Youhei Tsubono, Japan

(7/18/2024) Debunk overhyped science news

- Summary of useless quantum mechanics (6/30/2024)
- Schrödinger equation is impractical, spawning unreal quasiparticle
- Quantum mechanics was useless for transistor and spintronics
- Electron spin is unreal
- Pauli principle, exchange energy are contradictory.
- Quantum mechanics hampers medicine and molecular machines
- Quantum mechanical DFT, MD are culprits of stopping science
- Density functional theory (= DFT ) is the useless mainstream method.
- Alphafold, AI are useless for proteins, drug discovery.
- Molecular dynamics (= MD ) stops all technologies.
- Quantum computer is the deadend fictional target.
- Quantum supremacy is fake, too error-prone.
- Quantum computer is useless for medicine.

- Quantum internet, information is hoax.
- Entanglement and teleportation are meaningless.

- Real Bohr model perfectly agreed with experimental results.
- Real Bohr-Sommerfeld fine structure, fake Dirac equation

- Einstein relativistic theory is false due to paradoxes
- Compute new Bohr's helium.

*(Fig.1) Unrealistic quantum mechanical model hampers science ↓*

- The stalled mainstream science makes our life unhappier.
- Journals' useless science allows universities to skyrocket tuition.
- Quantum mechanical unrealistic models hamper science.
- Unphysical Pauli exchange, DFT, MD models hamper science
- We should use experimental atomic shapes, forgetting useless quantum mechanics.
- Black hole, BigBang, quantum computer is pseudo-science.
- Spintronics is hindered by unreal spin model.
- Molecular machines unable to manipulate a single atom.

In fact, the present science and technology has been already a deadend with **No** more progress.

In spite of longtime researches, cancers, Alzheimer, HIV are still incurable due to the stalled medical research.

Renewable energy such as solar and wind-power generation, electric cars are still too expensive and too energy-inefficient to replace fossil fuel.

Nuclear fusion technology has stagnated, too.

Moore's law is already dead, and **No** more progress in computer or smartphone technology is expected.

Quantum mechanics (= based on unreal electron model ) was useless even for discovering transistors used in the current computers ( this p.16-1st-paragraph ), contrary to hypes.

The overhyped quantum computers are too error-prone to give right answers, and still **Not** computers nor calculators at all.

Quantum network, cryptography is also impractical forever due to too fragile quantum information or massive photon loss.

As shown in the industrial revolution, the **real** science and technology originally made our life **convenient** and happy.

But the current deadend (deceptive) mainstream science just makes our life **inconvenient** and **unhappy** by wasting taxpayers' money in still-useless expensive renewable energy, electric cars, gigantic particle colliders, non-existing concepts.

The present space industry is also stalled, just wasting money in trying to go to the moon, which was already done more than half a century ago (= No progress ).

And the current (fictional) science just imposed the **inconvenient** restriction such as COVID-19 lockdown, mandate of ineffective vaccines, gas stove ban..

The important point is that almost all the current researchers, whether in academic universities or private corporations, waste their time just to aim to publish papers in journals instead of really aiming to cure diseases or invent useful machines.

No matter how many times they published papers in prestigious academic journals, cancers and Alzheimer are still **incurable**, quantum computers are still far from reality (= rather regressing ) due to
the journals' impractical pseudo-science.

These (prestigious) academic journals and Nobel prize are used as a means to enable even the impractical pseudo-science to get **tax**payers' money as science research funds.

Basically, it is **impossible** for old-fashioned archaic universities with more than 100-year history to maintain the leading scientific positions (= deserving exorbitant tuition ) in the competitive science and technology field by overcoming many for-profit corporations and start-ups.

The trick is they impose the impractical pseudo-science on us as the mainstream science, colluding with academic journals to **suppress** the free new useful science and hamper
new technological innovation in all industries including private corporations and start-ups ( by "brainwashing" them using almost all the media and scientists ).

So the current impractical (unrealistic) mainstream science keeps giving the archaic universities the (pseudo-)scientific leading position and privilege (= by suppressing all industries ), and allows them to skyrocket tuition **limitlessly**.

↑ Even if you avoid going to universities. you can**not** advance science and technology freely under the current old impractical **restrictive** mainstream science where whether people graduate from (expensive) universities or not becomes the **only standard** for estimating their academic ability, which unreasonable repressive system keeps giving (pseudo-)scientific privilege to old archaic universities.

Originally, we can learn "science", even if we don't go to so expensive universities. So there is something **wrong** in the current science and educational system, whose impractical science is used just as political tools, making our life unhappier by causing skill-job mismatch, massive student loan, lower birth rate..

Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms are useless, unsolvable.

Physicists have to artificially choose **fake** solutions expressed as Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions, which are too complicated and time-consuming because all electrons must unphysically exchange their orbitals.

So they have no choice but to rely on unreasonable approximate band theory treating actual many-atomic material as one **fictional** electron ( this-2nd-paragraph, this-p.2-1.1 ) or quasiparticle model with fake (effective) mass ( this p.2 ) and pseudo-potential **lacking** real particle shapes.

Quantum mechanics tries to describe experimentally observed phenomena such as material's energy levels and conductance by using these fictional quasiparticle models with fake effective masses and charges ( this p.2 ).

For example, quantum mechanics tries to explain superconductor using fictional phonon and Bogoliubov quasiparticles **lacking** real particle shapes and picture ( this p.2 ).

And they try to express some electric conductance and magnetization by using fictional **fractional**-charge anyon quasiparticle or the unphysical spin-charge separation ( this p.29-30 ).

↑ How can you design and build useful molecular devices curing diseases from such fictional objects forced by quantum mechanics ? It's impossible.

The important point is that the unphysical quantum mechanics is **unable** to express any atoms and electrons as real particles with concrete **shapes** and size.

Quantum mechanics can only describe each particle, electron (= fermion ), photon, quasiparticle as **non**physical math symbols called creation (or annihilation ) operators (= each particle is denoted only as a^{†}, b^{†}, c^{†}.. ) with **No** concrete physical shapes ( this p.2-5, this p.3-5, this p.7-8, this p.4~6, this p.17 ).

So there is a wide **discrepancy** between the media's misleadingly colorful **fake** images of atoms and the unphysical shapeless quantum mechanical atomic models that are used by physicists ( this p.2~20, this p.2, this p.2~4 ).

This unphysical abstract quantum mechanical particle models (= just nonphysical symbols with No shapes ) can Not be utilized as tools to design or build useful molecular devices.

Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations are not only unsolvable (= unable to give true wavefunctions ) but also too time-consuming and too complicated to apply to actual many-electron materials.

Because those multi-electron unsolvable Schrödinger equations have to calculate **too many** time-consuming terms of (fake) chosen wavefunctions ( this p.3, this p.11, this p.14-lower, this-2.22 ).

So physicists had no choice but to adopt the ad-hoc unphysical approximate model to explain the actual material as one fictitious electron ( this p.2-1.1, this p.3-7 )

Quantum mechanical most-widely-used approximate model is density functional (= or Kohn-Sham ) theory (= DFT ) which unreasonably tries to describe the whole many-electron material as one-pseudo-electron ( density, this p.15 ) using artificially-chosen exchange-energy functionals ( this p.3-5 ), pseudo-potentials, pseudo-wavefunctions ( this p.5,p.29, this p.2-left ).

Like unsolvable Schrödinger equations that can**not** predict anything, this DFT depending on choice of many unphysical concepts (= exchange functional, pseudo-potential ) is also **neither** ab-initio nor able to predict anything ( this 7~9th-paragraphs, this p.23-lower ).

This unphysical DFT **lacking** real atomic picture or shapes ( this last-paragraph, this p.27 ) is the only method used to describe phenomena in the current condensed matter, chemistry, part of biology and the still-impractical exaggerated molecular machines.

So this impractical quantum mechanical DFT treating the whole material as non-existent one-pseudo-electron model ( this p.1-left ) is a main culprit of hampering all the current scientific and technological progress.

The reason why all the scientific fields have to rely on the useless one-pseudo-electron DFT model is quantum mechanical Pauli principle **lacks** reality.

Quantum mechanics tries to explain Pauli repulsive force, which can be felt by touching real objects as contact ( normal ) force, as paradoxical exchange energy lacking real (exchange) force ( this p.9 ).

↑ Energy without force contradicts reality, so it is **impossible** to express this unphysical Pauli exchange energy by real objects with real tangible **shapes** ( this p.6 ).

This unphysical Pauli exchange energy based on pseudo-kinetic energy change (= Not on real repulsive potential, this p.9-10 ) requires every single electron to exist in all different atoms or orbitals simultaneously, which is expressed as antisymmetric wavefunctions.

↑ This unrealistically-spreading single electron model forbids each atom from having its own boundary or shape.

Quantum mechanical Pauli principle expressed by unphysical exchange energy Not by real tangible objects (or real force ) is why quantum mechanical atoms cannot have shapes, defying reality, which hampers all the current science.

The current only method of simulating dynamical molecular and protein change is molecular dynamics (= MD, Other AI methods such as Alphafold can deal with only **static** proteins with low success rates ), which mainstream MD simulating method is too time-consuming, useless, **hampering** the current applied science.

This (ab-initio or classical) MD relies on pseudo-**potentials** (= Not on atoms with shapes ) called force fields which must be artificially chosen based on the unrealistic one-pseudo-electron DFT's pseudo-potential and fitting with experimental values ( this p.17,p.22,p.26, this p.2-right~p.3-left ).

This molecular dynamics (= MD ) based on one-pseudo-electron DFT's pseudo-potential also can**not** give real **shapes** to atoms, which is why MD is extremely time-consuming and **useless** for designing and building practical molecular devices.

This impractical MD unable to utilize real atomic shapes can Not know how and when atoms and molecules will move and collide (= MD is like groping in the **dark**, because of its blindness to atomic shapes ).

MD just repeats updating each (shapeless) atomic position by differentiating artificially-created pseudo-potentials or force fields at short-time intervals (= each time interval is only about 1~2fs ), many, many times ( this p.5-25 ), which takes **too much** time to simulate actual molecules or proteins.

↑ If we know the concrete shapes of individual atoms and molecules, we can know how and when two atoms, molecules, proteins will collide and move like predicting billiard balls' trajectory, even without the extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamics.

Actually, when we design and build practical cars, planes, machines from the parts with tangible shapes, we do **Not** rely on such impractical time-consuming one-pseudo-electron DFT or molecular dynamics (= MD ).

So all the current scientific and technological fields **stop** progressing by these impractical, unphysical one-pseudo-electron DFT model and the extremely-time-consuming MD simulating method.

Quantum mechanical model lacks reality and hampers science.

Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms are unsolvable ( this p.21 ), which means quantum mechanics can Not predict any atomic behavior except for one-electron hydrogen atom that "accidentally" agreed with the (realistic) Bohr model also in fine structure.

Quantum mechanics and its mainstream DFT just artificially choose fake trial wavefunctions, basis sets, pseudo-potentials, freely-adjustable parameters ( this p.4 ), which can **Not** know true physical values until those time-consuming calculated values based on artificial models are compared with experimental values ( this p.23, this p.1-last, this 3rd-paragraph ), because of **unsolvable** multi-electron Schrodinger equations.

Even quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) just artificially manipulates free parameters using unrealistic virtual particle models and ad-hoc renormalization canceling infinities to obtain experimental values with No ability to predict them ( this p.3-3.2, p.5-6.1, p.6-right-upper ).

So it is far better to use experimentally-observed values (= atomic shapes and properties ) from the **beginning** instead of **wasting** too much time in these meaningless time-consuming quantum mechanical equations and pseudo-models such as quasiparticles.

We proved quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations and probability wavefunctions are wrong and unreal. ← Quantum mechanics was proved to be **false**.

All great inventions such as Edison's light bulbs, the Wright brothers' airplanes ( even transistors ) came from actual experimental observation, trial-and-error approach, instead of "(fake) prediction" by some impractical theories.

Electromagnetic theory, Coulomb force, Newtonian mechanics are also based on actual **experimental** observation.

So using **experimental** values from the **beginning** is Not bad, rather indispensable for developing useful technology.

Maxwell theory "predicted" the (real) electromagnetic wave and its light speed c based on **empirical** electromagnetic theories discovered by other different scientists (= permittivities and permeabilities in different mediums must be **experimentally** obtained, **Not** from theories ).

Actually this predicted electromagnetic wave contributed to invention of **useful** technologies such as wireless communication and microwave oven (= because this predicted electromagnetic wave was **real** unlike fictional quasiparticle or paradoxical virtual particles ).

↑ The process of deriving the **real** physical concepts (= ex. electromagnetic wave ) from the **experimentally**-observed theory and values (= permittivities, permeabilities.. ) is necessary to develop further useful technology.

But the unphysical quantum mechanics based on fictional quasiparticle model with fake effective masses unreasonably **refuses** to derive the real physical concepts (= real atomic shapes, electron mass, charge.. ) from the experimental observation.

↑ This quantum mechanics refusing to use really-measured particles is why the current science is a deadend, just making our life inconvenient.

And these quantum mechanical pseudo-models (= fake effective mass, quasipaticles, negative kinetic energy, virtual particle.. ) can never clarify true physical mechanisms.

The problem is the paradoxical quantum mechanics can **Not** utilize even the experimentally-observed atoms with tangible shapes and electron mass.

Instead, quantum mechanics forces researchers to use fictional quasiparticle model, fake effective electron's masses, one-pseudo-electron DFT lacking real atomic shapes, pseudo-potentials, pseudo-wavefunctions, against actual observations.

↑ Quantum mechanics or DFT assumes that each electron spreads over the whole material as (unphysical) plane wave that cannot give boundaries nor shapes to individual atoms.

Unlike misleading colorful atomic picture with spherical shapes, quantum mechanical pseudo-atoms or electrons spreading as unphysical plane wave have **No** clear shapes ( this p.36-50, this middle, this p.16 ). ← Just using non-physical math operators or wavefunctions with No concrete particle figures.

Quantum mechanics unreasonably tries to express some experimentally-measured values (= energy, conductance.. ) by using unreal (quasi-)particle models with unreal (effective) mass and charge, which **prevents** researchers from utilizing the (fictional) quantum mechanical atoms (= disagreeing with actual particles with shapes ) for building useful molecular devices.

As you know, every real tangible object has the shape and size, which means each **atom** and molecule composing the tangible macroscopic objects must have its tangible **shape** and size.

Actually each atomic or molecular shape can be experimentally observed by atomic force microscope by measuring contact force or Pauli repulsion.

But the unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli exchange energy can **neither** use real (exchange) force ( this p.10 ) nor give actual shapes to individual atoms or molecules.

By using parts with actual tangible **shapes** and known properties, humans can design and build useful cars, planes, machines and laptops.

It is **impossible** to build such useful cars or machines **without** knowing actual shapes of individual parts or objects.

The fact that all the macroscopic objects and parts have their tangible shapes means the microscopic **atoms** and molecules also have their tangible **shapes** and sizes, which important fact was ignored by the current impractical quantum mechanics.

By using atomic force (or scanning tunneling ) microscopes, humans can already measure each single atomic shape, and manipulate each single atom or a molecule freely.

It means we **already** have the ability to **manipulate** individual atoms and molecules to design and build molecular devices useful for treating the current intractable diseases and efficient energy generation, which is hampered by unphysical shapeless quantum mechanical atomic model (= each electron spreading over all the different atoms as nonphysical plane wave or Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction prevents each atom from having boundary and shape ).

The current small-scale atomic force or scanning tunnel microscopes with only one probe are used just for impractical quantum mechanical researches.

If we increase the **number** of microscope probes (= atomic hands manipulating and grabbing atoms ) and introduce the speedy automation system, we can definitely build and mass-produce useful molecular nano-machines for treating diseases and highly energy-efficient artificial photosynthesis device.

The present unphysical quantum mechanics forces researchers to use the **impractical** one-pseudo-electron DFT model also when they model manipulation of a single atom using atomic force (or scanning tunnel ) microscopes ( this p.10(or p.9)-right-theoretical calculations ).

This (p.6-right-1st-paragraph) used DFT fictional pseudo-potential and empirical DFT-D2 intermolecular energy functional **lacking** real atomic shapes and ability to predict physical values

↑ This unphysical mainstream DFT treating the whole multi-electron material as one pseudo-electron model **lacking** individual atomic shapes clearly hinders nano-technology.

If researchers start to use experimentally-obtained actual atomic shapes and properties to develop useful technology, the **impractical** unphysical quantum mechanical (unreal quasiparticle) model and equations become **unnecessary**, which makes the academia and journals **lose** their old privilege based on the unphysical mainstream science.

↑ To **hide** this inconvenient fact that the current science has been **deadend** due to today's impractical unrealistic physics, academia and journals need to constantly spread **overhyped** fake science news.

*(Fig.S) Summary ↓*

See **useless** unphysical quantum mechanical model hampers all the science, so we should use experimentally-observed realistic atomic model, which will make academia and journals lose their old privilege.

Useless quantum mechanics needs **fictional** scientific targets such as BigBang, ( deadend overhyped ) quantum computers, information, spintronics, useless molecular machine, AI, Alphafold, .. and overhyped fake news.

The present cosmology is just imagining **illusory** black holes, worm holes (= time travel ? ), BigBang, which are completely useless meaningless concepts, and too far away to confirm as real.

Particle physics also just wastes taxpayers' money in gigantic meaningless colliders to pursue the illusory (= directly-undetectable ) ultra-short-lived particles (= with No physical shapes, these illusory particles are just nonphysical math symbols ) which are useless and too rare to distinguish from other irrelevant background noise.

Particle collider detectors' ( quantum ) efficiency of measuring energies is too low (= less than 100% ) to detect precise energies ( this p.10, p.18-lower ), so they deliberately picked up only convenient data ( this p.17-2nd-paragraph )

↑ Impossibility of detecting precise energy in the current chaotic particle colliders full of irrelevant background noise means **No** evidence of the existence of their ultra-short-lived doubtful particles.

So particle physics is completely useless, just wasting money.

If we think short-lived muons are just high-energy electrons or protons that can move a little longer, we do Not need such unstable useless muons.

We do Not need antimatter in PET (= positron emission ), which can be explained by realistic electron capture.

The current only theory of everything allegedly uniting (unphysical) quantum mechanics and Einstein relativistic theory is 10 or 11-extra-dimensional string (or M ) theory lacking reality (= these unphysical string theory's particles don't have concrete shapes, either. this p.4 = just nonphysical math symbols with **No** shape ).

The fact that Einstein relativistic theory is wrong due to its fatal paradoxes means all these relativistic (quantum) theories such as black holes, BigBang, particle physics, QED, 10-dimensional string theory, spin-orbit interaction are **wrong**, too.

Contrary to an incredible amount of overhyped news, quantum computer is too error-prone to give right answers.

The number of qubits (= quantum bits ) of the present standard quantum computers is only less than 100, which is far from millions of qubits which are said to be necessary for practical quantum computers or achieving quantum advantage ( this summary ).

So all the alleged quantum supremacy or advantage claims based on the error-prone quantum computers with only small numbers of qubits are **fake** and useless.

Contrary to hypes, quantum computers can **never** be useful for logistics (= annealing optimization = Not real quantum computers ), molecular energy calculations, or drug discovery.

Quantum information, cryptography, network.. using fragile photons or weak lights as messengers are also overhyped **pseudo**-science which is useless forever.

Because photons or weak lights are easily lost, which is too error-prone to send over long distance.

The alleged unhackable quantum cryptography can be explained by classical weak light, and quantum mechanics is **unnecessary**.

↑ The unphysical quantum photon does Not have real shape, either, which hampers science, too.

The illusory superluminal link called quantum entanglement and teleportation, which can neither send real information nor do any work, is also a **meaningless** useless concept, contrary to hypes.

Due to the unphysical useless quantum mechanical atomic model, all fields including biology, medicine, Alphafold, artificial intelligence (= AI ) are useless, unable to utilize real atomic model with actual shapes.

So only hypes remain.

Even the latest Alphafold-3 was still **unable** to predict many proteins or interactions ( this 5~6th-paragraphs ), because Alphafold gives only static protein conformations based on protein database **without** dealing with actual dynamical proteins' motions ( this-2nd-paragraph, this-abstract ) based on real atomic interaction.

An incredibly large amount of the groundless overhyped science news is harmful, because it just makes people **falsely** think the current science may be progressing or promising (= actually Not, which is why they need to spread overhyped news ), which eventually **prevents** developing really effective medical treatments and drugs, and **kills** patients.

A tiny (point-like) electron is Not actually spinning, which needs an **unrealistic** faster-than-light spinning to generate the observed magnetic moment.

The electron spin's ( measurable ) magnetic moment equal to Bohr magneton (= μ_{B}, this p.2 ) can be naturally explained by electron's orbital motion (= Not faster-than-light ), so the electron spin is unreal and **unnecessary**.

Giant magnetoresistance (= GMR ) representing spintronics used in hard disk drive (= which just measures electric resistance depending on magnetization direction. The unphysical spin itself is unmeasurable ) and MRAM (= magnetic random access memory ) **disagrees** with quantum mechanical spin.

This p.3-2nd~3rd paragraphs say

"The general
consensus (= quantum mechanical theory ) in the 1980s was that it was **not** possible to significantly improve on the performance of
magnetic sensors based on magnetoresistance.
Therefore it was a great **surprise** when in 1988 two research groups independently discovered materials
showing a very large magnetoresistance, now known as giant magnetoresistance (GMR)"

↑ Giant magnetoresistance (= GMR ) used in hard-disk drive completely **disagreed** with the conventional quantum mechanical spin theory, so greatly **surprised** researchers ( this-introduction-1st-paragraph ).

Only realistic electron's orbit can explain it.

The realistic electron's orbital motion (= whose magnetic moment or Bohr magneton accidentally agreed with electron's spin magnetic moment ) can naturally explain all these GMR, hard-disk drive and MRAM.

↑ Basically it is impossible for the **shapeless point**-particle electron's spin (= with no size ) to exert some force or torque on other electrons depending on its spin direction, while the realistic electron's orbital motion can easily exert physical force or torque through electric steric collision.

↑ Because the electron's orbital motion can exert different electric repulsions, depending on its (disk-shaped) orbital tilting direction, while the point-like electron spin with no size cannot ( even in ferromagnetism ).

So physicist just artificially fit freely-adjustable parameters to experiments in fictional spin-torque model **without** quantum mechanical calculation nor prediction ( this p.2-right-last, this p.24-left-3~4th-paragraphs ).

Quantum mechanics tries to treat the tiny transient magnetic fluctuation of materials (= which is just tiny electron's orbital fluctuation instead of unphysical spin, excited by laser light ) as (fictional) spin wave or magnon quasiparticles with **No** shapes.

Contrary to the overhyped narrative of spin wave with low energy dissipation, this spin wave is very **unstable**, **short-lived** (= spin wave lifetime is only ns ), able to propagate only micrometers μm (= so spin wave easily **loses** energy, contrary to hypes ), which too-short-lived spin wave can **Not** be used as practical tools for sending any information.

This 1st-paragraph says

"A long-range spin-wave propagation is observed with a decay length of up to (8.0 ± 1.5) **μm** and a large spin-wave lifetime of up to (44.7 ± 9.1) **ns**." ← Spin wave or magnetic fluctuation is too **short-lived** to use for practical application.

Topological insulator allegedly using this fragile spin wave at extremely-low temperature is also **useless** forever, contrary to many hypes ( this p.3-left-2nd-paragraph, this p.2 ).

This 1st, 7-8th paragraphs say

"Topological insulators are "**promising**" (= meaning "still useless" ) materials for application in electronics because they efficiently conduct electricity, reducing energy consumption (= false, **No** evidence of reducing energy consumption )"

"..Their application in consumer products is very **challenging** though, since they only function at very **low** temperatures (= needing very low temperature means the topological insulator consumes a **large** amount of energy, far from energy-efficient )."

