weak (= W ) boson lacks reality.

[ Weinberg's W bosons do NOT satisfy energy conservation, so unreal. ]

(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.

Spin-orbit coupling is wrong.  --- Na fine structure !

[ Spin-orbit energy is "too weak" to explain sodium fine structure. ]

(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 Z4/n3.
"Z" is average central charge (= about 1 in both H and Na ), "n" is principal quantum number.

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 ).

Central charge must be Z = 3.54 (← Z = 1 ) in Na, so spin-orbit coupling is wrong.

(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.

How Big is a photon ? ← Shut up ! ← NOT science.

[ There is "1000 meter" wavelength light.  A single photon is so Big !? ]

(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.

Magnetic field is made of "unreal" virtual photons !

[ QED says Coulomb, magnetic fields are "virtual" photons violating relativity. ]

(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 ( m2 < 0 ), lacking reality.
And this unreal virtual particle can move faster-than-light.  See this, this, 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.

Higgs, quark inside accelerator are "meaningless" things.

[ Higgs "field" (← NOT Higgs "boson" ! ) giving mass can NOT be found ! ]

(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.

Schrödinger hydrogen is also an integer times de Broglie wave !

[ de Broglie relation (= experimental fact ) is used also in Schrödinger equation. ]

(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 should read insidescience, and admit media-hype about photon's capture.

Schrödinger's de Broglie wave is "cancelled" by interference ?

[ Angular momentum is zero, so Schrodinger's de Broglie wave is cancelled by destructive interference ! ]

(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.

Schrödinger hydrogen atom "lacks" reality.   Period.

[ Radial kinetic energy is "negative", but angular energy is always "positive" ! ]

(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/r2 → ∞, r → 0 ).

To cancel this increasing angular kinetic energy, the radial kinetic energy must be negative ( 1/2mv2 < 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.

Electric field lines "reject" special relativity !

[ If electric field lines are like "wires", they don't change under Lorentz transformation. ]

(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.

Einstein's special relativity is false.   --- Paradox again !

[ Special relativity has "supernatural" power to bend "rigid" wire !? ]

(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.

"Future" can be changed without touching wire !?

[ Depending on whether blocker is inserted or not, wire's shape changes !? ]

(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.

Gravitational time dilation is unreal.   ---- Science.

[ Time dilation causes "light bending" ? Then virtual photon around electron ? ]

(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.

How many more "steps" towards quantum computer ?

[ Quantum computer (= "imaginary" target ) is impractical forever. ]

(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 microseconds ( 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.

Photon particle photo is "media-hype",   NOT true.

[ What are the "shape" and size of a "photon"  → They cannot answer at all ! ]

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

Though the media ( nbc, newsweek, ) 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/wavelength ! ) 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 ).

Higgs does NOT exist.   Cern is wasting money.

[ "Unstable" Higgs boson found at LHC cannot give mass.  So unreal. ]

(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.

Higgs giving mass has NOT been discovered.

[ Higgs, W boson inside accelerators are "different" from real particles ! ]

(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.

" Photon exchange = Coulomb force "  is unrealistic.

[ Virtual photon in Feynman QED "disobeys" special relativity ! ]

(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.

Black hole doesn't exist,  its research is "waste of time".

[ Severe time dilation on event horizon "forbids" black hole formation, forever. ]

(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 ).

Unreal "Spin" is too weak to explain ferromagnetism. --- Nature

[ Spin-spin magnetic energy is "too weak" to explain actual ferromagnetism ! ]

(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.

"True" paradox of special relativity   --- Lorentz force !

[ Observer moves → stationary charge moves. → it feels new magnetic force ? ]

(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.

Negative charge (= -e ) is attracted to the wire only in moving frame !

[ Magnetic force cannot cancel the new electric force in S' frame ← Paradox ! ]

(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.

Anyon with "fractional" charge is unreal quasiparticle !

[ Quantum mechanics aims only at "unreal" many-worlds, quasiparticles. ]

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

According to, 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 × e2/h, they imagine fictitious anyons with fractional charge, which is just abstract math symbol with NO shape.  See this (1.1).

Why they blindly believe "meaningless" symmetry ?

[ Quantum wavefunction cannot be solved → unreal quasiparticle, symmetry ! ]

(Ou-1)   Energy is NOT conserved in every interelectronic distance (= r12 ).   

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 multielectron atoms, so all physicists can do is invent fictitious targets, instead of pursuing deeper mechanism ( ex Pauli exclusion ). So science stops.

Higgs is unreal,  standard model is wrong.

[ One neutron splits into a proton and heavy W boson (= 80 × protons mass ) !? ]

(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.

"Gauge symmetry" needs Higgs theory. ← NOT physics.

[ Gauge symmetry of standard model "lacks" physical meaning. ]

(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.

As seen in this and this, Higgs, electroweak theory pursue only meaningless ( gauge ) symmetry.
Quantum mechanics stops science, so "symmetry" is the only tool to develop theories.