"However, they are **Not** applied in consumer products yet, because they are difficult to make and can only operate at very **low** temperatures (= needing a lot of energy to keep very low temperature )."

"Science on these special insulators is **still** in the very fundamental phase. ‘Although use in consumer products is still a **long way off** (= topological insulator has **No** practical use )"

Contrary to hypes, there is **No** evidence of topological insulator with zero energy loss.

↑ If topological insulator really shows "zero energy loss", the electric conductance G must be infinite (= or resistance is zero ), but actually the topological insulator's electric conductance is Not so high ( this p.5-Fig.5a, this p.1-abstract,p.3-Fig.3-a,b, this p.2-Fig.1-b ), which means large energy loss.

This p.6-right used one-pseudo-electron DFT (= empirical ) with aritifically-chosen VASP pseudo-potential. ← **No** quantum mechanical prediction, and No true mechanism was shown.

Spin Seebeck effect allegedly generating this unstable spin current by temperature gradient is also extremely energy-**inefficient** and useless ( this p.79(or p.69)-1st-paragraph says However, the microscopic
mechanisms leading to such an imbalance are **still** under discussion = unclear ).

Spin Hall effect is said to cause tiny magnetization (= not by spin but by electron's orbit ) or new electric voltage from the electric current though Einstein relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction ( this p.10 ).

But this relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction is paradoxical and wrong. ← Fictional relativistic magnetic field is said to be generated by the fictitiously moving heavy nucleus only in the (abnormal) rest frame of an electron, **Not** in the normal rest frame of the nucleus ( this p.3-Fig.3 ), which is clearly paradox.

Furthermore, spin-Hall effect (seen in semiconductor ) **disagrees** with the original Einstein relativistic theory (= in vacuum, this p.6, this p.2-right-4th-paragraph ) in both the magnitudes and signs.

↑ So the actually-observed spin-orbit effect in material **contradicts** the original Einstein relativistic theory, **invalidating** the current mainstream theory.

Spin Hall effect is too weak and too fragile to be useful.

And spin hall effect can be naturally explained by classical Magnus effect caused by the electron's orbit colliding with other electrons instead of the paradoxical spin-orbit effect ( this p.3-lower, p.11-conclusion ).

Nitrogen vacancy center (= NVC ) in diamond is said to have several energy level splitting allegedly caused by electron spin under magnetic field, which can be used as a magnetic sensor.

But as I said, the unphysical electron spin has the **same** magnetic moment called Bohr magneton (= μ_{B}, this p.1-right-lower ) as the electron's orbit which can naturally explain the NV-center's energy splitting, so the (unphysical) electron spin is **unnecessary**.

NV-center in diamond is very unstable and easily **degraded**, so it is **useless**, hopeless as a magnetic (quantum) sensor ( this-abstract, this p.2(or p.1)-left-introduction-1st-paragraph, this-middle-challenge ), contrary to the media hype.

As you see, the unrealistic quantum mechanical models, which prevents researchers from understanding exact (= real ) physical mechanisms, has **hampered** the advancement of **all** the current applied and basic science including the (impractical meaningless)
time crystal,
quantum battery ( this-lower Discussion ) and "wonder graphene".

Quantum dot (= QD ) is a very tiny semiconductor material.

Each quantum dot is called "artificial atom" consisting of many (~10000) atoms.

Quantum dot has some discrete energy levels emitting light wave with some wavelengths related to its size, many-body effect and de Broglie wavelength ( this p.3 ) used in realistic atomic model (= Not fantasy quantum mechanics ).

Quantum mechanics just tries to explain the quantum dot by using fictional exciton quasiparticle model with fake effective mass in the band ( this p.2~6, this p.1,3 ), which can Not clarify the true mechanism.

*(Fig.A) Quantum mechanics is useless in medical research which relies on biological tools obtained from natural organisms.*

All the current biological and medical research tools such as DNAs, PCR polymerase came from **natural** organisms, **Not** from being designed by humans nor useless quantum mechanics that just **obstructs** medical development and curing diseases.

So humans can**not** design or manufacture truly-artificial proteins from scratch for new drugs or medical treatment, because of the 100-year-old obsolete impractical atomic model.

All researchers can do is just delete some genes of natural proteins (= called mutagenesis ) or fuse multiple **natural** proteins into one new recombinant protein by using biological tools such as PCR enzymes obtained from **natural** organisms.

1. obtain DNA genes encoding target natural proteins.

If this target protein is encoded in RNA or mRNA like RNA viruses, change the target RNA into DNA (= called cDNA ) by enzymes called reverse transcriptase that originated from natural retroviruses. → RT-PCR.

2. amplify the target DNA by PCR polymerases which enzymes originated from natural bacteria using primers that can encode restriction enzyme cutting sites and mutations.

3. cut the amplified DNA and plasmid vectors (= originating from bacterial viruses ) that already encode another (natural) protein such as green fluorescent proteins (= GFP originating from jellyfish ) by restriction enzymes (= originating from bacteria ).

4. insert the cut target DNA into the cut plasmid by ligase which enzyme originates from natural organism.

5. Infuse cultured cells or bacteria with these plasmids encoding the target protein genes (= called transformation or transfection ), and let them produce new recombinant proteins such as the target natural protein joined to GFP from jellyfish.

In the current biological and medical researches, the **only** way for researchers to guess the functions of proteins is ( unreliable ) antibodies obtained from immunizing natural animals.

They can only vaguely see whether antibodies with fluorescence may stick to target proteins macroscopically **without** knowing detailed molecular mechanisms between proteins and antibodies.

These biological methods using antibodies are immuno-fluorescence, western blotting, immuno-precipitation (= IP ), flow-cytometry, ELISA ( this p.4 ).

It is **impossible** to know where in the target protein the antibodies stick to or how proteins change their functions or conformations after interacting with antibodies. ← effective drug development is impossible.

Useless basic physics or quantum mechanics prevents medical researchers from utilizing detailed atomic interactions, hence, finding effective drugs and treatments for deadly diseases such as cancers and Alzheimer is impossible.

*(Fig.M) Science and technology stall by unphysical quantum mechanical DFT and extremely-time-consuming MD.*

Due to unphysical basic physics or quantum mechanics, the current medical research can **neither** utilize microscopic atomic interaction between proteins nor develop effective drugs.

Medical researchers unable to utilize the detailed atomic or molecular interactions can only **blindly** try to find miracle drugs out of infinite candidate molecules or herbs, which takes an enormous amount of time, and often fails.

This is why cancers, Alzheimer are still incurable despite longtime medical researches.

The current only hope or (hyped) immunotherapy using antibodies cannot cure deadly cancers, either.

Impractical quantum mechanics and its paradoxical Pauli repulsion expressed as unphysical antisymmetric wavefunction require every electron to unrealistically exist in all different atoms inside materials simultaneously.

So quantum mechanics can neither distinguish different electrons of different atoms nor give concrete shape, boundary to each atom, which fact prevents researchers from utilizing atoms or molecules as practical tools with concrete shapes for building useful nano-devices treating diseases.

In these unrealistic shapeless quantum mechanical atoms, physicists are forced to use impractical density functional theory (= DFT ) treating the whole material as one pseudo-electron model with artificial pseudo-potential, and fictional quasiparticle model.

To simulate molecular motions in these inconvenient shapeless quantum mechanical atoms, researchers have to rely on extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ) based on pseudo-potentials or force fields instead of realistic atomic model with shape.

So quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron DFT and extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ) based on unphysical shapeless atoms are the main culprit of obstructing all the applied science and preventing curing deadly diseases (= which means if we treat each atom and molecule as realistic tools with actual **shapes**, we can develop practical nano-technology ).

The current medical and biological tools do Not use these impractical quantum mechanics, DFT or molecular dynamics in researches on HIV ( this = this p.9-10 ), cancers ( this = this p.12-15, this = this p.18-23 ), Alzheimer ( this = this p.9-12 ) and stem cells ( this = this p.11-16 ).

↑ As a result, all the current medical and biological researches are **deadend, unable** to utilize (real) atomic interactions for developing effective drugs or treatments.

Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations can Neither be solved nor predict physical values in any multi-electron atoms or molecules ( this p.21 ).

Physicists have to artificially choose **fake** trial wavefunctions or basis sets, and adjust many free parameters in such unsolvable useless quantum mechanical equations (= Not real solutions, this 1st-paragraph ).

↑ Physicsts can choose **any** forms of (fake) trial wavefunctions or basis sets with **arbitrary** numbers of freely-adjustable parameters ( this 3~5th-paragraphs, this p.22-5.1 ), which is **Not** a prediction, because physicists just **repeat changing** trial wavefunctions in unsolvable Schrödinger equations **until** their chosen wavefunctions luckily give energies close to experimental values.

Also in the current mainstream quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron density functional theory (= DFT ), they have to artificially choose (fake) exchange-correlation potential functionals (= XC, this p.3-5 ) and create various pseudo-potentials to fit experimental results (= DFT is empirical or fake ab-initio, this p.23, this-3rd-paragraph ).

Molecular dynamics (= MD ), which is the current only mainstream simulating method, also has to artificially choose pseudo-potentials called force fields that are not only very time-consuming (= obstructing all the applied science ) but also unable to predict any physical values.

↑ So all the quantum mechanical methods just choosing fake wavefunctions and pseudo-potentials are **unable** to know true atomic energies or properties until physicists compare the results of the extremely-time-consuming, impractical quantum mechanical calculations with experimental values ( this p.1-last-paragraph, this p.2-2nd-last-paragraph ).

Then, it is far better and far more efficient to use the experimental values such as real atomic shapes or properties measured by the atomic force or scanning microscopes from the beginning for designing and building practical molecular devices like building useful cars, planes and machines.

Unphysical quantum mechanical models lacking real atomic picture or shapes ( this last-paragraph, fictional quasiparticle models that can**not** clarify real physical mechanism ) clearly prevent researchers from utilizing atoms or molecules as practical tools for building useful real nano-machines.

We have to use experimental results or observation (= such as real atomic shapes ) **from the beginning** instead of wasting too much time in the time-consuming impractical quantum mechanical equations (= which cannot know true atomic values until physicists compare their time-consuming meaningless calculation values with experimental results ) which unrealistic quantum mechanical model (= without real atomic shapes ) just **hampers** scientific development.

*(Fig.B) Quantum mechanics based on fictional quasiparticle model with unreal electron's effective mass and one-pseudo-electron DFT method with artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials has No power to predict or invent useful technologies.*

Contrary to an incredible amount of **hypes**, the unphysical quantum mechanics was **useless** for inventing computer's transistors, tunneling, spintronics, NMR, atomic clocks, electron microscopes..

Nuclear magnetic resonance (= NMR ) and atomic clocks rely on **experimentally**-observed atomic energy levels, which could Not be predicted by (useless) quantum mechanics that cannot solve any Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms.

The baseless claim that quantum mechanics might have contributed to computer's transistors came from quantum tunneling and (unphysical) band theory.

In quantum tunneling, which was an experimentally observed thing that did **Not** need quantum mechanical theory, a small amount of electric current can flow over extremely **short** distance less than only 1 nanometer (< 1nm ) under applied voltage, as shown in scanning tunneling microscope.

Quantum mechanics **ridiculously** insists this tunnel current is caused by (unrealistic) negative kinetic energy of flowing electrons (fictitiously) surpassing bigger Coulomb potential barrier of very thin insulators such as empty vacuum and air (= actually, No barrier ).

Of course, quantum mechanical electrons with the **unrealistic** negative kinetic energies can **never** flow as real tunnel current ( this p.8-4. ), because the negative kinetic energy means "non-existent **imaginary** velocity or negative mass"

We can naturally explain this quantum tunneling in a realistic classical way where electrons (= with **positive** kinetic energy ) can flow over an extremely short distance (< 1 nm ) by thermal fluctuation or interference of de Broglie wave (= of realistic atomic model ) that has energy enough for electrons to modify Coulomb energy as seen in electrons' interference, diffraction and electron microscopy.

Contrary to the hyped standard explanation, ( fictional ) quantum mechanics has **never** contributed to any technologies such as computer's transistors or smartphone.

Because the original Schrödinger equations can neither have true solutions nor predict any multi-electron atomic behavior.

Even their approximation took too much time to deal with many-electron solids or transistors ( this p.1-2nd-paragraph, this-introduction-3rd-paragraph ).

The useless quantum mechanics giving up real atomic picture has relied on unphysical band model consisting of **illusory** electrons and quasiparticles with fictitious ( negative ) effective mass, which is useless, unable to predict any physical phenomena including semiconductors and transistors.

Researchers found semiconductors suitable for transistors that could control their electric resistance through ( classical ) trial-and-error approach and accidental serendipitous discovery.

Quantum mechanics was completely **useless** and irrelevant, as shown in the fact that all the explanations of transistors use realistic Bohr's atomic model instead of unphysical quantum mechanical electron-cloud wavefunction.

This 4th-paragraph says

"Bardeen suggested they replace the silicon with germanium. They got a current jump.. -- but in the exact **opposite** direction they'd expected ( this-p.2-middle-1st-paragraph )" ← **No** quantum mechanical prediction

This-lower-Trial and Error says

"the foundations of transistor electronics were created by making **errors** and following hunches that **failed** to give what was expected"

This p.16-1st-paragraph says

"there still is **No** really adequate quantitative
theory explaining the working of the point contact transistor... who observed something that
they were **not** looking for or expecting (= **No** quantum mechanical prediction )."

One of transistor inventors, Shockley said in this lecture ↓

p.14-2nd-paragraph says "they are **Not** yet adequately explained quantitatively. The **discrepancy** between simple theory
and experiment.. is, from deviations from the single (fictitious) effective-mass model of semiconductors"

p.15-1st-paragraph says "It was
**difficult** at the time to interpret these procedures from an atomic point of
view and this is still true at present (= quantum mechanical atomic theory is **useless** )."

This another Shockley paper ↓

p.11-last says "The effective mass concept.. may **Not** necessary be correct."

p.20-2~3rd paragraphs says "exact theory.. has **Not** been developed.... phonon (= fictional quasiparticle )"

"two constants were arbitrary chosen to fit (= No quantum mechanical prediction).. effective electron mass.. "

*(Fig.S) Giant magnetoresistance = spintronics contradicts quantum mechanics.*

In fact, spintronics or giant magnetoresistance (= GMR ), which was discovered in 1980s and applied to hard disk, **contradicts** quantum mechanical theory, contrary to hypes.

In GMR, the electric resistance of two ferromagnetic layers having parallel magnetization is lower than the resistance of two ferromagnetic layers having the anti-parallel (= opposite ) magnetizations.

In case of non-giant magnetoresistance (= MR ), the very old Mott model vaguely says the higher electric resistance of two ferromagnetic layers with antiparallel magnetizations may be caused by (fictional) electrons' opposite spins more likely to scatter than the parallel ferromagnetic magnetization ( this 1.1.2 ).

But quantum mechanics was useless, **unable** to explain the detailed microscopic mechanism of magnetic resistance ( this p.1-left-1st-paragraph, this p.4(or p.5)-last ), and the magnetic interaction between two electrons' spins is known to be too weak to cause some observed phenomena ( this p.17 ).

This p.1-right-2nd-paragraph says

"To take account all of the potentials into the
GMR model is **not** an easy task. The Mott model.. provides qualitative result for the GMR, but still **Not**
explain the microscopic mechanism inside the GMR. "

Even quantum mechanical Pauli exclusion's unphysical exchange energy could Not give the satisfying explanation of magnetoresistance.

This introduction-2nd-paragraph says

"the underlying physics of GMR and the interlayer exchange coupling are broadly understood. Nevertheless, when it comes to detail, **discrepancies** between experimental observations and theoretical models can arise: "

Quantum mechanics indicated giant magnetoresistance (= GMR ) was **impossible**, so the **unexpected** discovery of GMR in 1980s **surprised** physicists very much ( this-10th-paragraph, this p.2-left-2nd-last-paragraph, this p.1-right,p.4 ).

This p.3-2~3rd paragraphs say

"The general
consensus (= quantum mechanics ) in the 1980s was that it was **not** possible to significantly improve on the performance of
magnetic sensors based on magnetoresistance.
Therefore it was a **great surprise** when in 1988 two research groups independently discovered materials
showing a very large magnetoresistance, now known as giant magnetoresistance (GMR)" ← The existing quantum mechanical theory **failed** ( This p.1-introduction )

Even now, quantum mechanics is **unable** to explain the physical mechanism of giant magnetoresistance (= MR ) or spintronics used in the practical hard disk ( this p.1-left, p.6, this p.10th-paragraph, this p.3-middle-2nd-paragraph ).

This p.12-2nd-paragraph says

"there is **No** theoretical
model... further theoretical study is highly
required to quantitatively describe the giant MR (= magnetoresistance )"

So contrary to the hypes, spintronics is completely **inconsistent** with the failed quantum mechanical (spin) model.

If we use the realistic electron's orbital motion instead of the unrealistic spin, we can naturally explain this giant magnetoresistance (= when two electrons' orbital motions are anti-parallel, their antiparallel orbits with the opposite de Broglie wave directions tend to **crash** each other, and raise **resistance** ).

See this page.

**No** quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations for any multi-electron atoms or hydrogen molecule ion have true solutions ( this p.21, this p.6-lower ).

Physicists have to artificially choose fake trial wavefunctions or basis sets with many fitting parameters for unsolvable Schrödinger equations, which is called variational method.

↑ Quantum mechanical variational method can**not** know true atomic energies or wavefunctions until physicists compare the calculated results with experiments ( this p.2-2nd-last-paragraph ), which means quantum mechanics intrinsically has **No** ability to predict any physical values, contrary to hypes.

Even these quantum mechanical approximate methods artificially choosing (trial) wavefunctions such as configuration interaction (= CI ) can Not deal with actual atoms, solids, semiconductors ( this p.11, this p.7-lower, this p.6-lower ), so the inventions of transistors and spintronics have **nothing** to do with quantum mechanical prediction.

So physicists tend to rely on one-pseudo-electron density functional theory (= DFT ) based on artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials that also can Not predict any physical values, and it stops scientific development ( this p.16, this p.1, this p.8 ) forever.

*(Fig.D) Density functional theory (= DFT ) based on one-pseudo-electron model, artificially-chosen exchange-correlation functionals, pseudo-potentials cannot predict anything.*

Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms and molecules are unsolvable, useless, unable to predict any physical values.

So quantum mechanics has to artificially choose fake solutions called trial wavefunctions or basis set with arbitrary numbers of free-adjustable parameters, which chosen fake wavefunctions must be antisymmetric with respect to exchanging all different electrons in different orbits to satisfy unphysical Pauli principle.

↑ Calculation of these artificially-chosen fake (Pauli antisymmetric) wavefunctions by multi-electron Schrödinger equations is useless, too time-consuming to deal with actual multi-electron material ( this p.2-3, this-2.21-2.22, this p.11 ), which needs ad-hoc one-pseudo-electron (= quasiparticle ) approximation ( this p.2-1.1 ).

So quantum mechanics was forced to adopt ad-hoc density functional theory (= DFT ) or Kohn-Sham theory, which can only describe any materials, molecules and solids as one-pseudo-electron model with artificially-created potentials called exchange-correlation functionals and pseudo-potentials ( this p.3-5, this p.12-13, this p.8, this p.2-4 ).

Like unsolvable useless Schrödinger equations, this DFT is also unsolvable, useless, unable to predict any values.

DFT has to adjust parameters or coefficients to give lowest energies (= like variational approximate method ) within artificially-chosen fake wavefunctions (= density ) called basis sets, exchange-correlation energy functionals and pseudo-potentials in its self-consistent method ( this p.11, this p.10 ).

Of course, this fictitious one-pseudo-electron model of DFT often expressed as unphysically-spreading pseudo-wavefunction or plane wave is **unreal** with **No** physical meaning ( this-last-paragraph, this-p.3-2.2, this p.2-1~2th-paragraphs, this p.15, this-p.21-3rd-paragraph, this-p.17(or p.5)-2nd-last-paragraph, this-p.8-5th-paragraph ).

↑ Unphysical DFT one-pseudo-electron model **lacking** real individual atomic shapes hampers scientific progress.

This unrealistic mainstream DFT model is also used to express fictional quasiparticle model with fake effective mass and pseudo-spin ( this p.27 ) and all materials such as metals, semiconductors, superconductors, molecules, which hampers science.

DFT just artificially chooses different **illusory** potentials or ( unknown ) exchange-correlation functionals (= unphysical fake exchange energy for one-pseudo-electron model ) in different materials ( this-3rd-paragraph ), and there is No universally-correct exchange-correlation functional ( this p.3-right, this p.13-14, this p.1-left, this-introduction-1st-paragraph, this-introduction-1st-paragraph ).

↑ One pseudo-electron DFT (= Kohn-Sham theory ) replacing multi-electron Schrodinger equation has to create fake one-pseudo-electron exchange energy called exchange-correlation (= XC potential energy) functional, which must be the universal and common
form in all differrent molecules and materials, but finding the universally-correct exchange functional is **impossible**. ← DFT is a **failed** theory.

No matter what exchange-correlation functional is invented someone will always find a case where it fails ( this-p.7, this-p.17, this p.1-2nd-paragraph ).

Quantum mechanics, which cannot solve any Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms, has **No** truly-ab-initio or first-principle method that can "predict" physical values.

As a result, DFT is a fake ab-initio or empirical theory based on artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials or exchange-correlation functionals ( this-p.23, this-p.10-2nd-paragraph, this-p.11-left, this-3rd-paragraph, this-7-8th-paragraphs ) that cannot predict any atomic energies or physical values ( this-p.7-2nd-paragraph, this-p.2-last ).

Then, it is far better to use the experimental results (= ex. real atomic shapes and properties ) **from the beginning** than to waste too much time in quantum mechanical useless time-consuming equations,

*(Fig.P) Density functional theory (= DFT ) treats the whole solid as one-pseudo-electron model spreading as unphysical plane wave through pseudo-potential.*

Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations can**not** predict any multi-electron atomic energies, and even their ad-hoc approximation just choosing fake trial wavefunctions can Not deal with molecules, solids, semiconductors.

So the **useless** quantum mechanics has to rely on density functional theory (= DFT or Kohn-Sham theory ) unscientifically treating any materials as one-pseudo-electron approximate model with artificially-chosen exchange-correlation functionals (= fake exchange energy for one-pseudo-electron version ).

Furthermore, DFT also has to artificially create and choose unreal pseudo-potentials (= fake Coulomb energy potential ) for atoms inside materials due to the useless Schrödinger equations or all-electron methods ( this p.1-left-1st-paragraph, this p.17 ), including paradoxical relativistic spin-orbit pseudo-potential ( this 2~3rd-paragraphs ).

Almost all the current condensed matter researches rely on these artificially-created pseudo-potentials and pseudo-wavefunctions with **No** power to predict experimental values = DFT is fake ab-initio ( this p.6-right-DFT simulation, this p.2-left-3rd-paragraph, this p.4-2nd-last-paragraph ).

DFT trying to use one-pseudo-electron model spreading over the whole material as unphysical plane wave through pseudo-potential is **impractical**, unable to give actual shapes to individual atoms or molecules ( this p.3-2.1 ), which obstructs scientific progress.

Choice of pseudo-potentials is Not unique ( this p.7-last ), choice of bad pseudo-potentials gives **wrong** results ( this p.2-fear, this p.14-disadvantage, this p.2-left-2nd-paragraph ).

This p.3-1.3 ( and p.4 ) about how to create artificial pseudo-potentials says

"one checks whether the resulting PP (= pseudo-potential ) is actually working. If not,
one **tries** again in a different way"

"The second and third steps are closer to **cooking** than to science. There is a large
**arbitrariness** in the preceding step"

"**choose** the generation parameters" ← **Not** ab-initio method at all

All quantum mechanical methods such as VASP, Espresso, PAW (= projector augmented wave ) have to artificially choose these fake pseudo-potentials, bond-length, lattice parameters ( this 3rd-paragraph, this p.2, this p.18 ).

See examples of these fictional DFT pseudo-potentials used in researches.

Ordinary DFT's exchange correlation functionals are known to disagree with energies and band gaps in metals, semiconductors and strongly-correlated materials.

So in solids and metals, physicists also have to use additional freely-fitting empirical potential parameters called "Hubbard U or V, J (= additional fake Coulomb energy potential for metals )" to describe experimental values with **No** power to predict them ( this-introduction, this-abstract, this-p.2-1~3rd-paragraphs, this p.15-4, this p.3-right-2~3rd-paragraphs, this p.1-left-last-paragraph
).

Ab-initio methods of determining these U parameters (= ex. linear response, cRPA ) must rely on artificially-chosen **pseudo**-potentials ( this-p.9-left-2nd-paragraph, this-lower-caveat, this p.4-left-1st-paragraph, this-8th-paragraph ), wavefunctions ( this p.2-right-2nd-paragraph, this p.3-1st-paragraph ), and often fail ( this p.3-3rd-paragraph, this-p.6(or p.5)-last, this-p.8-Table I-headline, this p.2--left-1st-paragraph ).

As a result, quantum mechanical mainstream one-pseudo-electron DFT model based on artificially-chosen pseudo-potential and Hubbard-U parameters is useless, unable to predict anything, and its unphysical shapeless wavefunctions obstruct science.

Then, it is far better to use the experimental results (= ex. real atomic shapes and properties ) **from the beginning** than to waste too much time in quantum mechanical useless time-consuming equations,

Not only artificially-created pseudo-potentials but also all-electron full potential methods are **fake** ab-initio, **unable** to predict any physical values such as atomic or band energies, and they have to **artificially choose** energy parameters.

Because also in all-electron full potential method (= instead of pseudo-poential ). multi-electron Schrödinger equations are unsolvable and impossible to apply, so physicists have to rely on unphysical one-pseudo-electron DFT approximation with fake exchange energy functional and artificially-chosen potential energy, which is unable to give true potential energy or predict any values.

All-electron full-potential methods containing APW, LAPW, FP-LAPW (= full-potential-linearized augmented plane wave ) divide molecules or solids into two regions of atomic (sphere) core region and interstitial region containing valence electrons with unphysical plane wave (= No physical meaning, this p.3-2nd-last-paragraph ) and fictitious constant potential V (= fitting parameter, this p.3-left ).

So this all-electron full-potential method also has to artificially choose different radii of (fictional) atomic core (= called Muffin-tin or MT radius ) in different atoms, which is one of freely-fitting parameters ( this p.27-32 ).

Besides this atomic core radius, the all-electron full-potential method has to artificially choose energy parameters (= E_{l} ) in different orbitals (= core, semi-core, local-orbitals, valence electrons' orbitals ), instead of finding these energy parameters by ordinary variational methods ( this-p.10-11,p.23-24, this p.6-12, this p.6-left, this p.44, this p.8,p.28-32, this p.24(or p.9)-2nd-paragraph, this p.20-lower ).

This-p.31(or p.29)-4.5.2 says

"In order to minimize the linearization error, the **energy parameters** should be **chosen** as
close to the band energies as possible. However, the band energies ε(k) depend on k
whereas the energy parameters E_{l}
are constants. In addition, the radial functions contribute to the eigenfunctions of different band with different energies. Therefore, deviations between ε(k) and E_{l} have to be accepted.

This p.1-right-last~p.2-left says

"However, approaching the complete basis limit using the FLAPW (= full-potential ) method still requires expert **knowledge**, e.g., of the atomic electronic structure in order to define the local orbital basis at appropriate **energies**, **choosing** parameters such as the MT radius and angular momentum cut offs, and controlling the linearization error."

This p.4-right-2nd-last-paragraph says

"A clever **choice** of **energy** parameters E_{tℓ} is
essential for accurate results, and WIEN2k has several automatic
ways to make an optimal choice in most cases

The energy parameters
of all other valence states are set to 0.2 Ry below E_{F} (← artificially chosen instead of variational method = variational methods are applied only to some coefficients, Not to energy parameters ). "

This p.92(or p.89)-2nd-paragraph says

"In the calculations the **energy parameter** is **varied** between −0.29 and 0.08 Htr (≈
between −7.9 and 2.2 eV) relative to the Fermi energy. Within this interval we observe that the conventional LAPW basis (= all electron, full-potential ) yields a strong **dependence** of the total energy on the **choice** of the **energy** parameter"

This p.4-2nd-paragaph says

" Unlike the APW case, the KS secular
equation in the LAPW basis (= all electron ) is of the ordinary linear variational form. The only user-dependent **choices** are the reference **energies** and muffin-tin **radii**"

This p.4-left-2nd-paragaph says

"The basis functions, defined in Eq. (16), can represent only those wave functions accurately whose energies
are sufficiently close to the **energy parameters**..

For semicore states, which are nearly dispersionless, the energy parameter is fixed at the semicore
energy level."

As a result, the present mainstream one-pseudo-electron DFT approximate method has to artificially choose pseudo-potential energy or choose energy parameters (= full-potential method, this-(5) ), which is useless, unable to predict any physical values.

Ab-initio (constrained-) random phase approximation (= cRPA ) is said to guess Hubbard interaction energy U parameters (= this ad-hoc U energy parameter must be often empirically chosen ).

But even this cRPA is Not true ab-initio, hence, can**not** predict any physical values such as Hubbard U Coulomb interaction energy parameters in solids.

The random phase approximation (= RPA ) often uses all-electron (full-potential) linearized augmented plane wave method (= LAPW ) that must artificially **choose energy** parameters in different bands ( this p.4-right ). ← **Not** prediction of energies

This cRPA's (fake) prediction of Hubbard U or Coulomb interaction parameters heavily relies on the artificially-**chosen parameters** such as band energies ( this p.2-3rd-paragraph ), energy window (= choose which energy bands should be included in estimating Hubbard U parameters, this p.6-D, this p.14,p.16-3.5 this-p.3-III,Table.I ), Muffin-tin atomic radius, lattice parameters, basis-set ( Wannier ) wavefunctions ( this p.5-right, this p.5-D. this p.47, this 6~9th-paragraphs ) with **No** quantum mechanical prediction.

In addition to this artificially-chosen energy parameters, calculated energies and Hubbard U interaction values are affected by various ad-hoc **freely-adjustable** parameters such as Slater integrals (= F, this 5~7th-paragraphs, this p.8-9, this p.2-right ), double-counting energy correction ( this p.10-2.1, this p.3-left-2~3rd-paragraphs ), and energy frequency (= ω, this p.28,43,69, this p.15, this p.7,p.9 ) in DMFT.

As a result, all quantum mechanical methods are **unable** to predict any physical values (= so they are **fake** ab-initio or fake first-principle ) due to their dependence on **artificially-chosen** fitting parameters.

Density functional theory (= DFT ) is known to be unable to explain intermolecular dispersion van der Waals attraction and Pauli repulsive energies.

So DFT often relies on empirical dispersion (= van der Waals energy ) functionals called Grimme's DFT+D2, DFT+D3 ( this-abstract ) with several freely-adjustable parameters ( this p.4 ) with **No** prediction power.

Other dispersion functionals such as vdW-DF2, PBE-vdW also often **failed** ( this p.6-right-3rd-paragraph, this p.3-last-paragraph ).

*(Fig.C) All of Alphafold, docking softwares, molecular dynamics (= MD ) are unable to simulate practical proteins' conformational change due to unphysical quantum mechanical atoms with No shapes.*

All the current mainstream quantum mechanical methods, the most-widely-used one-pseudo-electron DFT, (pseudo-)classical molecular dynamical (= MD ) simulation are **unable** to explain molecules, solids, proteins, biology, and **useless** for drug discovery.

So Alphafold or ( hyped ) AI tries to predict only proteins' **static** structures ( this-2nd-paragraph ) based on experimentally-observed protein structure data bank (= PDB, this p.2-right ) **without** considering detailed atomic interactions nor using (useless) quantum mechanics.

This Alphafold(-2 or AF2 ) just giving one static (virtual) protein structure based on experimentally-obtained database can **Not** simulate proteins' conformational change or protein folding ( this 29~35th-paragraphs, this 5th-last-paragraph ).

Alphafold is also **unable** to predict proteins' interactions, docking or drug **interactions** ( this-abstract-lower, this-summary-lower, this p.18-19-what will this mean ).

This p.1-Abstract says

"AlphaFold does **Not** resolve the decades-long protein folding challenge, **nor** does it identify the folding pathways"

This or this 5-6th paragraphs say

"using the AlphaFold structures gives significantly **worse** results than docking into the pocket determined by experiment."

Furthermore, Alphafold cannot deal with proteins with mutations, post-translational-modification (= phosphorylation ) or molecules (= lipids, nucleotides ) except proteins ( this p.5-right-3~4th-paragraphs, this 7-10th-paragraphs, this 13~17th-paragraphs, this p.10-left-lower ).

As a result, all the current protein simulating methods including Alphafold, AI, quantum mechanics and molecular dynamics are unable to contribute to discovery of drugs or medical treatments forever.

The 11th paragraph of this hyped news also admits

"But the antibodies that RFdiffusion churned out are a **long way** from reaching the clinic. ← They tried to design artificial antibodies (= whose effectiveness is still unclear, so still Not antibodies ) bound to target molecules with **very low** success rate ( this p.6-last-paragraph )."

The overhyped news **misleadingly** claims "AlphaFold 3, an AI model that can predict the structure and interactions of all biological molecules with extreme accuracy"

↑ If they were confident that this latest Alphafold 3 can predict biological molecules so accurately, why do they need to keep it secret ? ← strange.

Even this latest Alphafold 3 can**not** predict protein interaction, as shown in their Nature paper ↓

p.2-Fig.1-c shows **success** rates of nucleic acids and protein-antibody interaction of this Alphafold3 (= AF3 ) were still only **40 ~ 60 %**, which **low** success rates can**not** be used for developing safe effective drugs.

p.6-left-2nd-paragraph says "they
typically predict **static** structures as seen in the PDB, **not** the dynamical
behaviour of biomolecular systems in solution. This limitation **persists**
for AF3 (= Alphafold-3 also can**not** explain dynamical molecular motions nor the true mechanism of protein folding )"

p.6-right-last-paragraph says "Despite the large advance in modelling accuracy in AF3, there are
still **many** targets for which accurate modelling can be **challenging** (= even the latest Alphafold 3 or AF3 is **unable** to predict many proteins )"

↑ The current AI methods such as Alphafold-2,3 based only on experimentally-obtained (whole) proteins' **static** structures ( this p.7-8(or p.2-3), PDB, RNA database ) **without** considering individual atomic (dynamical) interactions are **unable** to explain true biological behavior.

This paper ↓

p.4-right-3rd-paragraph says "AlphaFold 3 does **Not** predict the Watson-Crick interactions
well..

These results show the **limitations** of AlphaFold 3 for
predicting complex RNA interactions."

p.5-left-1st-paragraph says "Our results show that AlphaFold 3 has **Not** yet reached the
same success as proteins for RNAs. Its new architecture allows the prediction of wide molecules but remains **limited**
and **hardly** predicts non-Watson-Crick interactions."

*(Fig.M) Molecular dynamics, which is the current only and fastest simulating method, is useless, too time-consuming to simulate even micro-second biological reactions.*

All the present protein docking tools are useless with **bad** success rates of predicting protein interaction ( this-p.12-2nd-paragraph, this-p.4-right, this-p.5-2nd-paragraph ).

Alphafold (or Alphafold-2 = AF2 ) can only predict some proteins' **static** structures (= with still-low success rate ) based on experimentally-obtained protein structure database, which can **Not** predict molecular dynamical change nor interactions between proteins, drugs.

To precisely explain protein interaction or docking, we have to know proteins' conformational **change** in the process of docking, which is extremely difficult.

The present docking tools can deal only with **static** useless proteins (= rigid ) and small conformational change of several side-chains of amino-acids (= flexible ) with low success prediction rate, and they can **Not** simulate proteins' **backbone** conformational change ( this p.3-last, this p.2-2nd-paragraph, this-4.conclusions-last-paragraph, this-p.12-right-2nd-paragraph ) that is important for many biological reactions.

Molecular dynamics (= MD ) is the current **only** method of simulating proteins' and molecular dynamical motions or conformational change ( this 4th-paragraph ), but MD is impractical, too time-consuming, one of main culprits **stopping** all the applied science, medicine from progressing.

Molecular dynamics (= MD ), which is the current **only** method of simulating motions or conformational change of molecules and proteins, is useless, too time-consuming to simulate important proteins and molecules, so hampers all the applied science.

Multi-electron Schrödinger equations are unsolvable, useless and too time-consuming, so unphysical DFT approximation treating the whole multi-electron material as one-pseudo-electron or quasiparticle model is the current **only** mainstream quantum mechanical method.

↑ These quantum mechanics and one-pseudo-electron DFT models use artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials lacking real individual atomic shapes, which is why even the current only molecular simulating method or MD also cannot deal with individual atoms with real shapes, which is extremely inconvenient and impractical.

This (pseudo-)classical molecular dynamics (= MD ), which also cannot give actual shapes to individual atoms, treats atomic and molecular interactions as **fictional** springs which pseudo-potential between fictional atoms (= without electrons nor shapes ) is called force field.

Parameters of these MD pseudo-potentials or force fields must be often derived from the unphysical one-pseudo-electron DFT's pseudo-potentials ( this p.2-left-2nd-paragraph, this p.1-2 ) or determined empirically ( this p.3-3rd-paragraph ).

These MD pseudo-potential or force fields often give wrong simulating results ( this p.5-limitation, this p.2-left, this p.2-2nd-paragraph ).

This p.2-left-3rd-paragraph says

"use of ab initio results by themselves is Not sufficient" ← Quantum mechanics is **useless** for molecular dynamical simulation.

These pseudo-potentials or force fields always bridge different atoms or molecules like artificial springs (= even in intermolecular interaction ), which is **unable** to give boundaries or shapes to individual atoms, obstructing practical science.

All the quantum mechanical model **lacks** real individual atomic shapes, as shown in the most-widely used one-pseudo-electron density functional theory (= DFT ).

So the classical molecular dynamics (= MD ) under the influence of the unphysical quantum mechanics is also **Not** allowed to give concrete shape to each atom.

Instead, MD updates each atomic position by differentiating pseudo-potential or force field (= V or U ) and giving the fictitious force (= F = ΔV or ΔU ) at short time intervals repeatedly, many, many times ( this or this p.5-25, this p.1-14, this p.2-4 ).

↑ So the molecular dynamics (= MD ) has to move each atom little by little, very very slowly, taking extremely much time, hampering science, because it is **hard** to know when the quantum mechanical **shapeless** atoms unreasonably collide or overlap with each other, causing errors.

Each time interval or step must be less than 2 femtoseconds (= 2fs = 2 × 10^{-15} s ), so simulation of the 1-μs (= 1 × 10^{-6} s ) motion of a molecule or a protein needs as many as 10^{9} time steps of calculating and updating each atomic position, which unrealistically takes **too much** time.

This 3~5th-paragaraphs say

"To obtain accurate predictions, molecular dynamics uses a stepping scheme, in which the system is approximated not in one whole step, but over thousands of smaller “time steps”. This requires that each step must be small, and our current capabilities allow for steps that are about a femtosecond ( 10^{-15}s = fs ) long."

"However, many biomolecular events occur in the range of milliseconds and seconds. The time scale difference between the integration time step and the time of biological events implies that about **10 ^{12}** integration (= calculation ) steps must be completed to reach a millisecond-scale event."

"Models of biological systems are large and frequently include hundreds of thousands of particles. Therefore, even the calculation of a single integration step is expensive. On advanced super computers, computation speeds are measured in microsecond biological time (10^{-6}s) per day of calculation (= the time-consuming MD needs one day to simulate only the **microsecond** molecular motion ). A calculation of a single millisecond trajectory requires 10^{3} days, or about **three years**."

If we give actual shapes to individual atoms, we can easily predict when and how two atoms or molecules collide (= like predicting billiard ball trajectory ) even without extremely time-consuming MD, so it is possible to design and build useful nano-machines by using atoms with shapes as tools.

*(Fig.T) Molecular dynamics (= MD ) is impractical, slow, unable to simulate many important reactions such as allosteric enzymes. protein folding, synthesis.. = cannot cure cancers*

Due to unphysical quantum mechanics unable to give concrete shapes and boundaries to individual atoms, molecular dynamics (= MD ) has to take an **enormous** amount of time to repeatedly update each atomic position based on artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials or force-fields.

As a result, even this current fastest molecular dynamical (= MD ) simulating method is extremely time-consuming, **impractical** and unable to simulate many important biological reactions or drug interactions ( this-p.1-left ).

Even molecular dynamical simulation of the 1 microsecond (= 1 μs ) motion of molecules or small protein takes more than one day ( this-3~5th-paragraphs, this-3rd-paragraph, this-lower-current limitation, this p.4 ). ← It takes unrealistically **much** time !

This p.3-right-1st-paragraph says ↓

"the utility of molecular dynamics
simulations is still limited by two principal **challenge**: the force fields used require further refinement, and
high computational demands **prohibit** routine simulations greater than a microsecond in length.."

".. As an example of these high computational
demands, consider that a one-microsecond simulation of
a relatively small system (approximately 25,000 atoms)
running on 24 processors takes **several months** to
complete" ← Impractical

Many important proteins' conformational change and protein folding usually take milliseconds (= ms ) ~minutes~ hours ~more, which are out of reach of the current too-time-consuming molecular dynamical simulation ( this p.14-left-2nd-paragraph, this-introduction-1st-paragraph, this p.2-1st-paragraph, this-introduction-3rd-paragraph ).

This-abstract-upper says

"However, enabling MD simulations to access biologically relevant timescales
(e.g., beyond milliseconds) still remains **challenging**"

This-p.3-left-2nd-paragraph says

"atomistic MD
calculations using empirical force fields typically use time steps
of the order of femtoseconds (i.e. 10^{-15} seconds), being able to
compute few **nano**seconds with a personal computer, but **far from**
the millisecond to second timescales of domain motions and
allosteric transitions occurring in some enzymes."

Ab-initio or first-principle molecular dynamics (= AIMD ) represented by Car-Parrinello MD (= CPMD ) is based on directly calculating the mainstream quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron DFT approximate pseudo-potential ( this 1st-paragraph ) and fictitious electron's mass μ model ( this p.20, this p.2-left-last-paragraph, middle-[4] ) in each time step.

This ab-initio MD (= AIMD or CPMD ) lacking real atomic figures is much **more time**-consuming and more impractical than classical MD whose pseudo-potentials or force fields are based on empirical (+ partly DFT's pseudo-potential ) parameters ( this-1.introduction-1st-paragraph, this p.19(p.13)-3rd-paragraph, this p.2-left-1st-paragraph ).

See also this p.23-middle, this-p.5-right simulated only very short 480ps. the impractical time-consuming machine-learning (= ML ) force field this p.1-introduction.

Even the current fastest (pseudo-classical) molecular dynamics (= MD ) is too time-consuming and impractical.

So researchers tend to rely on **fake** molecular dynamical simulation called "coarse-grained MD or CGMD" which tries to treat multiple atoms as one bigger **fictional** bead ( this p.2-1st-paragraph ). ← This approximate coarse-grained MD is **incorrect, unable** to distinguish individual atoms.

This fake coarse-graining MD relying on **fictional** bead model can Not describe real atomic or protein interactions ( this-last, this p.1-right-last-paragraph, this p.23-5., this-introduction-3~4th-paragraph ).

this p.2-1st-paragraph says

"some of the fine (and perhaps critically important) details of atomic interactions
are **lost** during coarse-grain simulations."

This-introduction-3rd-paragraph says

"the coarse-grained models **lack** the atomic details of the interactions, yet the interaction parameters were **fitted** by all-atom simulations or experimental results."

this p.2-introduction says

"However, owing to the **loss** of information, capturing atomistic properties through CGMD (= coarse-grained molecular dynamics ) or simply CG simulations is a **challenge**"

This 2nd-paragraph says

"many CG methods suffer from an **inability** to correctly predict more than one or two material properties"

Furthermore, even this coarse-grained MD is extremely time-consuming ( this p.3-left-coarse grain molecular dyanamics-lower says the 3μs CG- molecular simulation took a day = very time-consuming ) and impractical.

Monte-Carlo (= MC ) method relies on random motion of atoms is also time-consuming, incorrect and impractical especially in complex molecules.

This p.1-left-2nd-last-paragraph says

"MC (= Monte Calro ) simulations apply **random** moves to sample the phase
space, subject to transition probabilities that lead to the equilibrium distribution. Therefore, MC moves do **Not** need to
have any physical meaning"

".. A simulation of protein bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor has shown that MD (= time-consuming molecular dynamics ) can be as much as 10 times more efficient than MC (= Monte Calro is more time-consuming than the useless MD )."

*(Fig.S) Molecular dynamics (= MD ) with shapeless atoms with No boundaries can Not know when two atoms collide. → Updating each atomic position at short time intervals repeatedly (= to avoid two atoms clashing and overlapping ) takes too much time. *

The reason why the current mainstream molecular dynamics (= MD ) is too time-consuming and **impractical** is quantum mechanical unphysical Pauli principle based on fictional exchange energy and antisymmetric wavefunctions cannot give clear shapes or boundaries to individual atoms.

So the current most-widely-used quantum mechanical density functional theory (= DFT ) and ( classical or ab-initio ) molecular dynamics (= MD ) can only give vague pseudo-potentials or fictional force-field potential instead of giving clear shape or boundary to each atom.

We can **easily guess** when and how two moving objects with **shapes** collide (= like predicting billiard balls' trajectory ), even **without** the extremely-time-consuming impractical molecular dynamical simulation.

But In the unphysical shapeless quantum mechanical atoms with **No** clear boundaries, when two atoms collide with each other is **unknown** and **unpredictable** (= because the shapeless atoms are like ghost-like invisible atoms ).

The unphysical quantum mechanical atoms, DFT and molecular dynamics (= MD ) can utilize only artificially-created pseudo-potentials called force fields connecting all (shapeless) atoms.

As a result, molecular dynamics has to update each atomic position at extremely-short-time intervals (= each time interval or step must be less than 2 fs or 2 × 10^{-15} ) repeatedly, many, many times by differentiating pseudo-potentials or force-fields in each time step, which takes an **enormous** amount of time ( this p.5-25, this-what is an MD-4th-paragraph ).

If each time step (= Δt) is chosen to be longer than 2fs (= to try to save time ), each atom moves a longer distance at a time or at one step, which increases chances that two atoms **collide** and unrealistically **overlap** (= penetrate ) each other due to **lack** of clear shape or **boundary** of each quantum mechanical atom.

These unphysically-overlapped atoms (= **penetrating** other atoms ) drastically increase Pauli repulsive potential energies (= incorporated into the force field pseudo-potential ) and **violate** total energy conservation law (= only Pauli repulsive potential energy increases with the same atomic kinetic energy, so the total energy = (pseudo-)potential energy + atomic kinetic energy increases without being conserved by the sudden overlapped atoms ).