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 ).

Photoelectric effect = "photon" is mind-control by textbooks.

[ Photoeletric effect related to light "frequency" (= f ) proves light is "wave" ! ]

(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 "wavelength" 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.

Pauli exclusion principle by "spin" is impossible.

[ Spin-spin magnetic interaction is too weak to explain Pauli exclusion principle ! ]

(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.

Quantum mechanics cannot explain Pauli exclusion principle.

[ "Anticommutation" of eletron's operators causes Pauli exclusion !? ← NOT physics ! ]

(Pa-2)   Anticommutation ( a1a2 = -a2a1 ) 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 Lubos Motl cannot answer these questions ( this, this ), indicating Lubos himself admits that black hole and inflation are impossible.

Phonon (= atomic vibration ) is "fictitious" quasiparticle.

[ "Phonon" is massless, but moves at sound speed ! Virtual phonon !? ← unreal. ]

(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.

Virtual "photon" shows quantum mechanics is wrong.

[ "Aether" was denied ? → Virtual photons exert Coulomb force ? ← tachyon ! ]

(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.

First, In the question of "What are photons ?", "Drakkith" and "DaleSpam" avoid photon's real images, just escaping into classical electromagnetic fields, because a photon is NOT a particle but "wave".

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

Virtual photon in QED is unrealistic "tachyon".

[ The square of virtual photon's mass is always "negative" ( m2 < 0 ) ! ]

(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 m2 ( = the square of mass < 0 ) !

In Vi-2, "me" 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, mec2 ).

If energy and momentum are conserved, emitted photon has "E- mec2" in energy, and momentum "p".
As you see Vi-2, the square of this emitted photon's mass becomes always negative ( mp2 < 0 ) !

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.

Why bloggers, media "hide" inconveninent facts of inflation ?

[ Very weak B mode light polarization (= 0.4 μK ! ) cannot remain for 13.8 billion years. ]

(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 3K cosmic microwave background (= CMB ).

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.

Energy is NOT conserved at all points in Schrödinger's helium.

[ Helium wavefunction cannot be solved → they just artificially "choose" it. ]

(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 (= r12 ).

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.

"Proof" of gravitational wave is false and unreasonable.

[ It's impossible very weak light pattern "remains" for 13.8 billion years ! ]

(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.

Michelson-Morley = Lorentz symmetry is wrong. --- Nature.

[ Aether moving with the earth can remove virtual particles and fatal paradoxes. ]

(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.

"Photon" is illusion, just electromagnetic wave. ---- Science.

[ Photon's shape changes !? → group velocity changes !? ← "Particle" is wrong. ]

(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.

Skyrmion is a "hotbed" of unreal monopoles, anyons.

[ Condensed matter is based on abstract (← NOT concrete objects ) math operators. ]

(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.

"Momentum" is NOT conserved in pair production !?

[ Positron and electron are created from light ← Momentum is NOT conserved ! ]

(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 2mc2 ( "m" is electron's mass ), the generated pair of electron and positron become at rest, according to rest mass energy

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.

Electron capture is real, "positron" emission is contradictory.

[ A part of the same transition energy is "teleported" to "unrelated" external electron in positron emission !? ]

(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 (= 2mc2 ).   This is far-fetched interpretation.

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.

Standard model, Higgs is doubtful and unreal.

[ Higgs (= 125 GeV ) decays into two W bosons (= 160 GeV ) !? ← unreal. ]

(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.

LHC cannot measure each kinetic energy of secondary particles.

[ To measure each "different" kinetic energy, we must try "different" electric fields in each particle. ]

(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.

Neutron star's "dense" mass is doubtful.   --- Pulsar.

[ Neutron's star "heavier" than Sun is rotating 20 times per second !? ]

(Pu-1)   Neutron star is 4 × 1014 times denser than the Sun !?   

Though recent news (, 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 × 1014 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.

Pulsar is rapid "oscillating" high energy matetial, NOT neutron star.

[ Estimation of neutron's "mass" is very doubtful. ]

(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.

NASA should stop wasting money in "imaginary" black hole.

[ Journals, Media must NOT use "black hole" (= NOT observed ) so lightly. ]

(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.

Energy conservation law is "violated" in quantum mechanical atoms !

[ Stationary wave functions → repulsive energy between two electrons increases to infinity ! ]

(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 (= r12 ) 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.

Higgs "analogue" means "fake" Higgs.   ------ Nat.Phys.

[ Higgs in superconductor makes "photon" (= light ) acquire "mass" !? ]

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

According to 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.

Feynman's thought on double-slit experiment is "fantasy".

[ Feynman's sum over all possibilities (= paths ) = unreal many-worlds ! ]

(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.

"Fractional" charge quark is too good to be ture.

[ Fractional charge quark can NEVER be isolated. Why the sum of them becomes just +e ? ← Too good ! ]

(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.