↑ These unrealistically overlapped atoms in MD choosing a longer time step give **wrong** results called "explosion" or "blow up due to violating energy conservation law ( this p.27-28, this 5th-paragraph, this p.28-1st-paragraph, this p.37-upper )"

This p.10-1st-paragraph says

"Too large a time step (> 2fs ) can cause a molecular dynamics simulation to become **unstable**, with the
total energy rapidly increasing with time. This behavior is often colloquially termed **exploding**
and it is caused by devastating atomic collisions that occur when a large time step propagates
the positions of two atoms to be nearly **overlapping**; the repulsive interactions then create a
strong force that propels these atoms apart."

This p.1-lower~p.2 says

"If too **large** a time **step** τ is used, the motion of particles becomes **unstable**...

This behavior is often called **exploding** and caused
by devastating atomic collisions that occur when a large time step propagates the positions of two atoms to be nearly
**overlapping**, the interaction creates a strong repulsive force repelling these atoms far apart."

If we give realistic shape or boundary to each atom, we can easily predict when and how two atoms collide like predicting motions of billiard balls and gears with known shapes, even **without** conducting extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamical simulation.

↑ Of course, in the realistic atoms or objects with actual shapes, we do Not need to worry about the unrealistically overlapped (shapeless) objects or atoms causing violation of total energy or energy explosion.

In the macroscopic world, we treat individual objects as **practical** tools with concrete **shapes** and boundaries, and can design and build many useful machines, cars, planes, laptops even **without** resorting to (impractically-time-consuming) MD or quantum mechanical DFT.

The fact that each macroscopic object or tool consisting of many atoms has its clear shape and boundary means each atom composing the touchable macroscopic object also has its
clear **shape** and boundary. ← Quantum mechanical atoms **contradict** this sheer fact.

Actually we already have technology of observing and manipulating each single atom and molecule using atomic force or scanning tunnel microscopes that can measure each atomic shape as Pauli repulsion or contact force.

But only in the microscopic atomic world, physicists **blindly** rely on **unrealistic** quantum mechanical model that prohibits them from giving clear shape or boundary (= which can be experimentally measurable ) to each atom.

So all we have to do is give shapes and boundaries to individual atoms, and treat those atoms and molecules as realistic tools to design and build practical molecular nano-devices (= for curing diseases or generating energies efficiently ), like we do in macroscopic world, by **abandoning** useless quantum mechanical model, DFT and the extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamical methods.

The fact that we already have technologies of manipulating a single atom or molecule using atomic force and scanning tunneling microscopes means we can design and manufacture various useful molecular nano-devices by manipulating atoms (= atomic force microscope of manipulating single atoms is already a more than 30-year-old technology, we could improve microscope technology itself more, if we really wanted to ).

↑ Once we can find and establish the methods of manufacturing useful molecular machines (= Not hyped fake molecular machines that cannot manipulate individual atoms ) by improving the devices of manipulating atoms (= increasing number of probes or arms manipulating atoms ), we can mass-produce those useful molecular machines (= by automation, we can move atomic probes or atoms over nm short distance extremely fast, saving energy ) like mass-producing transistor chips and practical macroscopic computers.

↑ The current atomic microscope has only one probe for impractical quantum mechanical research such as fictional quasiparticles, which cannot freely manipulate atoms. ← we should increase numbers of probes or arms first.

See this page

See this.

See realistic Bohr-Sommerfeld model and the current mainstream Dirac hydrogen's unphysical spin-orbit fine structure.

*(Fig.Q) Quantum mechanics + paradoxical Einstein relativity generates unrealistic QED with virtual photon's infinity which cannot predict any physical values due to its artificial inifnity cancellation or renormalization.*

Unrealistic quantum mechanics and special relativity fuse into another unphysical theory called relativistic quantum field theory consisting of quantum electrodynamics (~ QED ) and particle physics.

We showed that Einsten relativity has fatal paradoxes, and quantum mechanics also has Pauli principle's contradiction, so all relativistic quantum theory, QED, particle physics proved to be **false**.

Einstein relativity unreasonably rejected the existence of real medium in space, so it needs ad-hoc dark matter and unreal virtual photons with non-existent longitudinal polarization and imaginary mass (= mass squared of virtual particle is unrealistically negative ) that contradicts the relativistic mc^{2} relation in order to explain electromagnetic force ( this p.9-10, this p.3, this p.15 ).

In the current mainstream relativistic quantum field theory and quantum electrodynamics (= QED ), their calculated values are known to always diverge to meaningless infinities due to their infinite numbers of unreal (= unobservable ) virtual photons filling space, which virtual photons are said to be unrealistically moving faster than light, which also contradicts Einstein relativity ironically.

So in QED, physicists have to artificially cancel these meaningless virtual particles' infinities by illegitimate trick called renormalization introducing other ad-hoc freely-adjustable infinite parameters called bare change and mass ( this p.4, this last ) to obtain the tiny-tiny finite values such as Lamb shift and anomalous magnetic moment ( this p.3 ).

↑ This means quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) is Not successful theory at all, because physicists just **artificially manipulate** these two meaningless infinities (= unobservable virtual photons' energies and infintie bare charge, mass = unobservable means free parameters, this p.14-upper, this p.2-second-paragraph ) to remove virtual infinities and get some desirable finite values ( this p.4 ).

Actually, even QED founders Dirac and Feynman harshly criticized this QED ad-hoc renormalization artificially canceling virtual particles' infinities as **wrong**, illegitimate and hocus-pocus ( this 1st-paragraph ).

Other atomic energy calculations of QED are based on **artificially-chosen models** and pseudo-potentials, which are **Not** QED's prediction at all ( thid p.3-4 ).

Also in the so-called QED-correction to two-electron atoms, they have to artificially separate into unphysical relativistic term, where meaningless divergent infinities must be artificially canceled by counter-term, and non-relativistic term where atomic (fake) basis set functions, pseudo-potentials, free parameters must be artificially chosen and manipulated with **No** QED legitimate prediction ( this p.23-2~4th-paragraphs, p.25-C. p.26, p.27-1~3rd-paragraphs ).

*(Fig.P) Quantum mechanical Pauli exclusion principle contradicts real physical principle, demanding the same electron must unrealistically bridge and enter two separate molecules and increase kinetic energy that leads to the current useless one-pseudo-electron DFT model lacking real atomic shapes hampering science.*

Quantum mechanical Pauli exclusion principle using **unphysical** antisymmetric wavefunctions to roughly explain why two electrons cannot enter the same state (= same wavefunction φ and same spin ) by exerting (imaginary) Pauli repulsion is physically **contradictory**, so wrong.

This unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli repulsion or **fictitious** exchange energy demands each **single** electron must **unrealistically** exist in all separate atoms and molecules as shown in Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions.

And quantum mechanical Pauli principle can **neither** exert real ( exchange ) force nor
describe singlet-triplet of more than two electrons in its defective Slater determinant ( this-middle Exchange energy ).

Quantum mechanical ( fictional ) electron spin's magnetic moment (= accidentally equals Bohr's model's Bohr magneton, this p.2 ) or spin magnetic dipole-dipole energy is too weak to explain important physical phenomena such as Pauli exclusion principle and ferromagnet ( this p.5, this p.8(or p.7), this p.2-last ), which is why physicists needed to artificially create new ad-hoc paradoxical concepts called "exchange energy ( this p.6 )".

Repulsive force by Pauli exclusion principle (= independent of electric repulsion ) equal to contact (or normal ) force plays an important role in explaining why two hard objects having definite **shapes** cannot pass through or stick to each other (= repel instead of forming molecular bonds ), instead, two independent objects bounce back from each other (= Pauli repulsion ), and get easily **separated** (= of course, electrons of object-A must be separated from electrons of object-B, which is unrealistically **impossible** in paradoxical quantum mechanical Pauli repulsion ).

The contradictory quantum mechanics claims this clearly-felt contact force or Pauli repulsion (= called exchange energy ) is Not a real force ( this p.9, this p.5-upper ) nor physically-defined concept ( this p.6, this p.3, this p.8-lower, this p.11 ), hence, we can Not touch any objects to "feel" real Pauli repulsive contact force in quantum mechanical world ! ← nonsense.

Different atoms sharing a single inseparable electron to satisfy Pauli exchange rule means the unphysical quantum mechanical atoms or molecules can **Not** have definite tangible shapes nor boundaries, which facts make the current mainstream molecular simulating methods such as quantum mechanical density functional theory (= DFT ) and molecular dynamics (= MD ) **impractical** and **time-consuming**, stopping scientific development.

↑ Because it is impossible to utilize such ghost-like quantum mechanical atoms with **No** shapes as practical tools for designing and building useful nano-devices.

This contradiction originates from the quantum mechanical electron's wavefunction or vague electron cloud spreading to infinity with No clear boundary or shape and its paradoxical Pauli principle wavefunction rule.

Quantum mechanical Pauli principle demands any wavefunctions must be expressed as antisymmetric wavefunctions ( causing unphysical exchange energy or integral ) where exchange of any two electrons (= ex. electron-1 ↔ electron-2 or their labels 1 ↔ 2 ) must flip the sign of the total wavefunction.

↑ In this antisymmetric wavefunction, when two electrons share the same wavefunction, the total antisymmetric wavefunction becomes canceled out to be zero ( antisymmetric wavefunction = φ_{A}(1)φ_{B}(2) - φ_{B}(1)φ_{A}(2) → φ_{A} = φ_{B} → φ_{A}(1)φ_{A}(2) - φ_{A}(1)φ_{A}(2) = 0 = Pauli exclusion principle ? ) ← **No** more detailed mechanism is shown by quantum mechanics where microscopic science stops progressing.

↑ In this unphysical antisymmetric wavefunction, the single electron-1 (or 2 ) must unrealistically exist in all different atomic wavefunctions (= the same electron-1 must exist in two different atomic wavefunctions-A and B as φ_{A}(1) and φ_{B}(1), this p.15-upper, this p.11-upper, this p.3, this p.3-last-p.4, this p.3-4 ), which makes it **impossible to separate** two different atoms bridged by the **same single** electron, and **prohibits** (two) different atoms from having concrete **shapes** or boundaries.

This unphysical quantum mechanical atoms and molecules without tangible shapes nor (Pauli) contact force clearly **contradicts** the fact that we can actually touch, measure contact forces and concrete shapes of macroscopic objects which consist of atoms (which should also have tangible shapes).

Also at the microscopic atomic level, we can actually touch and feel Pauli repulsive contact force using atomic force microscopy, which means each atomic or molecular "shape" is **actually measurable** as the measurable Pauli repulsion.

Intermolecular distances between two H2-molecules and hydrogen bonds ( O-H intermolecular hydrogen bond length is about 18.0 × 10^{-11} m = 1.8 Å ) are **unable** to be close to the covalent bond length (= H-H covalent bond length is 7.4 × 10^{-11} m, and O-H covalent bond length is 9.7 × 10^{-11} m ) due to strong intermolecular Pauli repulsive force or contact force between two molecules.

Quantum mechanics unreasonably claims Pauli principle's repulsive force is due to electron's kinetic energy increase (→ total energy increase due to repulsive energy, this p.9-10, this p.4(or p.3 )-2nd-paragraph, this-intro-3rd-paragraph ), which is expressed as the (unphysical) exchange energy increase (in antibond ).

↑ This quantum mechanical Pauli repulsion based on **kinetic energy increase** clearly **disagrees** with real **repulsion** that should decelerate or decrease kinetic energy of approaching atoms or electrons, so quantum mechanics **disobeys** the normal physical principle.

This contradictory Pauli principle or exchange energy started from the fact that the unphysical quantum mechanical spreading electron's wavefunction or electron cloud is unable to exert Coulomb electric force strong enough to generate molecular attractive covalent bond ( this p.18-20, this p.3-4, this p.3 ), because unlike actually-orbiting electron particles, the spreading electron cloud cannot avoid other repulsive electrons or approach attractive nuclei to generate strong Coulomb electric-based covalent bond.

When two electrons have the opposite (= up and down ) spins (= α↑ and β↓ ) called singlet, these two electrons can share the same state, and their symmetric spatial wavefunction (= spin wavefunction is antisymmetric, so the total wavefunction meets Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction rule ) strangely decreases electron's kinetic energy because the ( symmetric ) wavefunction of the single electron unrealistically spreading or bridging two separate atoms constructively interferes, elongates its de Broglie wavelength (= de Broglie wavelength λ = h/p, where the momentum p or kinetic energy decreases when de Broglie wavelength is longer ).

↑ This quantum mechanical molecular convalent attractive energy based on decreased kinetic energy also **disagrees** with the real attraction that should attract each other's electron, and increase each other's atomic or electron's kinetic energy.

When two electrons have the same spin (= called triplet ), their spatial wavefunction becomes antisymmetric (= signs of two terms are opposite ), which sharpens and shortens the total wavefunction's de Broglie wavelength and resultantly increases the electron kinetic energy causing Pauli repulsive antibond ( this p.27-1st~2nd-paragraphs, this p.13-2nd-paragraph ), which contradicts the real repulsion that should decelerate or decrease each other's electron's kinetic energy ( and then stop and bounce back each other's electron ).

↑ In conclusion, quantum mechanical Pauli principle (= repel = accelerate, attract = decelerate ) is clearly **inconsistent** with normal physical principle (= repel = decelerate, attract = accelerate ), so **false** and unreal.

See this page

See Particle physics is unreal.

See QCD is unreal.

The present astronomers are just wasting their time and money in **fantasizing** about fictional **unnecessary** objects such as black hole, BigBang, wormholes, neutron stars.. which are too far away from the earth to go and confirm. ← So No direct evidence of these imaginary objects

All these imaginary concepts and too-weak gravitational wave (where "Eintein was right again" is fake news) have been useless, unnecessary for us except for this despite massive media coverage and wasted time.

*(Fig.2) Quantum mechanics + Einstein relativity = string theory.*

Einstein dream = theory of **everything** is supposed to unify quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity.

In 1970s, as the first theory of everything, unrealistic 26-dimensional string theory was invented.

Our real world is 3-dimensional (= x,y,z ), which is **incompatible** with this extra-dimensional theory of everything.

In 1980s, this fictional 26-dimensional string theory incorporating another fictional theory called supersymmetry turned into new theory of everything called superstring theory which still has 10 extra-dimensions.

In 1990s, this 10-dimensional superstring added one fictitious extra-dimension, and developed into 11-dimensional M theory which is supposed to be the present leading theory of everything.

The latest version of these fantasy unified theories is 12-dimensional "F theory".

As you see, quantum mechanics and Einstein relativity were so unrealistic that their unified theory, a.k.a. theory of everything is also filled with **fictional** extra-dimensions, parallel worlds, and wrong math (= 1+2+3 .. = -1/12, this 4th paragraph ).

These current so-called mainstream "science" is **Not** "science" but just *illusion* which has **No** relation to real physical phenomena around us.

*(Fig.3) Electrons in "s" orbital always crash into nucleus . → unstable*

All quantum mechanical atoms are said to have the **unrealistic** zero orbital angular momentum L = 0 in the s orbital ( this p.9 ).

↑ It means electrons of all atoms such as hydrogens, heliums, sodiums.. with the unrealistic s orbitals must always **crash into nuclei** in their **linear** orbital motion (= zero orbital angular momentum ). ← Quantum mechanical electron also must be actually "moving" because of their non-zero kinetic energy

In this unrealistic zero orbital angular momentum or linear motion, electrons experience destructive interference of de Broglie wave (= experimentally-verified ), hence, quantum mechanical atoms become **unstable** and impossible.

*(Fig.4) Schrödinger's 2p radial wavefunction, negative kinetic energy area.*

As shown in the upper figure, all the quantum mechanical wavefunctions include the regions of **negative** kinetic energy, so quantum mechanics is unphysical and false.

For example, in hydrogen's 2p wavefunction with orbital angular momentum L = 1, in the regions closer to the nucleus, kinetic energy in the direction of angular momentum increases to infinity ( = L(L+1)/r^{2} → ∞ r → 0, this p.3-lower, this p.2-lower ), which must be canceled by the impossible negative kinetic energy in the radial direction.

And in the region far away from the nucleus, Coulomb potential energy is higher than the total energy E, which must be canceled by the impossible negative kinetic energy ( this p.2-3 ).

In the upper figure, the middle b region has the highest electron's probability at first in hydrogen 1s wavefunction.

But the electron has kinetic energy at b region, so this highest-probability wavefunction soon moves from b to other regions like toward "a" farther away from the nucleus.

↑ This means the **shape** of wavefunction **changes** and the electron's kinetic energy distribution also changes, because the wavefunction expresses de Broglie wave theory.

As a result, the electron's probability wave at "a" region, which has no kinetic energy at first, gets positive kinetic energy (= due to the highest-probability wavefunction in "b" region moving to "a" which is equal to de Broglie wave with positive kinetic energy ), and the electron probability wave can **Not** stop at "a" due to the newly-acquired positive kinetic energy, hence, flies away into infinity, which cannot give the correct atomic energies.

This contradictory probability wavefunction shows quantum mechanics is **wrong**.

*(Fig.5) Quantum mechanics needs unrealistic electron spin. ↓*

Electron spin is **unrealistic** and contradictory, because the electron is Not actually spinning, though it is said to have angular momentum. ← contradiction !

If a very tiny electron tries to spin and generate the designated angular momentum or the observed magnetic moment, the tiny electron must be spinning much **faster** than **light** ( this 3rd paragraph, this 3rd paragraph, this p.2 ).

So the unrealistically faster-than-light quantum mechanical electron spin **contradicts** another mainstream theory of Einstein relativity which prohibits any faster than light motions, so false.

Why does the irrational quantum mechanics need such an **unphysical** and contradictory concept like "spin" ?

Quantum mechanics replaced real electron's orbit by **unrealistic** wave function which allegedly has **un**physical zero orbital angular momentum.

This **zero** angular momentum of quantum mechanics means an **un**physical one-dimensional "**line**-shaped orbit" where an electron heads for and **crashes** into a nucleus (= so unstable electron's orbit ), and can**not** produce magnetic field which is generally produced by an electron's circular motion (= angular momentum is necessary to generate magnetic field ).

So the quantum mechanical atom with zero orbital angular momentum **disagrees** not only with reality but also with experimental results which showed a hydrogen atom has magnetic field equal to Bohr magneton which was successfully predicted by Bohr model whose circumference is an integer times de Broglie wavelength (= orbital angular momentum is an integer times ℏ = h/2π where h is Planck constant ) to be stable avoiding destructive interference of realistic electron's wave.

This inconvenient fact prompted quantum mechanics to **artificially** introduce an **ad-hoc** concept called electron's "spin" which is said to accidentally have the same Bohr magneton as magnetic field (= magnetic moment ) of Bohr model ( this p.2, this 3rd-paragraph ). ← too good to be true !

The problem is each electron particle is too tiny to produce the observed magnetic moment (= Bohr magneton μ_{B} ) or the designated angular momentum 1/2ℏ ( angular momentum = mvr is closer to 0 as the radius r of a tiny electron r → 0 ).

Therefore, an electron must spin much faster than light to generate enough magnetic field and angular momentum ( this p.16-18, this p.1-lower, angular momentum = mvr where a tiny electron's radius r → 0 and velocity v → ∞ ) ! ← Electron spin is **unreal**, **contradicting** another mainstream theory of Einstein relativity.

Even if we assume the tiny electron's radius is as big as the proton's radius (= 1 fm = 10^{-15} meter ), which is close to the old concept of classical electron radius (= bigger than the proton's radius ), the spinning electron's surface speed must be about 100 times faster than the light speed ( this p.16, this p.4, this p.2-3, this p.3-last-paragraph, this p.2 ).

↑ The actual electron's radius is much smaller than the proton's radius or classical electron's radius as seen in Coulomb scattering between the tiny (point-like) electron and proton, so the electron spinning speed must be **unrealistically much faster** than the light speed c.

An electron's radius is shorter than 10^{-18} meter ( this p.2-3rd-paragraph ), which is far smaller than the proton's radius of 10^{-15} m

So quantum mechanics made a poor **excuse** that an electron spin is Not an actual spinning **contradicting** its name of 'spin', and the strange spin cannot stop or slow down ! ← nonsense.

These facts prove that quantum mechanical electron spin is **fake**, and the atomic magnetic field is caused by "electron's orbital motion" like in Bohr's atom instead of unphysical electron spin.

Pauli exclusion principle and stable ferromagnets need strong repulsion or attraction which can**not** be explained by contradictory electron spin whose magnetic field is too weak and too negligible to cause strong Pauli principle repulsive force or stable ferromagnetisum ( this p.7, this p.10 ). ← Electron spin is **unreal**, and has to rely on unphysical exchange energy lacking real exchange force.

Hydrogen's fine structure energy splitting and Sodium D-line energies are said to be explained by relativistic spin-orbit (fictitious) magnetic interaction.

But this relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction is paradoxical and unreal (= this relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction happens or not, depending on seen from electron's or nuclear rest frame, which is clearly a fatal relativistic paradox ).

↑ This fine structure energy splitting was successfully explained by Bohr-Sommerfeld elliptical orbits **without** spin, and later, quantum mechanics (= unphysical Dirac equation hydrogen ) **copied** it in the **wrong** way (= so the fine structure does Not need nor prove electron spin, this p.14 ).

Alkaline and alkaline earth's D-line or singlet-triplet energy splittings are too big to explain by the tiny, tiny relativistic spin-orbit magnetic energy.

↑ It shows alkaline and alkaline earth's D-line, anomalous Zeeman effect, singlet-triplet are caused by strong **Coulomb** interaction between inner and outer electrons Not by the tiny paradoxical relativistic spin-orbit (fictitious) magnetic energy.

Einstein-de Haas experiments based on **wrong** assumption could Not show the evidence of this (fictitious) electron spin.

Unlike the unrealistic electron's spin, a **nucleus** can actually '*spin*'. Because a nucleus (= proton ) is much bigger and heavier than a tiny electron ( angular momentum = mvr where nuclear mass m and radius r are far bigger than those of an electron ).

And a nuclear magnetic moment is far weaker than electron's (spin ?) magnetic moment of Bohr magneton, which shows each nucleus "*spins*" realistically **slower** than light speed.

Quantum mechanical hyperfine structure allegedly caused by fictitious spinning electron **entering** a tiny proton is unrealistic and **false** due to its **violation** of energy conservation law.

↑ Nuclear or proton's spin magnetic moment or g-factor can Not be predicted by (unphysical) quantum mechanics or quantum field theory (= quantum chromodynamics or imaginary fractional-charge quark model failed, this p.1.p.9, this p.2-2nd-last-paragraph ), so these values must be obtained from experimental values ( this p.4-right-last-paragraph~p.5 ).

*(Fig.6) The unrealistic electron spinning faster than light needs two rotations (= 720 ^{o} ) to return. *

Unrealistic electron spin must be "spinning" much **faster** than light ( this p.3-lower, this p.4 ) to generate the designated angular momentum and magnetic field which accidentally agreed with Bohr magneton ( this p.2, this left ) given by Bohr model.

The famous Stern-Gerlach Experiment, which was supposed to measure electron spin's magnetic field, did **Not** measure an electron spin itself.

Stern-Gerlach experiment showed a "silver atom" has magnetic moment equal to Bohr magneton ( this p.5-1.17-lower, this p.16 ) which can be naturally explained by electron's **orbital** motion instead of unreal spin.

↑ A realistic electron's orbital motion also split into two energy levels (= depending on whether electron's orbit is parallel or anti-parallel to the external magnetic field. The electron's orbit perpendicular to external magnetic field is unstable, as Bohr said in this p.14-1st-paragraph )

Electron spin is Not a real "spinning", because spinning must be unrealistically faster-than-light, and the spin cannot stop or slow down.

This quantum mechanical illogical claim that the spin should **Not** be treated as electron's spinning clearly **contradicts** another quantum mechanical claim that spin has "angular momentum", which must be generated by a "spinning" object.

More unreasonable thing is electron spin needs to rotate twice (= 720^{o} ) instead of once to return to its original state. ← No physical mechanism can be given to such an uncanny spin which is unable to return to the original state just by 360^{o} rotation.

Such a fantasy (spinning) electron really does Not return to its original state by the ordinary 360 degree (= or 2π ) rotation, instead, it needs 720 degree rotation (= two full rotations, 4π ) to return ?

Useless quantum mechanics **refuses** to offer any deeper physical mechanisms of this unreal electron spin ( this p.3-4 ).

Some experiments claimed that this physically-impossible property of electron spin which needs 720^{o} (= instead of 360^{o} ) rotation to return to the original state was confirmed by rotating (= precessing ) neutron spin interference.

But of course, they could Not see each neutron spin actually spinning (= because spin is Not an actual spin ). They just **imagined** the neutron rotated twice on the **false** *assumption* that each neutron has 1/2 ℏ spin angular momentum (= angular momentum itself cannot be directly measured, only magnetic field = Bohr magneton can be measured ).

If we assume each neutron's rotation has 1 ℏ angular momentum (= instead of 1/2 ℏ ) like Bohr's orbit, this experimental result can be naturally interpreted as the one showing neutron normally returned to its original state
by rotating **once** (= 360^{o} ) instead of unrealistic 720^{o}

Because precession speed is inversely proportional to angular momentum L as seen in gyroscope, so as a neutron's angular momentum increases from quantum mechanical 1/2 × ℏ to classical 1 × ℏ, precession velocity decreases from 720^{o} to 360^{o} rotation.

↑ These experiments of neutron precession and interference use the neutron's de Broglie wave interference ( this 7th-paragraph ) under applied external magnetic field ( this p.10, this p.6, this p.5 ).

A neutron is thought to have the small orbital rotation stabilized by the orbital length equal to an integer times de Broglie wavelength (= this neutron's position or phase is detectable as de Broglie wave interference ) in addition to the original intrinsic spin (= which could Not be detected as interference, because the intrinsic spin is **irrelevant** to de Broglie wavelength ).

The orbital motion based on de Broglie wave interference generates the quantized angular momentum = an integer times ℏ (= orbital angular momentum becomes 1 × ℏ instead of the unseen spin angular momentum's 1/2 × ℏ ) to avoid destructive interference of de Broglie wave by the orbital circumference equal to an integer times de Broglie wavelength (= by replacing the electron's mass with the neutron mass, you can get the same quantized angular momentum of 1 × ℏ ).

A neutron with quantized angular momentum ℏ under magnetic field started precession of its orbit (= whose de Broglie wave phase changes depending on the precession, and is detected as the neutron interference ).

The precession speed (= **inversely** proportional to the spin or orbital angular momentum ) becomes two times lower (= **slower** = 360^{o} precession or rotation ) when we consider the neutron's (orbital) angular momentum is 1 × ℏ than when we (falsely) use the neutron's 1/2 × ℏ spin angular momentum (= two times faster false 720^{o} precession, this 10.5.4 ).

As a result, these types of experiments based on neutron's interference just proved all particles such as neutrons returned to their original states by the ordinary classical 360^{o} rotation instead of fantasy quantum mechanical 720^{o} rotation (= which unrealistic wrong interpretation is caused by the false assumption of the unreal unseen spin's 1/2 angular momentum causing two times faster false precession ).

A neutron is known to be a composite particle consisting of a proton and an electron, and the magnetic moment of electron spin is far larger than the magnetic moment of proton. So if an electron's spin is real, the magnetic moment of a neutron should be as large as an electron.

But an actual neutron's magnetic moment is as small as a proton (= an electron's orbital radius is as small as that of proton inside neutron, which causes negative weak magnetic moment which is almost the same as a proton's magnetic moment ), which means an electron's spin is unreal (= electron's orbital motion is real ).

In conclusion, electron spin with 1/2 angular momentum is physically **impossible**. Atomic powerful magnetic field is produced by a large electron's *orbital* motion instead of illusory electron's "spinning".

*(F.7) Fantasy basic theory makes even good technology useless.*

The present mainstream science has stopped progressing due to fictional scientific target such as parallel-world quantum computer, paradoxical relativity, QED virtual particle, particle physics, and impractical protein simulating method called molecular dynamics.

*(F) Einstein relativistic effect causes serious paradox *

Relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction is paradoxical and unreal.

*(Fig.8) Hydrogen shows "normal Zeeman effect" without spin.*

By measuring the light energy or light frequency (or wavelength ), we can know the atomic energy levels.

Under external magnetic field, the atomic energy levels are known to split into more multiple levels.

When there is No electron spin, each atomic energy level (with orbital angular momentum) under magnetic field is basically split into three, which is called normal Zeeman effect.

Various atoms such as hydrogen ( this p.3-left-3rd-paragraph ), cadmium (= Cd, this p.4-1st-paragraph ), mercury ( this p.7-1st-paragraph ) are known to show this **normal** Zeeman effect, which clearly proves there is **No** electron spin.

Some people say when very very weak magnetic field (= whose energy is less than tiny, tiny fine structure energy of 0.000045 eV ) can be applied to the hydrogen atom, it could split into more spectral lines (= anomalous Zeeman effect, this p.3-upper ) which may be a sign of (fictional) electron spin.

But it is **impossible** to precisely measure such a tiny, tiny energy splitting smaller than the fine structure and distinguish them from other **thermal** fluctuation, orbital precession or nuclear magnetic field effect.

When applying the magnetic field larger than the tiny fine structure energy, all atoms are said to conveniently show **normal** Zeeman effect called Paschen-Back effect ( this p.14 ). ← This artificial Paschen-Back effect is clearly **equal** to normal Zeeman effect **without** spin, but quantum mechanics doesn't want to admit it.

↑ Hydrogen and lithium atoms are known to show only this **normal** Zeeman or Paschen-Back effect ( this-lower, this p.7-2nd-paragraph, You can **Not** find pictures of anomalous Zeeman effect splitting in hydrogen or lithium atoms in any textbooks or websites ), which means there is **No** electron spin.

*(Fig.9) ↓ Unreal spin has No relation to energy levels*

Sodium D-line = energy levels' transition from 3p3/2 or 3p1/2 excited states to 3s ground-state is known to split into multiple more energy levels under magnetic field, which is called anomalous Zeeman effect.

This anomalous Zeeman effect is said to show the sign of (fictional) electron spin, but actually, this anomalous Zeeman energy splitting is caused by (Coulomb) interaction between inner and outer electrons, **Not** by electron spin.

Actually, one-electron hydrogen atom **without** inner electrons shows normal Zeeman effect (= they call this Paschen-Back effect, which is substantially equal to normal Zeeman effect, which is seen also in lithium atom with a small number of inner electrons, this-lower ).

Sodium D-line or fine structure is said to be caused by relativistic spin-orbit (effective) magnetic interaction.

But this relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction is paradoxical and too weak to explain sodium or alkaline large D-line energy splitting.

Anomalous Zeeman effect is said to obey Lande-g-factor formula or LS (= spin-orbit) coupling (empirical artificial) rule ( this p.11 ).

But actual anomalous Zeeman effects are much more complicated, and there are many cases **disobeying** Lande g-factor or LS coupling ( this p.4-last, this p.8-upper, this p.13, this p.140(or p.129)-1st-paragraph ).

This is why many atoms such as hydrogen, helium, potassium, rubidium whose exact Lande g_{j} factors are **unavailable** ( this p.2-left-2nd-paragraph, this p.9-table.10, this p.32(p.28)-last~p.33 ) due to disagreement with Lande g-factor.

So physicists artificially changed the rules and fabricated ad-hoc J-J, J-K coupling rules (= changing the original LS coupling Lande g-factor rule ) to explain complicated inconsistent anomalous Zeeman energy splitting ( this p.22, this p.19, this p.3-4 ).

And if Lande g factor was right, D-line must split symmetrically with respect to magnetic field, but actually, they split unsymmetrically ( this p.3-Fig.7-31, this p.38-39, this p.2-right-last ), which **disagreed** with Lange g factor formula.

To obtain some experimental Lande g_{J} factors (= based only on electron's spin and orbit ) that basically disagree with quantum mechanical spin's Lande g factor formula, physicists tried to artificially manipulate several unknown free parameters mixing tiny uncertain nuclear magnetic hyperfine structure (= using F, I ) under very weak magnetic field using Breit-Rabi formula ( this p.5, this p.1-right, this p.11, this p.4 ).

There were No experiments that directly measured Lande g_{J} factors (= original Lande g-factor based on electron's spin-orbit coupling ) that were greatly modified by free parameters such as A, B, g_{F}.. (= hard to get by experiments, this p.4-right, p.5-right, p.22-right-Data analysis ).

*(Fig.10) If Sodium (= Na ) D-line energy splitting between 3p3/2 and 3p1/2 is due to spin-orbit interaction, the charge of Na+ ion must be unrealistically large +3.54e instead of +e. ← Na D-line is due to Coulomb interaction instead of spin-orbit magnetic energy. *

If anomalous Zeeman effect of sodium (= Na ) D-line is caused by (fictional) electron spin, the Na D-line doublet energy splitting between 3p3/2 and 3p1/2 must be due to (paradoxical) relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction.

But in fact, this sodium D-line energy splitting or fine structure is **too big** for the relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction to explain.

Relativistic spin-orbit magnetic energy splitting or fine structure formula is proportional to Z^{4}/n^{3} where Z is central charge that must be close to 1 (= Z is the sum of nuclear positive charge and all inner electrons except for one outmost valence electron ), and "n" is principal quantum number ( this p.3, this p.9, this p.7, this p.14 ).

Hydrogen's fine structure energy splitting between 2p3/2 and 2p1/2 ( n = 2, Z = 1 ) is very tiny 0.000045 eV.

Sodium (= Na ) D-line or fine structure energy splitting between 3p3/2 and 3p1/2 ( n = 3, ) is very big 0.0021 eV ( this p.5-Table.I, this p.5-Table 1 ).

From these values, if Na D-line energy splitting is caused by tiny relativistic spin-orbit magnetic energy, the total charge of Na+ ion (= Na nuclear + all inner electrons, which must be close to 1 ) must be **unrealistically big = +3.54** ( this p.3-upper ).

This is impossible, so sodium D-line energy splitting and anomalous Zeeman effect are **irrelevant** to electron spin, they are caused by Coulomb interaction between inner electrons and outer valence electron.

In all other alkaline and alkaline-earth atoms, their D-line and triplet energy splittings are **too wide** to explain by tiny spin-orbit and spin-spin magnetic interaction.

So the electron spin, which **contradicts** experimental results, does **Not** exist.

*(Fig.11) Na+ ion average charge is Z = 1.84 disagreeing with spin. *

An outer electron, which causes the very wide fine structire energy splitting in sodium, can be considered to be orbiting around the **effective** central charge Z (= close to **+1** ) that combines a positive sodium nucleus and all other inner electrons except one outer electron.

A sodium's outer (= valence ) electron is moving around an singly-ionized sodium (= Na+ = effective central charge Z = 1 ).

Electrons are avoiding each other by Coulomb repulsion, so this effective central charge Z ( felt by an outer electron ) tends to be **bigger** than +1.

We can know true effective central charge of this Na+ ion (= Na nucleus + all inner electrons except one outer electron ) using experimental ionization energy values.

Both hydrogen and sodium atoms have the similar structure with only one valence (= outer ) electron, so we can use the common ionization energy formula where the total energy is proportional to Z^{2}/n^{2} where n is principal quantum number, Z is effective central charge.

In hydrogen atom, the nucleus is +e, so Z = 1, and ionization energy is 13.6 eV ( enegy level quantum number n= 1 ).

In sodium atom, the ionization energy of outer electron ( n = 3 ) is 5.14 eV.

Putting all these experimental values and quantum numbers into the energy formula, we can get the true effective central charge of sodium equal to **+1.84** (= based on experimental ionization energy, this p.5 upper ), which is far **smaller** than Z = *+3.54*
(= obtained by assuming fictitious spin-orbit interaction causes very wide Na fine structure energy splitting ).

This huge discrepancy in effective central charges Z between experimental value and quantum mechanical spin theoretical value clearly proves that sodium D-lines = fine structure energy splitting is Not caused by fantasy electron spin, but by stronger **Coulomb** interaction between **inner** and outer electrons.

All other alkali and alkaline-earth atoms also show remarkable discrepancy between experimental values and prediction by quantum spin's theory (= spin-orbit or spin-spin magnetic interaction is too **weak** to cause wide energy splitting of alkali and alkaline-earth atoms ).

Hence, all quantum mechanics, spin and relativistic spin-orbit interaction turned out to be **false**, disagreeing with experiments.

Pauli exchange energy is unreal, lacking real exchange force.

*(Fig.12) Spin-spin magnetic energy (= 0.0001 eV ) is too small !*

Quantum mechanical Pauli principle says two electrons with the same spin (= up-up spins or down-down spins ) can not occupy the same orbital.

So a helium atom (= He ) has two electrons with different up and down spins in the same 1s orbital.

And the third electron of lithium (= Li ) cannot enter the inner 1s orbital which always has two electrons with up and down spin, and instead, it has to enter the outer 2s orbital due to Pauli exclusion repulsion (= though Pauli repulsion is Not a real repulsive force ).

But a electron spin is Not a real spinning.

And the electron spin-spin magnetic energy is known to be **too weak** to explain strong Pauli repulsive energy ( this p.5 ).

So the (unphysical) electron spin can **Not** explain Pauli exclusion principle.

Each electron is supposed to have the magnetic moment of Bohr magneton, which is accidentally the same as Bohr's realistic orbital magnetic moment ( this p.2 ).

The magnetic energy between two electron spins over the distance of 1Å (= 1 × 10^{-10} m ) is very small = only 0.0001 eV ( this p.17, this p.10-left-2nd-paragraph, this p.3, this p.4 ).

On the other hand, the Pauli repulsive energy required to exclude the 3rd electron of lithium from 1s to 2s orbital is as large as 20~30 eV ( this 2~3rd paragraphs ).

This p.1~2 shows the total energy of a fictitious lithium with all three electrons packed into the same inner 1s orbital is -8.4609 Eh (= -230.2 eV ), which is lower than true lithium energy (= -7.478 Eh = -203.4 eV ) with the 3rd electron in outer 2s orbital by **27 eV**.

It means Pauli repulsive energy excluding the lithium 3rd electron from the inner 1s to the outer 2s orbital is 27 eV, which is **far bigger** than the electron spin-spin magnetic energy of only 0.0001 eV.

So the electron spin's magnetic energy can Not explain the strong Pauli exclusion repulsive energy.

The wide discrepancy between the tiny spin magnetic energy and the strong Pauli repulsion made quantum mechanics artificially create an **unphysical** exchange energy ( this p.6-2.4, this p.7-8, this p.11 ) allegedly caused by unphysical antisymmetric wavefunction.

This exchange energy is **Not** a real energy, because it lacks exchange force, so Pauli repulsion is **Not** considered to be a real force in paradoxical quantum mechanics ( this p.6, this p.10 ).

Because this exchange energy is caused Not by some potential or real force but by the fictitious electron's kinetic energy change.

Under the real repulsion, particles such as electrons should decelerate and their kinetic energy should decrease (= by feeling repulsion from other particles ).

But quantum mechanics **paradoxically** insists that electrons' kinetic energy should increase to cause Pauli repulsion.

This unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli exchange energy requires every electron to exist in all different atoms simultaneously, which prohibits each atom from having real shapes as shown in the most-widely used one-pseudo-electron DFT model (= with artificially chosen exchange energy functional ), which unreal quantum mechanism model hampers development of science.

Electron's de Broglie wave is shown to interfere destructively (= pushing an electron out of the destructive interference area ) in two-slit and Davisson-Germer experiments.

↑ This realistic de Broglie wave destructive interference can be naturally used as the origin of real Pauli repulsive force without relying on paradoxical quantum mechanical exchange energy (= lacking real exchange force ) based on fictitious kinetic energy (= unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli repulsion also uses interference of de Broglie wave, but in the wrong opposite way ).

*(Fig.13) Electron spin is unreal and too weak to explain ferromagnet.*

Ferromagnetism is said to be caused by electron spins aligned parallel to each other.

But in fact, ferromagnetism (or antiferromagnet, paramagnet .. ) has **nothing** to do with electron spin, because the **magnetic** interaction (= magnetic dipole-dipole energy ) between electron spins is too **weak** to keep ferromagnetism stable even at room temperature ( this p.7(or p.6), this p.8(or p.7) ).

This 3rd paragraph says "Such an interaction (= spin magnetic dipole interaction ) is, in general, much too **small** to produce ferromagnetism. Instead, the predominant interaction is known as the (**unphysical**) exchange interaction ( this p.7-8, this p.11(or p.3 )-lower )."

↑ This quantum mechanical ad-hoc unphysical exchange energy, which did not exist in the original spin magnetic definition, **lacks** reality, because they **paradoxically** claim quantum exchange energy may exist, but there is No exchange force ( this p.8-last-paragraph, this p.5-first-paragraph, this-middle Exchange energy ). ← nonsense.

Ferromagnetism of iron (= Fe ) is known to keep stable even at high temperature = the critical temperature 1043 K.

But if electron spin-spin magnetic interaction is the origin of keeping ferromagnetism, the iron easily **loses** its ferromagnetic property even at extremely **low** temperature.

↑ Electron spin-spin magnetic (dipole-dipole) interaction energy = 0.3 K is far smaller than actual strong interaction energy required to make ferromagnetic atoms (= direction ) stable = 1043 K ( this p.7, dipole-dipole interaction ).

So the electron spin (= magnetic moment ) is **Not** the origin of keeping ferromagnetism stable, which fact **contradicts** the original definition of electron spins which was introduced as ones causing tiny magnetic field ( this p.10, this p.1-upper ). ← The existence of electron spin (= magnet ) has No evidence due to experimental disagreement between weak spin magnetic moment and strong Pauli principle, ferromagnetism which were Not caused by (fictional) electron spin.

Electron orbital motion (= realistically causing magnetic field of ferromagnet ) interacting and **meshing** (= synchronizing ) with other neighboring electron's orbital motions through Coulomb **electric** force can keep ferromagnetism stable even at *high temperature* ( this p.11 ).

↑ The electron's **orbital** motion covers **larger** space than the point-like electron's spin, so the electron's orbit-orbit interaction covering larger space naturally involves strong Coulomb electric interaction between electrons to let two neighboring electron's orbits interact and synchronize with each other stably.

All the (useless) quantum mechanical calculations of metals and ferromagnetism are based on unreal pseudo-electron with fictitious effective masses, quasiparticles and freely-adjustable parameters ( this p.3, this p.2-3, this p.5-left, this p.5-right ), which dependence on pseudo-models **disprove** the quantum mechanical spin.

In the realistic electron's orbital motion-induced magnetism, each atomic **specific** orbital **shape** and arrangement pattern determine the stable Coulomb electric interaction between neighboring atomic electrons' orbits, and resultantly determine the magnetic property of whether a material has ferromagnetism or anti-ferromagnetism, which explanation is perfectly compatible with actual observed stable ferromagnetism even at room temperature, which can **Not** be explained by the too-weak electron spin magnetic interaction.

The fact that realistic orbital motion instead of unrealistic electron spin causes ferromagnetism is shown in all the quantum mechanical description of ferromagnet using Bohr magneton (= μ_{B} ) based on Bohr's electron orbit ( this p.2-right-2nd-paragraph, this p.6 ).

Unrealistic quantum mechanical electron spin is just a point particle (= so a point particle has **No** shape difference ), which **featureless** point-particle can **Not** determine whether other electrons' spin directions become parallel (= ferromagnetism ) or anti-parallel (= anti-ferromagnetism ), which are **different** in different materials.

So quantum mechanical spin model intrinsically has **No** power to determine or predict whether each material or atom becomes ferromagnet or anti-ferromagnet.

All such a useless quantum mechanics can do is invent various roughly-approximate nonphysical pseudo-models such as Heisenberg and Hubbard spin models ( this p.6-9 ) with freely-chosen **parameters** to seemingly explain (anti-)ferromagnetism **without** showing any realistic physical mechanism of how ferromagnetism is generated ( this p.3-first-paragraph, ) by the point-like electron spin. ← impossible.

Quantum mechanics can only describe each electron ( spin) as a nonphysical math symbols (= each electron is just a nonphysical symbol = a^{†}, b^{†}, c^{†}.. ) with No concrete figures, which abstract model tells us nothing about the detailed picture of how each electron actually behaves in ferromagnetism ( this p.7, this p.3 ).

Physicists just artificially manipulate those **freely**-adjustable chosen parameters (= J, U, t, this p.3-lower, this p.2-lower ) to fit the observed magnetic properties of ferromagnet (= J > 0 ) or antiferromagnet (= J < 0 ) with **No** ability to predict whether each material becomes ferromagnet or anti-ferromagneti from the original quantum mechanical theory ( this p.8-9, this p.2-right-upper, this p.3 ).

Furthermore, quantum mechanical ferromagnetic model is full of **fictional** concepts such as quasiparticles, effective (= fake ) masses, quasi-momentum ( this p.12 ).

Under the useless quantum mechanical model, all physicists can do is rely on one-pseudo-electron DFT approximation which just artificially chooses fake potential energies (= exchange-correlation functionals ) and free parameters ( this p.4 ) with No power to predict any physical values.

*(F.14) Lucky coincidence or quantum mechanics cheated ?*

Hydrogen's small energy splitting can be perfectly explained by realistic Bohr-Sommerfeld model without spin.

The current mainstream quantum field theory or relativistic Dirac's hydrogen copied this successful Bohr-Sommerfeld fine structure, and includes serious paradox, so wrong.

*(Fig.15) ↓ Lamb shift, which is too small to detect in ordinary spectral lines, is just thermal fluctuation or smaller fine structure.*

Quantum mechanical Dirac equation for hydrogen atom could obtain the same fine structure energy values of a hydrogen atom as the earlier (realistic) Bohr-Sommerfeld's fine structure **without** spin.

Quantum mechanical spin-orbit interaction related to fine structure energy splitting is self-contradictory, so wrong.

Actually, this current mainstream quantum mechanical Dirac hydrogen's fine structure does Not use spin-orbit magnetic interaction, so electron spin is baseless and illusion.

It is said that there is an extremely-tiny energy difference called Lamb shift (= only 0.000004 eV energy splitting ) between (unseen) 2p1/2 and 2s1/2 states.

Hydrogen's spectral line of n = 3 → 2 energy levels' transition was used to measure Lamb shift, which can be explained by ordinary fine structure splitting between 3d5/2 and 3d3/2 or Bohr-Sommerfeld model without spin.

So the tiny energy splitting Lamb shift is unnecessary and illusion.

The current mainstream relativistic quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) just gives meaningless infinities (= instead of giving finite physical values ) allegedly caused by unphysical infinite virtual particles with imaginary mass also in Lamb shift calculation ( this p.1-left-2nd-paragraph ).

QED must artificially cancel this meaningless infinity by another ad-hoc infinity called bare charge and mass to get desired tiny Lamb shift value, which is called renormalization ( this p.5, this p.14 ) that is an illegitimate theory ( this 1st-paragraph ).

Even by using this illegitimate relativistic QED, physicists could **Not** predict or obtain the experimental Lamb shift energy value analytically ( this p.7 ).

This p.3-left-6th-paragaph says

"As you can see, Bethe’s **fantastic** calculation is based on
data that was calculated later, so Bethe could **not** have known
it on his train journey. His calculation included this value that
we suspect that was entered **ad hoc** to match the theoretical
value with the experimental value.. **fudge** factor"

↑ To obtain Lamb shift values, physicists have to artificially determine numerical values called Bethe logarithm ( this p.2-lower, this p.4-(8) ) or vague 'mean excitation energies ( this p.2-2nd-paragraph )' instead of QED predicting it.

Various physicists tried to get this Lamb shift Bethe logarithm by introducing **unreal** hydrogen perturbation energy equations or wavefunctions which have **nothing** to do with QED prediction.

For example, this p.2-(5) created artificial **fictitious** perturbation hydrogen's Hamiltonian (= H1, ψ1, E1.. ) completely different from original hydrogen energy equation.

This p.6-upper tried to get Bethe logarithm parameters in **quasi-random** manner that means "artificially-chosen parameters"

So quantum mechanics and QED are unsuccessful, **unable** to predict Lamb shift energy value, contrary to hypes.

*(Fig.16) Double-slit experiments proved electron's wave interference obeying de Broglie wavelength.*

Many experiments confirmed that an electron has wave nature where an electron can **interfere** with itself obeying de Broglie relation wavelength in the same way as ordinary light wave.

Quantum mechanics claims even a **single** electron can interfere with itself, but if there is only a single electron in "completely **empty** space", it's **impossible** to cause interference fringe pattern, because an electron can**not** *voluntarily* push or pull itself to change its own moving direction to cause interference fringe patterns on the screen.

So there must be some "**external** things or medium" exerting force on an electron by pushing or pulling an electron to cause *fringes* responding to destructive or constructive interference of de Broglie wave occurring around an electron.

Actually, Bohr model could successfully obtain atomic energy levels which just agreed with experimental results using de Broglie wave theory.

Later, quantum mechanical Schrodinger equation also used de Broglie wave theory and got exactly the same results as Bohr model.

And the realistic electron's de Broglie wave can naturally explain Aharonov-Bohm effect, magnetic flux quantum and quantum Hall effect even without relying on unreal fractional-charge quasiparticles of quantum mechanics.

*(Fig.17) A single electron splits into parallel worlds !?*

A single electron is obviously the smallest elementary particle with **unbreakable** mass and charge, which can **Not** be divided into multiple smaller charges also in two-slit experiments.

Each single electron is known to interfere with itself in two-slit experiment. ← Each single electron can**not** be divided, then, how can the unphysical quantum mechanics explain this two-slit interference of a single electron ?

According to the ridiculous quantum mechanical logic, even a single **indivisible** electron particle ( or an imaginary photon ) must pass through two different slits or paths simultaneously. ← Impossible !

Of course, it's **impossible** for a single **indivisible** particle such as an electron to pass through two different slits at once to interfere with itself even in the ridiculous quantum mechanics.

Actually, each single electron is detected as a single electron at only one location one by one after passing through two slits and interfering.

So physicists have been unable to give realistic explanation of how a single particle can go through two slits without actually splitting, as an unsolvable mystery (= forever ), giving up realistic mechanisms ( this last-paragraph ).

Finally, the illogical quantum mechanics came to make an unrealistic claim that even a single unbreakable particle such as an electron must exist everywhere in different places simultaneously (= called superposition ) as if the single particle split into different fantasy parallel worlds or multiverse, creating its body-doubles.

So according to such an unscientific quantum mechanics, each indivisible electron particle could unrealistically split into fantasy different parallel universes or multiverse, pass through two slits at once, interfere with itself, and be detected as the original single electron in double-slit interference experiments.

Any other interpretation of quantum mechanics are Not different from the current mainstream (fantasy) many- or parallel-world theory where physicists basically avoid delving into the unrealistic quantum mechanical mechanism, instead, just reluctantly saying "Nobody understands (weird) quantum mechanics, so just shut up and calculate !" ← It's **Not** science !

For each single electron to cause the observed interference fringe, the single electron must be **pushed** out of destructive interference area by some **external** things, because a single electron itself can**not** push or pull itself to dislocate itself according to the law of action and reaction (= two opposite forces of pushing and pulling cancel each other inside a single electron ).

So the only realistic explanation is that a single electron (or a photon = just classical light wave ) causes the real de Broglie wave (= which interference was experimentally confirmed as real ) in the external medium, and this de Broglie wave interference affects and dislocates the electron's position, resultantly showing the constructive and destructive interference fringes.

↑ This realistic picture of separating a particle and wave can naturally explain the actually-observed two-slit interference of a single electron **without** relying on fantasy quantum mechanical parallel worlds.

All experiments such as light wave interference, refraction, and diffraction of an electron clearly show the existence of real medium in space.

*(Fig.18) Schrodinger's orbital is n × de Broglie wavelength.*

Bohr atomic model succeeded in explaining energy levels of all hydrogen-like atoms, and Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics also agreed with results of Bohr model ( this p.13-lower, this p.7-lower ). Why ?

Bohr model uses the assumption that electron' orbital length is just an integral multiple of de Broglie wavelength to avoid destructive interferene, which was experimentally confirmed.

Schrödinger equation **also** uses de Broglie wave theory for obtaining electron's momentum and kinetic energy.

Furthermore, in fact, the electron's orbital of Schrödinger wave function
is also an integer multiple of de Broglie wavelength ( this last ), which is the reason why both Bohr model and Schrödinger equation give exactly the **same** results and use the same Bohr radius concept in hydrogen.

We can visualize any Schrödinger's orbitals just **equal** to an **integer** times *de Broglie* wavelength like Bohr's atomic model.

Fig.18 is hydrogen's 1s, 2s and 3s wave functions.

If we use the solution χ = rR ( R is radial wavefunction, r is the distance between an electron and nucleus ), Schrödinger equation just becomes the simple second derivative form where Schrödinger's "radial wavefunction" exactly means "de Broglie wave" like Bohr model ( this p.3 ).

In this radial wave function (= rR ), 1s, 2s and 3s orbital are just **integers** = 1, 2, and 3 times de Broglie wavelength.

This is a hidden **trick** of the only solvable Schrödinger's solution = hydrogen atom, which results just **agree** with Bohr's hydrogen.

But only Schrödinger wave functions include **un**physical orbitals, so false.

Because Schrödinger equation always has to include **unrealistic** zero orbital angular momentum, where an electron crashes into a nucleus, moving in a **linear** orbit.

In the linear orbit where an electron is moving back and forth on the same one-dimensional path, the electron's de Broglie wave interferes with itself **destructively**, hence, Schrödinger's electron's motion becomes **unstable** and chaotic, while Bohr's atomic electron's motion is **stable**.

*(Fig.19) Quantum mechanical wavefunction is unreal.*

Quantum mechanics is **false** in hydrogen's wave function.

Because the square of momentum p of Schrödinger's electron is Not equal to p^{2}, so, the equation of p^{2} = p^{2} is **Not** satisfied in quantum mechanics ? ← Why does such an **irrational** thing happen ?

Schrodinger equation adopted *de Broglie* relation as "derivative" form.

The first derivative of momentum operator acting on wavefunction gets the momentum p, and the second derivative of wavefunction gets the square p^{2}.

Of course, when momentum p is **zero**, its square p^{2} must be **zero**, too.

But **only** when a wavefunction has basic " cos" or "sin" form, it holds true.

The point is quantum mechanical wave functions **distort** original de Broglie relation. Figure above is hydrogen 2p *radial* wavefunction ( this, this last ).

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

On these **boundaries** (= two positions where electron's kinetic energy is zero ), the second derivative is **zero** ( p^{2} = 0 ), but first derivative (= p ) is **not** zero (= the slope of wave function is not zero, which means the momentum p is not zero ) ! This is **ridiculous**.

It's quite natural that when p is zero, its square p^{2} is zero, too !

So quantum mechanics **distorts** *original* de Broglie relation with **wrong** math.

*(Fig.20) No solution → just "choose" fake solution ! = useless*

In Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, the sum of an electron's kinetic energy and Coulomb potential energy equals total energy E which total energy must be conserved and constant.

Under this total energy conservation (= E is a constant value ) law, Schrödinger equation can be solved **only** in one-electron hydrogen atom which results happened to equal realistic Bohr model.

In multi-electron atoms or molecules, Schrödinger equation can never be solved. = There are **No** exact solutions or wavefunctions of any multi-electron atoms and hydrogen molecule ion in quantum mechanics ( this 9th-paragraph, this p.4-1st-paragraph ).

So quantum mechanics gave up solving Schrödinger equation, and it just chooses and guesses
**fake** solutions (= wavefunction ) called trial function or basis set, and integrates chosen fake solution (= fake chosen wavefunction ) with Schrödinger equation to obtain **fake** total energy ( this p.6-second-paragraph ).

There is 100% freedom in selecting the form of trial wavefunction or basis sets (= fake solution, this p.22-5.1 ). ← Even these fake chosen wavefunction solutions as the approximate methods for unsolvable Schrödinger equation are too complicated. time-consuming and impractical ( this p.14, this p.11 ), which make quantum mechanics useless in all applied science.

There is **No** limit to the number of parameters of trial wavefunction.

Variational methods normally try to find the (fake) trial function giving the lowest (= ground-state ) energy, but there are infinite choices of trial wavefunctions, so it's **impossible** to know the lowest energy based on this dubious variational method.

↑ You can freely choose any **arbitrary** fake solution and freely-adjustable parameters giving any arbitrary fake energies, which quantum mechanical methods can**not** predict any true energies (= called variational methods, which are mainly used in almost-all quantum mechanical approximations with unsolvable multi-electron Schrödinger equations ), hence it's a kind of "art", Not science ( this p.17, this p.7 ).

When textbooks (often misleadingly) say **contradictory** things such as "solve approximate (unsolvable) Schrödinger equations or Hartree-Fock equations", physicists just artificially choose fake approximate wavefunctions (= called basis set solutions ) and manipulate their coefficients or parameters to get the lowest (fake) energies within **chosen** limited fake solutions called "variational methods ( this p.4, this p.8, this p.11 )" **without** actually solving them.

There is **No** way to know the exact atomic wavefunctions or solutions (= due to unsolvable multi-electron Schrödinger equations ) **until** physicists compare fake energies calculated from artificially-chosen fake solutions with the experimental energy values ( this p.4-5th-paragraph, this 2nd-last-paragraph, this p.1-last, this 3~5th paragraphs, this p.5-last-paragraph, this 15th-paragraph ).

↑ So it's far **better** to use the **experimentally**-obtained atomic energy values (and atomic shapes ) from the beginning **without**
wasting time in artificially choosing and calculating fake energies using unsolvable multi-electron Schrödinger equations which can Not predict any atomic or molecular energies, hence quantum mechanical methods are meaningless ( this p.6-1st-paragraph ).

Textbooks often say impractical things; if you take **infinite** time to pick up some fake solution consisting of **infinite** freely-adjustable parameters and infinite terms, you may find true solution ( this 12th paragraph ). ← But this is Not true. No atomic true solutions can be found in quantum mechanics.

In larger atoms (such as Lithium ) and molecules with more than two electrons, the quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions become invalid and **wrong**.

No Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms such as helium or molecules can be solved, so the useless quantum mechanics has to artificially choose fictitious trial wavefunctions with an arbitrary number of freely-adjustable parameters as (fake) approximate solutions using the variational method.

The reason why these artificially-chosen fake approximate wavefunctions give total energies close to experimental atomic energies is they can just freely choose arbitrary convenient fake approximate wavefunctions out of infinite choices, and those chosen (fake) wavefunctions often consist of (**irrelevant**) one-electron **hydrogen** atomic wavefunctions ( this p.2, this p.6-upper, this-8.2.12 ). ← Remember that quantum mechanical Schrödinger's hydrogen atomic energy levels completely agreed with Bohr's atomic model

↑ Of course, **one**-electron hydrogen atomic wavefunctions (= ground-state and excited states ) are **Not** true solutions of **multi**-electron Schrödinger equations, and we prove that **No** multi-electron Schrödinger equations can have exact solutions (= conserving the total energy E in any electrons' positions is impossible in three-body quantum mechanical helium atom, so quantum mechanic is **wrong**. We have to compute two realistically-moving electrons' behaviors by directly calculating Coulomb forces between two electrons, using computers and realistic helium atomic model to conserve the total energy in any electrons' positions ).

↑ One-electron hydrogen atomic energies of the ground and excited states given by quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations completely **agree** with the realistic Bohr's successful atomic model.

Because both the successful Bohr's atomic model and the (unrealistic) quantum mechanical Schrödinger equation (= in the only solvable one-electron hydrogen atom ) use the **same** principle where the total energy is equal to the sum of Coulomb electric energy and electron's kinetic energy expressed as de Broglie wave ( this p.4-5, this p.8, this p.23-29 ).

So the fact that the unsolvable multi-electron Schrödinger equations could seemingly give the atomic energies close to experimental values using the (irrelevant) one-electron hydrogen atomic wavefunctions as (fake) approximate wavefunctions means that all atomic electrons' behaviors are governed by the common principle of Coulomb electric force and de Broglie waves (= both of which are used by realistic Bohr's atom which proved to be right ), and it does **Not** mean the (fantasy) quantum mechanics is close to reality.

*(F.21) One electron exists in both H-atoms a and b at once ?*

Quantum mechanical wavefunction always spreads symmetrically as electron cloud, so it cannot give strong Coulomb force for froming covalent bonds.

So quantum mechanics has to rely on unphysical exchange energy by forcing each electron to exist in any different atoms simultaneously.

*(Fig.22) ↓ Each electron exists in both atoms. → Pauli principle ? *

Pauli exclusion principle is known to generate mysterious powerful **repulsive** force enough to resist Coulomb force and exclude the 3rd electron of lithium to outer orbit, involving electron spin.

In fact, unphysical quantum mechanics can**not** describe this Pauli exclusion principle or repulsive energy (= expressed as unphysical exchange energy ) using any real things or forces ( this-middle Exchange energy ).

So Pauli exclusion principle by quantum mechanics is based on **wrong** abstract nonphysical physics using **fictitious** concepts such as "exchange energy" and "antisymmetric wavefunction", which have **nothing** to do with real world.

Irrational quantum mechanical rule ( causing unphysical exchange energy ) forces all electrons to be indistinguishable, existing in all different atoms simultaneously ( this p.2, this p.3, this p.11 ) by making quantum mechanical wavefunctions take an artificial, **un**physical form called "antisymmetric wavefunction" ( this 5th-paragraph, this p.18-(12)(13), this p.4-second-paragraph, this p.9 or p.6, this p.13-14 ).

In antisymmetric wavefunction, when we **exchange** any two electrons, the sign of the entire wave function is supposed to change ( this p.3 ). ← **No** more detailed mechanism of Pauli principle is given by quantum mechanics !

As shown in Fig.22 middle, the wavefunction is divided into two parts; electron's spatial part (= Schrödinger equation ) and spin part ( this-8.6.6-8.6.11, this p.16-18, this p.1-3, this p.6, this p.2 ).

In two-electron hydrogen (= H2 ) molecule or helium atom, the spin part is antisymmetric (= one electrons spin is up, the other spin is down, which is called "singlet" ), so their Schrödinger equation's spatial part takes "symmetric" form where a illegitimately-lowered electron's kinetic energy expressed as exchange energy is used as **fake** molecular bond energy in quantum mechanics ( this p.3-lower, this p.27, this p.3-last-paragraph ).

In antisymmetric wavefunction (= Pauli principle ) between the same spin-up-up or spin-down-down, the sign of this illegitimately-lowered electron's kinetic energy is **flipped**, which means the electron's "**kinetic** energy is illegitimately **increased**" in unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli principle or antibond ( this p.13 2nd-paragraph ).

So the origin of quantum mechanical Pauli exclusion force is nonsense = *illegitimately-increased* kinetic energy (= without using normal Coulomb repulsion or other forces, instead, using only unphysical "exchange" ) violating energy conservation law, so this unphysical Pauli repulsion can **neither** be admitted as real force nor given any realistic physical interpretation ( this p.6 ).

And this ad-hoc unphysical quantum mechanical exchange energy cannot give real force or force carrier to Pauli exclusion repulsion, while realistic atomic model with electrons and de Broglie waves can treat Pauli repulsive force as **real** force generated by real force carrier.

This unphysical Pauli exchange energy demanding every single electron exist in all different atoms makes a quantum mechanical atom borderless, shapeless, unrealistic, which needs artificial pseudo-potentials (= based on unphysical kinetic energy, Not giving each atomic shape) of one-pseudo-electron DFT, and extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamics, which hampers using atoms as real tools.

*(Fig.23) Unreal indistinguishable electron → One pseudo-electron DFT approximation in quantum mechanics.*

Every electron **spreads** and exists in all atomic different places simultaneously in fantasy parallel worlds according to quantum mechanical illogical rule where Pauli principle should be expressed by **non**physical antisymmetric wavefunctions **without** showing any concrete physical mechanism.

According to this unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli principle rule, in two atomic molecules, each electron must always exist in two different atoms (= two different orbitals ) simultaneously and unrealistically ( this p.11, this p.7-lower, this p.5 ).

So in three-electron atoms or molecules, each electron must always exist in three different orbitals expressed as nonphysical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions.

Though the quantum mechanical Pauli principle with more than two electrons suffers serious paradoxes by which physicists have No choice but to adopt the unreal one-pseudo-electron density functional theory (= DFT ), which is the most widely-used quantum mechanical approximation.

As a result, quantum mechanics unrealistically insists in any multi-electron atoms or molecules, each electron must always exist in all different atoms or orbitals simultaneously ( this p.20-21 ) where each electron can**not** move or be isolated from other atoms due to all electrons always being trapped by all different atoms by stupid Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions !

If all electrons are *unrealistically* existing everywhere (= indistinguishable electrons, this 4th-paragraph ), physicists need to pick only **one** electron from among many indistinguishable parallel-world electrons in quantum mechanics.

So quantum mechanics outrageously treats the whole many-electron material as **unreal** one single *pseudo*-electron model ( this p.2 upper ) called band theory where "successful" quantum mechanics in applied science is completely **false** and fake news.

Quantum mechanical band theory expresses the whole many-atomic material as unphysical linear bands which represent **fictitious** electron called quasiparticle with **fake** (= effective ) mass (= even unreal negative electron mass is possible ) and pseudo-momentum.

In this **non**physical quantum mechanical band model, each particle's position, shape and size are **unknown** and meaningless, because all electrons are changed into **fake** electrons or quasiparticles with fake masses, and they must always exist everywhere using parallel worlds.

So unsolvable Schrödinger equation for multi-electron atoms and molecules are **useless** and meaningless ( this p.3, this p.11, this p.6 ).

To seemingly calculate this fictitious indistinguishable electron spreading over all places, an **unrealistic** quantum mechanical approximate method called density functional theory (= DFT, or Kohn-Sham theory ) was artificially invented, and the most-widely used as the quantum mechanical approximation.

This DFT approximate quantum mechanical methods outrageously replace useless many-electron Schrödinger equation by "one **pseudo**-electron model" ( this p.3 ) with **fictional** effective pseudo-potential ( this p.12-13 ).

The current most popular physical calculation method DFT very **roughly** replaces the useless multi-electron Schrödinger equation by one-pseudo-electron DFT approximate model ( this p.2, = this **pseudo**-one-electron DFT has No physical reality, this upper, this p.15 ) with effective **pseudo**-potential **energy** ( this p.15, this p.1-lower, this p.3-middle-lower ) and unreal pseudo-kinetic energy ( this p.8-last-paragraph ).

↑ All pseudo-energies and one-pseudo-electron wavefunctions are **fake** with **No** physical reality in this DFT quantum mechanical approximation ( this p.27 ), hence **No** practical application ( this p.1-right-last paragraph ).

This DFT or Kohn-Sham pseudo-potential energy is called "exchange-correlation energy functionals (= **irrelevant** to real atomic physical energies )" whose exact universal form is still unknown ( this p.8, this p.2 ).

Physicists have to artificially choose arbitrary **pseudo**-potential or exchange correlation energy functionals (= with artificially-**adjustable** parameters ) out of infinite choices ( this p.1-left, ).

↑ So quantum mechanics or its most-widely used DFT approximation is Not a successful theory but just an ad-hoc pseudo-model which can**not** predict any physical values just by **choosing** pseudo-potential energies and adjusting artificial parameters ( this p.2, this p.2-last, this 3rd-paragraph ).

No matter what pseudo-potential energies or exchange-correlation functionals physicists choose, there are always cases where those chosen pseudo-potential energies miserably fail or disagree with facts ( this p.17, this p.1-left-last-paragraph, )

This **unphysical** quantum mechanical approximation called density functional theory (= DFT ) which pseudo-model outrageously replacing all many-electron material by one-electron pseudo-density model is the most widely used in all the latest applied science. ← This is why all the current basic and applied science **stops** progressing due to quantum mechanical pseudo-model

Sadly, the unphysical pseudo-one-electron approximate quantum mechanical method = Density functional theory or DFT is the **only** calculation method used in all the current basic and applied science such as physics, solid-condensed matter, quantum chemistry, protein, semiconductor-computer industry, drug development, cancer research (= quantum mechanical biology or medicine is just an impractical pseudoscience, Not a real biology ).

It's **impossible** for one-pseudo-electron model (= hence, one-pseudo-atom model ) DFT approximate method to describe actual chemical and molecular reactions where multiple **different** atoms, molecules and electrons are always moving in **different** directions from one atom to another atom (= for which we should use realistic atomic models dealing with different atoms or electrons differently and separately ), so quantum mechanical methods are **useless** forever.

The present physicists stop scientific advancement by **wasting** their time in trying to find (nonexistent) **illusory** universal pseudo-potentiel energy or dreamlike exact exchange correlation functional using only one pseudo-electron (= allegedly usable in any situations of any arbitrary numbers of electrons and atoms ) in DFT, in vain ( this p.1, this p.2 ).

Because DFT contains only one independent **variable** representing only **one** pseudo-electron's position, which is inherently **unable** to represent actual **many-electron** materials represented by **many** independently-changeable electrons' variables (= finding dreamlike universal exact exchange-correlation functional of DFT is **impossible** forever ).

Actually, this most-popular quantum mechanical approximation = DFT is known to miserably fail in many cases and predictions.

DFT's pseudo-kinetic energy fails to generate the sufficient antisymmetric Pauli repulsion or molecular attraction, because DFT tries to divide its fictitious one pseudo-electron into multiple non-interacting sub-electrons to give each kinetic energy or exchange energy between different atoms, its DFT fictitiously-divided sub-electron (= needed to cause the exchange energies such as molecular attractive bonds and Pauli repulsion ) is unrealistically weaker and more diluted, as the number of atoms they handle increases.

↑ In spite of this useless and defective quantum mechanical methods, physicists **never** try to escape from this meaningless unphysical quantum mechanical **quagmire** in order only to protect their academic old vested interests surrounding fantasy mainstream quantum mechanical theory..

↑ This is why all the current applied science miserably stops progressing stuck in the harmful quantum mechanical pseudo-model.

*(Fig.24) Exchange, correlation functionals can be "freely" chosen.*

Quantum mechanical rough and **false** approximation called DFT uses only one **fictitious** electron, so it needs to replace ordinary Schrödinger equation's kinetic and potential energies among many electrons by **fictional** non-interacting pseudo-electron's kinetic energy and *pseudo*-potential ( one pseudo-electron in DFT causes **un**physical self-interaction ) called exchange-correlation functional.

The problem is there is No universal pseudo-potential or legitimate rule to **choose** this *pseudo*-potential = exchange-correlation functional ( this p.4-5 ). It means we can choose any forms of fake potential energy, which can**not** predict any real values.

In DFT, we need to *artificially* **choose** **fake** *solution* ( like ordinary unsolvable Schrödinger equation, DFT equation has **No** exact solution, either ) and integrate chosen DFT equation ( this p.20 ), instead of solving it (= because multi-electron Schrödinger equation or DFT can**not** be solved ).

No matter what **fake** potential and solution you choose, you always encounter many cases where DFT calculation is unable to explain experimental values ( this p.17, this p.1, this p.2 ).

Each time DFT calculation **fails** to predict physical values, physicists have to invent and choose **other** pseudo-potentials = new exchange-correlation functionals, artificially adjusting free parameters by comparing them with experimental results ( this p.3 ).

So DFT is **useless** with **No** ability to predict **any** physical values ( this p.21 ), though almost all the current condensed matter researches rely on this **un**physical DFT as the only quantum mechanical calculation tool and meaninglessly try to find illusory universal pseudo-potential. → Science stops progressing now.

*(Fig.25) A single photon of radio wave with 1000 meter wavelength is unrealistically as big as 1000 meter ? ← this photon picture is impossible.*

Quantum mechanics ridiculously insists that light can be a particle called a photon and wave at the same time, though this is physically impossible, a particle and wave are completely **different** things.

Many phenomena such as light interference, diffraction, refraction, and the constant light speed in the same medium (= like sound wave ) clearly show the light is electromagnetic wave, **Not** a photon particle.

If light was really a photon particle, physicists could have already given the concrete shape and size of a single photon particle, but still Nobody knows what size and shape a single photon is ( this p.1-right ).

For example, if the size of radio wave with more than 1000 meter wavelength is as big as 1000 meter, such a big (illusory) photon can be easily seen and touched, but **No** such big photons were detected.

Actually, all textbooks can show a photon picture as wave, Not a particle.

Quantum mechanics ridiculously says that a single indivisible photon can interfere with itself by the single photon magically passing though multiple slits simultaneously using (fictional) quantum parallel worlds or superposition (= a dead-and-alive cat state ).

This p.2-2nd-last-paragraph says

"the (single) photon passes through **both** slits simultaneously and
when the single photon emerges through both slits, it interferes with itself (= **impossible** )"

↑ Even if a sigle "indivisible" photon can unrealistically split into two ghost photons in different parallel worlds, the (rigid) photon particles just clash into each other **without** causing interference pattern, which **disagrees** with experimental observation.

As Lamb said, there is **No** such thing as a photon particle ( this p.18 ).

Physicists try to **mis**interpret electrons excited by incident (classical weak) light wave in the photodetector as a sign of the fictitious photon.

↑ When the intensity of the weak light surpasses some (adjustable) detection threshold of causing electronic current in the photodetector, this excited electrons are treated as a (fictional) photon (= an illusory photon itself is unobservable ).

This illusory photon particle, which is just light wave whose power surpassing the photodetector's detection threshold, causes unscientific quantum mechanical phenomena such as a single photon interference, superluminal entanglement, delayed choice quantum eraser, all of which can be naturally explained by classical light wave.

Even the current mainstream quantum field theory and quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) can only show a photon particle as nonphysical math symbols **without** concrete shapes nor sizes ( this p.4, this p.6-left ).

As a result, there is No such thing as a photon particle.

All observed phenomena show Light is just **wave** traveling through the medium.

*(Fig.26) Light wave interacts with electron's de Broglie wave in real photoelectric effect, which can explain the light-frequency-dependent energy.*

In fact, photoelectric effect (= electrons absorbing light energy are ejected from atoms ) and Compton scattering can be perfectly explained by classical **light wave**, Not by a (contradictory) quantum photon particle.

Textbooks often say the **wrong** explanation where the photoelectric effect showing the light energy is proportional to light frequency f indicates a photon particle, and if light is wave, it takes too much time for a tiny electron to absorb the light wave spreading over large area to cause photoelectric effect.

But first of all, the light frequency f is equal to c/λ where λ is light **wave**length, which means light **wave** is related to photoelectric effect.

Furthermore, if a quantum mechanical photon is related to the photoelectric effect, an electron can absorb and emit only an unreal virtual photon with imaginary mass when the total energy and momentum are conserved ( this p.15, this p.10, this p.18, this p.3-5 ).

This means the quantum mechanical photoelectric effect dealing only with paradoxical virtual photons is **unreal** and wrong.

Light or electromagnetic wave interacts with electron's de Broglie wave that spreads over large area, as seen in de Broglie wave interference and each electron's electric field spreading over large area.

↑ This light wave interacting with electron's de Broglie wave (or electric field around an electron ) is perfectly compatible with the observed photoelectric effect where the spreading de Broglie wave (= or electric field around an electron ) can absorb or emit the light wave quickly, and de Broglie wave's frequency is proportional to the energy like the light energy (= light energy proportional to frequency is related to electron's de Broglie wave frequency ).

Of course, the light wave interacting with electron's de Broglie wave does **Not** need the unreal quantum mechanical virtual photon, because the light wave's oscillating energy is absorbed into the medium (= electron's de Broglie wave ) instead of being absorbed into the tiny electron's particle itself (= each electron should be considered as the spreading Coulomb electric field causing de Broglie wave over large area in the medium ).

↑ If light wave (oscillating) energy is absorbed into the electron's de Broglie wave (= oscillating wave proportional to frequency ) and medium around the electron and nucleus (= total momentum of the orbiting electron and nucleus is almost zero **compatible** with small light's momentum ), No unreal virtual photon is needed, conserving total momentum and energy between light and the whole system of an electron orbiting around the nucleus (= light has large energy needed for separating an electron from a nucleus and small momentum ).

In Compton effect, light wave scattered by an electron and slightly losing its energy is known to elongate its light wavelength.

If light is a photon particle, the photon losing energy must **slow down** instead of the (non-existent) photon's wavelength being longer (= a rigid photon particle should Not have changeable wavelength, which photon picture **disagrees** with the observed Compton effect ).

Classical Maxwell equation showed light wave had momentum pressure ( this p.22 ). ← Light wave's momentum and pressure (= based on classical Maxwell theory ) could explain Compton scattering.

As a result, all experimental results including photoelectric and Compton effects proved light is electromagnetic wave, **Not** a photon particle.

*(Fig.27) Photodetectors can detect electrons, Not photons. *

In fact, a single photon detector or a photodetector such as avalanche photodiode (= APD ) and photomultiplier can detect only electrons excited by light wave, and can **Not** detect a (fictional) photon particle itself.

When the incident weak light wave's energy (= E = hf ) and power is above some detection threshold of the photodetector, the light can induce electric current (= flow of excited electrons, Not a photon ), which is (mis)interpreted as a (fictional) photon particle ( this p.2-Fig.1, this-introduction-2nd-paragraph ).

The detection threshold of photodetectors can be artificially adjusted as bias voltage (= the bigger the bias voltage, the more electric current is generated by the incident light wave, which was detected as a photon ).

When the light intensity is strong, even the photodetector with low bias voltage (= not only high bias voltage ) can detect the incident light.

This p.8(or p.6)-1st-paragarph says

"for the light counts we see **increasing counts** as the (reverse) bias **voltage** is raised. Once
again, we expect this, because a greater bias voltage creates a greater avalanche effect (= more fictional photons are detected as electronic current, this p.3-APD
)"

When the light intensity is very weak, the bias voltage must be increased (= over breakdown voltage, or increasing overvoltage ) to detect the weak light wave as (fictional) photon ( this p.6-Fig.3 shows detecting weak light needs higher (reverse) bias voltage ).

↑ This photodetector is the trick of a single photon's interference where the weak light can split into two weaker lights at two slits, which split lights are too weak to detect at phodetectors simultaneously (= so it looks like only a single photon appears, but actually, the other weaker light, which is too weak to detect at the photodetector, exists in two slit experiments ), and after constructive interference, the final light wave can be detected as (fictional) photon at the photodetector.

↑ So photodetectors just detecting electrons' current excited by (classical) light wave whose power surpassing the detection threshold (= adjustable by bias voltage ) of the photodetectors can explain a (fictional) single photon interference at double slits, entanglement, delayed choice quantum eraser, quantum information even without using unphysical quantum mechanical parallel worlds.

*(Fig.28) An orbiting electron does Not lose energy. *

Bohr's realistic atomic model could successfuly explain **all** experimental energy levels of hydrogen-like atoms and ions perfectly ( this last ).

You may often see the (false) cliche "all accelerating electrons radiate and lose energy in classical orbits", so Bohr's hydrogen could be unstable.

This logic is completely unscientific and **wrong**. So Bohr's orbit is stable, Not radiating energy, as long as an electron is orbiting around a nucleus in a **normal** orderly way.

To be more specific, "a **single** accelerated electron ( like in Bohr's hydrogen ) does **Not** radiate or lose energy."

Only when **many** electrons are accelerated and **colliding** with each other in a **disorderly** way, as seen in alternating currents, they radiate and lose energy.

So the **mis**conception that "*accelerating*" electron losing energy does **Not** apply to the successful Bohr model, as long as its electron is moving in an **orderly** and stable way **conserving** total energy between a nucleus and an electron, avoiding destructive interference of electron's de Broglie wave.

Actually, Bohr model won the most prestigious Nobel prize, after its scientific legitimacy was **admitted** as correct by the then academia. ← The misconception that Bohr's atom losing eneregy was just an **excuse** made up **later** to justify unrealistic quantum mechanics.

If the textbook's explanation that every accelerating electron becomes unstable losing energy is right, even quantum mechanical electron which also has kinetic energy (= so quantum mechanical electron is also moving around accelerated by a nucleus ! ) becomes unstable radiating energy. ← self-**contradiction**.

Quantum mechanical atoms allegely having unrealistic negative kinetic energies, can **never** be stable, because its s orbital with **zero** orbital angular momentum always crashes into a nucleus, and causes destructive interference of de Broglie wave in its linear orbits.

*(Fig.29) Bohr model electron is Not falling into nucleus.*

In fact, if a **single** accelerating electron loses energy, the **single** electron must consist of **many** smaller *fictitious* charges as seen in a spherical conductor in the upper figure.

So Bohr's atomic electron which is an **indivisible** negative charge does **Not** radiate or lose energy just by moving around the nucleus in an **orderly** and periodic way.

The theory of an accelerated charge radiating energy uses "electric energy density field" (= energy = 1/2εE^{2} ) stored in vacuum around spherical conductor packing many smaller repulsive charges ( this p.4, this p.2 ).

This energy density in electric field equals the amount of energy required to **pack** many repulsive smaller charges into the same spherical conductor.

So if a **single** accelerated electron really radiates and loses energy while it orbits around a nucleus, this single electron must be like a **fictitious** *spherical* conductor which collects and packs many smaller negative charges into a single electron's tiny body (= whose electric energy density around a fictitious electron consisting of many smaller charges becomes 1/2εE^{2} ). ← It's **imossible** and inconsistent with the fact that a single electron is very stable and unbreakable.

A **single** electron is an **indivisible** charged particle, which is Not like a spherical conductor packing many smaller illusory negative charges inside a single electron.

As a result, the idea that Bohr's atomic accelerated electron radiating energy is **untrue**, based on the **false** assumption.

*(Fig.30) ↓ A electron radiates only a virtual photon with imaginary mass !? *

In the current mainstream quantum field theory, all interactions between elementary particles are expressed using **un**physical abstract lines called Feynman diagrams which tell us **nothing** about detailed mechanisms of how particles actually touch or interact with each other.

Quantum mechanics says an electron can interact **only** with unreal unobservable virtual *photons* (= Not real photons ! ) with unphysical imaginary mass, when electrons emit, absorb (virtual) photons, or apply electromagnetic forces to other charged particles ( this p.16, this 6,10 paragraphs ).

Why can**not** each electron interact with a real photon (= light ) for explaining light absorption or force interaction according to unrealistic quantum mechanics ( this p.7,8 ) ?

Because the ratios of energy (= E ) to momentum (= p ) are **different** between an electron and light (= a photon ? ) due to different *masses* of an electron and a photon (= an electron is much heavier than a photon ).

So if Einstein relativity is right (= if there is no space "medium" mediating forces ), the physics needs unreal virtual particles or virtual photons interacting with real electrons with **unreal** imaginary masses (= if total energy and momentum are conserved between a electron and an emitted photon ) which violate Einstein's mc^{2} mass-energy relation ( this p.6, this p.4-last-paragraph, this p.3 ) or violate energy conservation law ( this p.10, this p.3 ) against the fact that all real particles must always conserve total energies and momentums ( this 5th-paragraph, this 5th-paragraph ) !

As shown above, even if an electron can emit a (unreal) virtual photon as electromagnetic force, this emitted virtual photon can only push (= repel ) another photon, which can**not** explain Coulomb attractive force (= pull ) without the help of other medium.

Quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) relies on unreal virtual particles or virtual photons with imaginary masses ( this p.17 ), which are said to paradoxically move faster-than-light ( this 1-5th paragraphs, this 9th-paragraph ), which clearly **contradicts** another mainstream theory of Einstein relativity prohibiting superluminal motion.

↑ The current mainstream quantum field theory includes self-contradiction, so **false** ( this 10th-paragraph, this p.9-10 ).

Quantum field theory or quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) are just **unphysical** theory whose unreal virtual particles with **impossible** imaginary masses ( this p.18 = negative mass squared, this p.2-lower-footnote, ) or negative kinetic energies are also nonphysical math symbols with No concrete physical shapes which pseudo-quantum theory tells us **nothing** about the detailed physical mechanism, so completely **useless** and No relation to our real world ( this p.6-lower, this p.13 ).

Actually, **No** scientists are using this useless quantum field theory for our daily-life application.

↑ The present relativistic quantum field theory and QED requiring **unreal** virtual particles for explaining physical forces are self-**contradictory** (= virtual particles **contradict** Einstein famous relativistic mc^{2} mass-energy relation, this p.10-11, this p.4-2nd-last-paragraph, this p.4 ), hence **wrong** theories.

*(F.31) Coulomb, Higgs depend on fictional virtual particles.*

See this page in detail.

*(Fig.32) Quantum mechanics cannot handle multi-electron material.*

Due to the current **unrealistic** impractical basic atomic theory called quantum mechanics, all applied science miserably **stops** progressing which important facts are **hidden** from ordinary people by the media and academia for protecting their old vested interests around the "(deadend) mainstream science".

Physicists are obsessed only with unscientifically explaining all observed phenomena such as electric conductance and magnetic properties by unreal pseudo-particles called quasiparticle model ( this 2nd paragraph, this 6th-paragraph ).

Quantum mechanical quasiparticle's pseudo-models, which physicists have heavily relied on for as long as 100 years ( this p.4-6, p.22 ), are Not even real particles ( this 1st-paragraph, this 3rd-paragraph ), hence, these unrealistic quasiparticles can never be isolated or utilized as real particles. = so quasiparticles are useless forever.

Ridiculously, these **unrealistic** quasiparticles are still being used as one of the most popular quantum mechanical pseudo-models even in the latest physical researches such as semiconductor industry (= using fictional effective masses of band theory, which quantum mechanical pseudo-model has never been useful for modern computer technology contrary to the media-hype ), nanotechnology, superconductor, molecular machine learning, solar energy technology (= ex. exciton quasiparticle, this p.16 ), quantum biology, even imaginary fake-antiparticles and dark matter field,

You can understand these quasiparticles **contradict** reality by seeing quantum mechanics illogically claim these quasiparticles could have the **impossible** negative mass and fractional-charges (= e/3, e/5 called 'anyon' or Majorana quasiparticle, **against** the fact that the elementary smallest charge "e" is unbreakable, this ) in quantum Hall effect that can be explained classically (= quantum mechanical pseudo-model or quasiparticle is **unnecessary** ).

And they ridiculously insist even the elementary smallest particle = electron could be magically split into multiple (illusory) quasiparticles (= an electron splits into holon quasiparticle carrying charge, and spinon quasiparticle carrying spin ) according to these pseudo-quantum mechanical model.

↑ Of course, these unrealistic quasiparticles with fictional fractional charges, the separate spin-charge are directly **unobservable**.

Physicists just "imagine" these fictional quasiparticles when they (mis)interpret the observed electric conductance and magnetic properties ( this p.5-11, this p.7 ).

Unscientific quantum mechanics argues that the superconductor with zero resistance is caused by two repulsive electrons magically attracting each other via fictitious phonon quasiparticles forming Cooper pairs, which eventually break into other fictitious quasiparticles called Bogoliubov quasiparticles ( this 2nd-paragraph ) with fictionally changeable charges ( this p.1-left ).

And they paradoxically say the fictitious quantum particle of light wave called photon could acquire the (effective) mass against another mainstream Einstein relativity which states a photon is massless, in order to explain Meissner effect where the external magnetic field cannnot enter the superconductor due to this imaginary massive photons which makes the electromagnetic interaction a shorter range force ( this lower, this p.2-right-lower ).

This unscientific quantum mechanical model about the superconductor is called BCS theory which just expresses each fictitious quasiparticle as nonphysical math symbols without giving any real detailed physical mechanism.

According to quantum mechanical ridiculous logic, even unrealistic magnetic monopole (= only north or south magnetic pole ) could exist as fictitious quasiparticles to falsely explain some complex magnetic field and atomic orientations inside some materials called spin ice ( this 5th-last paragraph ).

↑ Those fake mangetic monopole quasiparticles are Not real fundamental particles ( this p.1-middle ), so **meaningless** and useless pseudo-models.

This quantum mechanical pseudo-quasiparticle model makes another paradoxical claim that massless quasiparticles could be slower than light speed contradicting another mainstream theory = Einstein relativity ( this abstract ), without showing the detailed physical mechanism except for unphysical abstract math concepts ( this p.4 ).

Of course, these **unrealistic** and *contradictory* quasiparticles themselves can **Neither** be directly observed nor isolated, hence quasiparticles are useless and **meaningless** concepts unusable for any applied science such as medicine.

But physicists have had **No** choice but to try to "imagine" these **illusory** particles as an ad-hoc means to model and explain observed macroscopic phenomena in vain within the current impractical quantum mechanical atomic model which clarifies No reality.

Even in the recent researches, physicists try to explain some magnetic properties or fictitious spintronics using new fictitious quasiparticle model called Hopfion ( this p.1-right-2nd-paragraph ) related to quasiparticle skyrmion, **giving up** using real particle model.

↑ This is why our scientific progress has stopped for more than 100 years, as long as quantum mechanical pseudo-model is used as (fictitious) underlying atomic model, and physicists never try to replace these pseudo-quasiparticle model by real particles such as electrons, because the contradictory quantum mechanics is unable to deal with any multi-electron atomic phenomena.

Most ordinary people may Not have heard about the terrible fact that even the latest physics actually makes **No** progress, stuck in unrealistic quantum mechanical quasiparticle pseudo-model, because the media is flooded with a lot of misleading science news desperately trying to **hide** this important fact.

If you see some original scientific papers, you can easily find most of the present researches rely on these fictitious quasiparticle model with fake effective mass (= these fictitious masses are freely adjustable parameters, hence No ability to predict any physical values ) where each particles are just expressed as nonphysical math symbols which abstract meaningless expressions tell us **nothing** about detailed underlying physical mechanisms ( this p.2, this p.6, this p.7 ).

The present unphysical mainstream condensed matter physics tries to describe the whole many-electron material as fictitious band containing only one pseudo-electron with fake effective mass and quasi-momentum expressed as one-pseudo-electron DFT approximation. ← No progress in atomic phyiscs.

*(Fig.33) Observe phenomena → Fake quasi-particles model ?*

The current condensed matter physcs based on quantum mechanics is filled with **fictional** concepts such as quasiparticles with negative mass, fractional-charge, magnetic monopole, massless fermion, charge-orbit separation ..

Quasiparticle is a fictitious **ghost**-like particle which can neither exist nor be isolated from material.

How could physicists conclude that such **illusory** quasiparticles were found ? ← impossible !

In fact, all physicists can measure is just realistic phenomena such as classical electromagnetic fields and light absorption. ← When they try to explain underlying physical mechanicm behind it, the current only atomic theory = quantum mechanics deliberately **mis**interprets such real macroscopically-observed phenomena as ones caused by **unreal** *quasiparticles* or **fictitious** negative ( effective ) mass.

For example, they just **mis**interpreted some measured "electric conductance" as a result of fictitious "fractional-charge quasiparticles."

And by illuminating various materials with classical laser lights and measuring the optical response, physicists jumped to the **wrong** conclusion that they might have found (**unreal**) *negative mass*, charge-orbit separation ( this 4th paragraph ), massless pseudo-particle ( this p.2-right ), and solar cells driven by illusory quasiparticles..

So all quantum mechanical researchers are doing now is just measure classical electromagnetic properties such as electric conductance, resistance and absorption of light, and intentionally try to associate those actually-observed physical phenomena with fictitious quantum mechanical model such as quasiparticles with unreal mass or charge. ← nonsense.

Because quantum mechanics has No ability to describe microscopic underlying mechanism using real electrons with real fixed mass and charge from the beginning. → Quantum mechanics had No choice but to rely on "**illegitimate** cheating", as seen in unphysical exchange energy or virtual particles.

*(Fig.34) Quantum mechanical particles (= a ^{†}, b^{†}, c^{†} .. ) are just nonphysical symbols with No shape or size. *

The present mainstream quantum mechanics and quantum field theory can only describe each electron, (fictitious) photon and quasiparicles as nonphysical math symbols with No concrete figure and shape ( this p.3 ), which is unable to explain real physical mechanism forever.

For example, in the famous BCS theory of superconductor, quantum mechanics uses only **unphysical** meaningless math symbols to express electrons and fictitious quasiparticles such as phonons, Cooper pair, Bogoliubov quasiparticles ( this p.4, this p.9, this p.4 ).

↑ Actually, this BCS theory failed to explain various (high temperature) superconductivity.

*(Fig.35) Multiple computations using parallel worlds ?*

Quantum computer research is deadend with No progress.

*(F.36) No evidence of faster quantum computer *

All types of qubits are hopeless.

*(Fig.37) ↓ Electron, photon are just meaningless math symbols. *

The impractical quantum mechanics can only express particles and electrons as **nonphysical** math symbols (= each particle = a^{†}, b^{†}, c^{†},.. with **No** detailed shapes or sizes ) with **No** concrete physical shapes in all physics ( this p.2 ), condensed matter fields such as semiconductors ( this p.2 ), superconductors ( this p.3 ), band theories ( this p.2 ) with **unreal** effective mass ( this p.9-right ).

Unscientific quantum mechanics can also only describe fictitious photon particles as nonphysical meaningless math symbols (= each photon = a^{†}, b^{†},.. = giving No detailed figures of photons, this p.16, this p.8, this p.2-right )

The useless quantum mechanical condensed matter physics has to rely on unreal quasiparticle model such as phonons ( this p.13-lower ) to explain various phenomena such as superconductors by using only the abstract nonphysical interaction term between electrons and unreal phonon quasiparticles (= ex. phonon's creation oeprator b^{†} ) expressed as meaningless math symbols ( this p.4, this p.6 ).

In these nonphysical quantum mechanical particle description, Pauli exclusion principle is also described as nonphysical math description called anticommutation of nonphysical electron particles. which abstract forms give No detailed physical mechanism of Pauli principle, so completely useless ( this p.6-upper (or p.8 ), this p.7 ).

*(Fig.38) ↓ Anticommutation = Pauli exclusion principle ?*

Relativistic quantum mechanics or quantum field theory allegedly combining quantum mechanics and Einstein special relativity becomes more **unrealistic** and unphysical.

Quantum mechanics **refuses** to give concrete physical mechanism of Pauli explusion principle, except for just saying Pauli principle was expressed just as **non**physical antisymmetric wavefunction where exchanging two electrons are supposed to flip the sign of the whole antisymmetric wavefunction (= which was proved to be false ).

In quantum field theory using relativistic Dirac equation which expresses each electron as a mere abstract math symbol, the mechanism of Pauli exclusion
principle is also expressed just as **meaningless** abstract math relation called anticommutation ( this p.3, this p.7, this p.2 upper, this p.5-lower, this p.4, this p.52-53 (or 45-47)-(3.53), this-(8.2.14),(8.2.22), this 3-5th-paragraphs, this p.6 )

In anticommutation relation allegedly denoting Pauli principle, when two electrons (= c1 ↔ c2 ) are exchanged, the sign is changed. ← That's all. **No** more detailed explanation of Pauli exclusion repulsion is given by quantum mechanics.

↑ So in this abstract quantum field theory's Pauli principle description, if two electron particles (= expressed as nonphysical math symbols c1 and c2 ) are the same ( c1 = c2 ), those electron particles vanish ( c1c2 = - c2c1, → when c1=c2, → c1c1= - c1c1 → 2(c1)^{2} = 0 → c1 (and c2 ) = 0, = Pauli exclusion principle !? this p.6 or p.8-upper, this p.6, this p.1-2, this p.9 ) ← Nonsense.

What causes Pauli principle is **unknown** forever, as long as unphysical quantum mechanics continues to be the mainstream theory.

As you see, unscientific quantum mechanics has **given up** pursuing deeper physical mechanism for a long time, fearing many self-contradictions and unrealistic aspect inherent in quantum mechanics will be exposed, when we start to look into true underlying mechanism.

*(F.39) All Einstein relativity, quantum mechanics, relativistic quantum field theory, QED, particle physics lack reality.*

See this page in detail.

*(F.40) ↓ Unrealistic picture of quantum field theory*

See this page in detail.

*(F.41) Unseen fractional-charge quark, Higgs, W,Z bosons are unobservable, unreal and useless forever. *

See this page in detail.

See this page in detail.

See this page in detail.

See this page in detail.

*(F.42) "Symmetry" has NO physical meaning, Higgs is unreal.*

The present particle physics or standard model relies on unphysical meaningless symmetry irrelevant to real world's phenomena.

*(F.43) QED infinite virtual particles and bare (= real ? ) charge.*

Quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) is an unsuccessful theory just artificially manipulating infinite bare charge, mass parameters to cancel virtual particle's infinite energies to illegitimately obtain tiny,tiny Lamb shift and anomalous magnetic moment, so an unreal and useless theory

*(F.44) Positron (= antiparticle ) emission is impossible.*

See this page in detail.

See this page in detail.

See this page in detail.

See this page in detail.

See this page in detail.

See this page in detail.

See this page in detail.

*(F.45) Light medium moving "with" the earth can perfectly explain the constant light speed c detected by Michelson-Morley experiment. *

See this page in detail.

*(F.46) Different clock times in different positions.*

See this page in detail.

*(F.47) "Block" changes the rod "future" direction.*<

See this page in detail.

*(F.48) A stationary observer K sees the neutral wire (= charge density ρ _{e} = 0 ) with electric current J_{x} generating magnetic field B, which is magically seen as the electrically-charged wire (= whose charge density ρ_{e}' is Not zero ! ) generating the electric field E_{z}' from the viewpoint of a moving observer K' ! *

See this page in detail.

*(F.49) An external negative charge (= - ) is Not attracted toward the neutral wire seen by the stationary observer K, but the same negative charge appears to be attracted and moved closer to the same wire magically transforming from the electrically-neutral to positively-charged seen by the moving observer K' = this is true unsolvable paradox*

See this page in detail.

*(F.50) Mass (= energy ) change is "relative", NOT absolute *

See this page in detail.

*(F.51) Electron's de Broglie wave vanishes !?*

See this page in detail.

*(F.52) Which satellite clock ticks more slowly ? = paradox.*

See this page in detail.

*(F.53) Time stopping on black hole prevents its formation*

See this page in detail

*(F.54) Driving force to expand universe is dark energy ← NOT diluted ? Unreal negative pressure ?*

See this page in detail

*(Fig.54') Black hole, gravitational wave are illuson. *

See this page in detail.

*(F.55) Weak light is destroyed = eavesdropping is detected ?*

Quantum information, internet, cryptography and key distribution are all useless forever, and their photons are just very weak classical light wave. No quantum mechanics

*(Fig.56) ↓ Entanglement is nonsense, Not science ! *

Quantum entanglement or spooky action is said to be faster than light.

But this is **untrue**.

Quantum entanglement is a meaningless and unnecessary concept Not worth "science".

Quantum entanglement or spooky action can **never** have any practical application such as communication.

Because quantum entanglement or teleportation can Not do any real work (= these **illusory** quantum mechanical concepts such as entanglement and teleportation can Not send any real information, so useless, this 6th paragraph ).

Physically-**meaningless** quantum entanglement cannot send any real informations, much less send faster-than-light information.

Bell inequality violation did Not prove this "fictional superluminal entanglement link" at all.

Quantum teleportation (= which is equal to the meaningless entanglement ) is also a useless concept which can neither send real objects nor transmit information faster-than-light.

For example, even when a **classical** light is just **split** by some crystal into two lights with two *polarizations*, they call it "two entangled lights (= or photons )", though there is No quantum mechanics here.

Suppose we split classical light into two lights with the same polarizations (= whether those two lights have vertical-vertical (= VV ) light polarization or horizontal-horizonal (= HH ) polarization is unknown ).

When we **measure** one of light and confirm this light is vertically-polarized (= V ), it **instantly** (= faster-than-light entanglement ? ) determines that another light is also vertically-polarized ( this 6th-paragraph, this p.3-4, this p.4-(c) ).

When we prepare two light waves (= or fictitious photons ) to have the perpendicular (= orthogonal ) polarizations in advance, if one light (= or photon ) is measured as horizontally-polarized (= H ), it instantly determines (= superluminal entanglement action ? No ! ) that the other photon is vertically-polarized ( this 3rd-paragraph, this 2nd-paragraph, this 2-6th paragraphs ).

So quantum entanglement is just about "measurement" of two light states (= ex. light polarization ) whose states are manipulated and prepared artificially in advance, **Not** about sending any information faster-than-light ( this p.2-3rd-paragraph, this 2-3rd paragraphs, this 3rd-last paragraph, this 4th-last paragraph ).

Quantum entanglement or spooky action, which can **neither** send real information nor do any work, is a completely useless and **meaningless** concept.

Quantum teleportation, Bell inequality violation, and delayed choice quantum eraser use the same **meaningless** trick intentionally **mis**interpreting classical light as a fictitious photon.

So all (pseudo-)science researches, which claim spooky quantum entanglement effect was exploited, are just **useless** and impractical forever.

*(Fig.57) Two de Broglie waves cross perpendicularly = stable Helium orbits. *

Bohr's atomic model successfully explained energy levels of all hydrogen-like atoms and ions, but it could not explain two-electron Helium atom. Why ?

Many experiments showed an electron causes de Broglie wave whose wavelength was determined by observing its interference (= pattern of constructive and destructive interference ).

↑ So we have to naturally consider the electron's de Broglie wave **interference** (= **destructive** and constructive interference ) in true atomic electron's orbits.

Realistic Bohr's atomic model could successfully explain the **exact** energy levels and spectral lines of **all** hydrogen-like atoms ( this p.2, this p.4, this 3rd-last-paragraph ) by using this de Broglie wave interference (= avoiding destructive interference of the electron's de Broglie wave in its quantized orbit ).

Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations also use this de Broglie wavelength, and agree with Bohr's atomic energies. ← But the quantum mechanics must include unreal zero orbital angular momentum where the **unrealistic** electrons always crash into nuclei in linear orbits, and its unphysical wavefunctions (= representing quantum mechanical de Broglie waves ) are likely to cause destructive interference and become unstable.

↑ Quantum mechanical atomic model **contradicts** the experimental observations of de Broglie wave destructive and constructive interference, so depends on the wrong useless calculation method.

The contradictory quantum mechanics, which is also using de Broglie wave relation but **ignoring** de Broglie wave **interference** inside atoms, has to rely on **nonphysical** exchance energies (= **lack** physical forces ) as a **fictional** source of Pauli exclusion principle which Pauli repulsion can be naturally explained by electron's de Broglie wave **destructive** interference in **realistic** atomic model.

Hydrogen and Helium atoms are the smallest atoms which are known to have up to two **1** × de Broglie wavelength orbits ( which correspond to Schrödinger equation **1**s orbital giving the same energies as Bohr model, this p.3-last ).

1 × de Broglie wavelength contains a pair of opposite phases of wave crest (= containing an electron particle ) and trough which part contains no electron (= to be correct, de Broglie wave is a kind of longitudinal wave through medium ).

If the opposite wave phases = the crest part and trough part of an electron's de Broglie wave overlap each other out of phase, it causes destructive interference and kicks out the electron from destrucive wave, and its electron orbit becomes unstable.

So, when two 1 × de Broglie wavelength electron orbits **overlap** in the same circular orbit on the same plane (= upper figure, old Helium model ), opposite phases of two electron's de Broglie waves cancel each other, hence, this unstable old circular Helium atomic model is broken and impossible.

This is the consequence of destructive interference between two electrons' de Broglie waves out of phase, which was confirmed in many experiments.

To avoid this cancellation, two electrons' orbits have to be **perpendicular** to each other, which forms a realistic and stable Helium atom.

This new Helium model with two orbits crossing perpendicularly gives surprisingly **accurate** experimental energy values, hence, it proves to be a **right** Helium atomic model.

Unlike the old circular orbit model, the calculation of two perpendicular Helium orbits is extremely complicated, so it needs modern computer (= Coulomb force and de Broglie wavelength are Not the same in any different electrons' positions ), which could **Not** be done in 1920s when they chose wrong theory = quantum mechanics.

We proved that quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms such as helium can never have true solutions due to its obvious **violation** of total energy conservation in different electrons' positions, so quantum mechanics is **wrong**.

Only this realistic helium atom can give true electrons' behavior (= which exact electron's behavior remains uncertain and paradoxical in unrealistic quantum mechanical atoms forever ), perfectly conserving the total energy in any electrons' positions due to its realistic method of directly computing precise changeable Coulomb forces at each electron's position and moving electrons obeying the basic physical principle.

*(Fig.58) Old Bohr's circular helium = electrons are expelled, so wrong. *

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

Actually, this old Helium model with a single circular orbit containing two electrons gives **wrong** ground state energy (= -83.33 eV, this table.3 ) which is lower than true Helium ground state energy = **-79.005 eV** = the sum of 1st (= -24.5873 eV ) and 2nd (= -54.4177 eV ) ionization energies of helium.

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

No more electron orbit can enter this new Helium, so it can explain **Pauli** exclusion principle using de Broglie wave interference.

*(Fig.59) Hydrogen and Helium atoms.*

All these orbits are *one de Broglie's wavelength*.

In this new helium, the two symmetrical orbits crossing perpendicularly are *wrapping the whole helium atom* completely.

This new helium model is just **consistent** with the fact of the strong **stability** and the **closed** shell property of helium.

Quantum mechanics needs **unrealistic** electron spin (= faster-than-light spinning ), which electron spins failed to explain strong Pauli exclusion repulsive energies, hence quantum mechanics artificially created unreal "exchange energies" lacking physical exchange force or force carriers.

↑ **True** Pauli exclusion principle and its strong repulsion need some "**real** tangible physical **objects**" as the force's **origin** besides Coulomb forces, which is possible in this realistic Bohr's helium model perfectly **compatible** with actually-observed de Broglie wave destructive and constructive interference.

Helium atom is known to produce small magnetic field (= Helium **has** magnetic field called diamagnetic ).

Of course, helium's two orbits are constantly changing their directions, so unable to produce as stably-strong magnetic field as ferromagnet where two neighboring electron orbits in some materials with many orderly aligned atoms are meshing and synchronizing with each other by strong Coulomb force Not by unreal spin.

So Helium has magnetic moment (= spin up + spin down = no magnetic moment ? ) = diamagnetic means quantum mechanical Helium with **No** angular momentum **disagrees** with actual Helium producing magnetic moment, so quantum mechanical helium model with unreal spin is **wrong** and disagrees with experimental facts.

*(Fig.60) Two same-shaped orbits are perpendicular to each other. *

Next we calculate the new helium's orbits using simple computer program.

Fig.60 shows one **quarter** of the whole orbits.

We suppose electron 1 moves on the xy plane after starting at the position of ( r1, 0, 0 ) in x-axis until it reaches y-axis, while electron 2 moves on the xz plane after starting at ( -r1, 0, 0 ) in x-axis until it reaches z-axis.

Because as I said, two electrons' orbits of helium must be **perpendicular** to each other to avoid destructive interference of two de Broglie waves.

This computing of Helium atom with two perpendicular orbits is complicated three-body problem which cannot be calculated without modern computers in old 1920s. ← This is why physicists had to give up this realistic and reasonable Helium model, and instead, accepted unrealistic quantum mechanics 100 years ago.

In this computation, first, we input **two** arbitrary values: total energy of Helium and the starting x-coordinate of the electron-1 (= r1, this starting x-coordinate will be increasing gradually and automatically, until +100 ), which will output the total de Broglie wavelength and the last electron's velocities after the electron has moved one-quarter of the orbit, which results will tell us this helium model with two perpendicular electron orbits is right or not.

Two electrons keep moving until they move one quarter of an orbit (= until one electron reaches y-axis, and the other electron reaches z-axis ).

After each electron has moved one quarter of its orbit, we get the output information about what de Brolgie wavelength one-quarter of the electron's orbit becomes, and the last velocity of each electron at the last point (= when the electron-1 moves one quarter of its orbit and arrives at the y-axis, this electron's last velocity must be perpendicular to y-axis for its orbital shape to be symmetrical around the nucleus ).

When one quarter (= 1/4 ) of the electron's orbital length becomes just 1/4 times de Broglie wavelength, it means one orbit is just one (= an integer ) times de Broglie wavelength, avoiding destructive interference, we compare the input helium total energy and the experimental helium total energy (= -79.005 eV ), and can judge whether this new Helium model is right or not.

If you actually compute it using the program below, you will surely find this Helium model with two perpendicular orbits will perfectly and successfully **agree** with the experimental ground state energies of not only helium but also all two-electron ions and three-electron lithium-like atoms.

↑ If the Helium energy value we input first gives just one times de Broglie wavelength equal to circumference of one orbit (= as the output result ) and **simultaneously** agrees with experimental Helium ground state energy value, this Helium model with two perpendicular orbits proves to be right. ← This will happen in this computation.

*(Fig.61) Right r1 → electron-1 crosses y-axis perpendicularly*

For an electron to return to its original position, the electron-1 orbit ( or electron-2 orbit ) must be **symmetrical** on the left and right sides of the nucleus.

So the electron-1 needs to cross y-axis at a **right** angle, and the electron-2 needs to cross z-axis at a right angle (= which can be judged by seeing the output results of the last electron's velocities ), after each electron moves a quarter (= 1/4 ) of its orbit.

Depending on the initial x-coodinate (= r1 = input value ) of an electron-1, whether the electron-1 can cross y-axis perpendicularly or not is determined (= there will be only **one** right input initial x-coordinate value which can give the **right** electron's last velocities where a electron-1 should **cross** y-axis **perpendicularly** after moving one quarter of a orbit in each helium total energy, hence, all other input values must be discarded ).

So after inputting initial r1 value, and confirming the electron-1 moves one quarter of its orbit and crosses y-axis perpendicularly (= the electron-1's velocity is in the -x-direction, when the electron-1 passes y-axis perpendicularly ), we pick up this remaining only **one** r1 value giving symmetrical orbits with the right electron's last velocity (in each different input helium total energy ) as the legitimate initial x-coordinate of the electron-1.

↑ When the output result of de Broglie wavelength becomes just 0.250000 (= just one quarter of a 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbit ), we can compare the input Helium total energy and the experimental Helium total energy (= -79.005 eV ), and judge whether this new Helium model with two perpendicular orbits is right or not.

When the input Helium total energy giving just 0.250000 × de Broglie wavelength of a quarter of a orbit agrees with the experimental Helium ground state energy (= -79.005 eV ), this new Helium model' **prediction** of Helium energies proves to be **correct**, and this will happen below by using simple computer programs.

This input initial x-coordinate (= r1 ) of electron-1 is automatically increased by one per calculation of 1/4 orbit, until r1 becomes r1+100 for screening.

In any r1, this program computes values, and we can check all those values, so the first inputted r1 value needs not to be right one. As r1 automatically increases, you can find the only **one** right r1 (= when electron-1 crosses y-axis perpendicularly ) in each different input Helium total energy.

In this computer program, after we input two values; the initial x-coordinate (= r1 ) of electron-1 and total energy of helium, two electrons start to move, interacting with the other electron and a nucleus through Coulomb force, which Coulomb acceleration is computed at extremely short time intervals to gradually change electron's velocity and position until the electron moves one quarter of an orbit.

We prepared three types of computer programs to do the same caculation of Helium orbits; JAVA ( version 1.5.0 ), simple C languages and Python ( 2.7 ), as shown in the link below.

Sample JAVA program

C language program

Python program.

As shown in Fig.60 and Fig.61, the helium nucleus is at the origin.

The electron 1 initially at ( r1, 0, 0 ) moves **one quarter** of its orbit and arrives at y-axis, while the electron 2 initially at ( -r1, 0, 0 ) moves until it arrives at z-axis.

As meter and second are rather large units for measurement of these electron's motion, so we use **new** convenient units

*(Fig.62) New units of time and length.*

From Fig.62, convert the old acceleration unit to new acceleration unit (= m/s^{2} → MM/SS^{2} ) like

*(Fig.63)*

If you **copy** and **paste** the above program source code into a *text* editor, you can easily compile and run this.

When you run this program ( for example, JAVA ) in command prompt, the following sentences are displayed on the screen.

*(Fig.64)*

First we input the *initial* x-coordinate r1 = **r** (in MM) of electron 1 (see Fig.64 ), and press "enter" key.

For example, in Fig.64, we input "**3060**", which means the **initial x** coordinate of **electron 1** is 3060 MM = 3060 × 10^{-14} meter. The initial x coordinate of electron 2 becomes -3060 MM, automatically (= because, two electrons are symmetrical around the helium nucleus ).

Next we input the **absolute** value of the total energy |E| (in eV) of helium.

In Fig.64, when we input "**79.0**", and press enter key, it means total energy of this helium is **-79.0 eV**.

↑ This -79.0 eV is close to actual helium ground state energy = -**79.005 eV** (= this p.4, this p.9 ) where unphysical Schrödinger equations, which are unable to solve Helium atom, just artificially choose fake Helium wavefunctions which proved to be illegitimate because of **Not** conserving total energy of Helium.

↑ The Helium total energies by choosing fake solutions for unsolvable Schrödinger solutions are **different** in different electrons' positions (= unsolvable quantum mechanical helium is **false** ), while this new realistic Helium model can surely **conserve** the total energy, so legitimate, because the electron's velocity at each point is changed based on actually computing real Coulomb electric forces among two electrons and a nucleus. (= three body problem of Helium can finally be dealt with using computer's power which was impossible in 1920s when paradoxical quantum mechanics was born )

True helium ground state energy is obtained by putting minus to the sum of 1st (= 24.5873 eV ) and 2nd (= 54.4177 eV ) ionization energies of helium = -24.5873 - 54.4177 = **-79.005** eV. ← this is experimental value of two-electron helium ground (= the lowest total ) energy.

*(Fig.65) Initial states. "r" is initial x coordinate of electron 1.*

From the inputted values of total energy of helium and initial x-coordinate of electrons (= initial Coulomb potential energy can be obtained ), we can know initial kinetic energy (= total energy - potential energy ) and **initial velocity** of the electron 1 in y direction and the electron-2's initial velocity in z direction.

For example, initial Coulomb potential energy (= V ) of the initial electrons' state of Fig.65 becomes

*(Fig.66) Initial total Coulomb potential energy V.*

The first term of right side in Fig.66 is Coulomb attractive potential energy between two electrons and 2e+ helium nucleus (= distance between each electron and nucleus is "r" ).

The second term is Coulomb repulsive potential energy between two electrons in the initial state (= distance between two electrons is "2r" ).

*(Fig.67) ↓ Program calculates electron's initial velocity "v" from input values.*

Total kinetic energy of two electrons is given by total energy (ex. -79.0 eV ) minus potential energy (= V ).

So from input values of Fig.64, we can get the initial kinetic energy and velocity of each electron.

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

*(Fig.68) Change unit of velocity.*

Using the new unit of Fig.62, this program changes "m/s" into "MM/SS" in the initial velocity.

Because it is **convenient** when calculating each acceleration and de Broglie wave at intervals of very short **1 SS** (= 10^{-23} seconds ) instead of very long 1 second.

*(Fig.69) Positions of two electrons (= perpendicular and symmetric )*

At intervals of **1 SS** (= 10^{-23} seconds ), we compute the **Coulomb** force among the two electrons and the nucleus based on their positional relashionship.

When the electron 1 is at ( x, y, 0 ), the electron 2 is at ( -x, 0, y ) due to their **symmetric** positions ( see Fig.60 ).

So the x component of the acceleration ( m/sec^{2} ) of the electron 1 by Coulomb force between electrons and nucleus is,

*(Fig.70) x component of electron-1's acceleration by Coulomb force.*

where the first term is the Coulomb force between the *nucleus and the electron 1*, and the second term is the force between the *two electrons*.

(rm) is an electron's reduced mass.

*(Fig.71) Distances among two electrons and nucleus.*

Due to **symmetric** positions of two electrons, when electron 1 is at ( x, y, 0 ), the electrons 2 is at ( -x, 0, z ), in which **z = y**.

As a result, the **distance** between electron 1 and nucleus is given by the first relation of Fig.71.

The second relation is the distance between two electrons.

Considering the finite helium nuclear mass (= *alpha particle*), we use here the **reduced mass** (= rm ) except when the center of mass is at the origin.

( Of course, even if you use the ordinary electron's mass instead of slightly-modified reduced mass, you can get almost the **same exact** helium ground state energy. )

*(Fig.72) Reduced mass (= rm ) of one electron.*

where m_{e} is electron's original mass = 9.10938 × 10^{-31} kg

See also reduced mass of three-body helium.

In the same way, the y component of electron-1's acceleration (m/sec^{2}) by Coulomb force between nucleus and electrons is,

*(Fig.73) y component of the acceleration by Coulomb.*

The 1st term of Fig.73 is Coulomb attraction between electron-1 and nucleus, the 2nd term is Coulomb repulsion between two electrons at each position.

Based on calculation of Coulomb force in each position, we slightly *change* the electron's velocity vector and position at intervals of **1 SS** (= 10^{-23} seconds ) until the electron moves one quarter of its orbit.

We suppose electron-1 (or electron-2 ) moves only on the XY-plane (or XZ-plane ) (= two electrons' orbits must be **perpendicular** to each other for avoiding destructive interference of two electrons' de Broglie waves ), so the z component of the acceleration (= **blocked** by two de Broglie waves' destructive interference ) of the electron-1 is not considered.

*(Fig.74) de Broglie waves in each short segment of an orbit.*

We also calculate de Broglie wavelength (= λ = h/mv ) of the electron from electron's velocity (= v ), mass (= m ) and Planck constant (= h ).

An electron's velocity is gradually changing in its different positions, as the electron is moving in its orbit, so the electron's de Broglie wavelength is also changing in different positions. ← This gradually changing velocity and de Broglie wavelength could Not be calculated in 1920s without computers.

Therefore, we need to divide the electron's orbit into many smaller segments where each short segment equals the distance an electron moves for extremely a short time 1 SS (= 10^{-23} seconds ).

Then, we compute the acceleration by Coulomb force, change the electron's velocity, obtain de Broglie wavelength and what de Broglie wavelength equals each short segment at intervals of 1 SS.

The number (= w_{seg} ) of electron's de Broglie waves contained in each short segment (= each short segment is w_{seg} × de Broglie wavelength ) is,

*(Fig.75) Number of de Broglie wavelength in the short segment.*

where (VX, VY) are x and y components of electron-1's velocity ( unit 1 MM/SS = 10^{9} meter/sec ), the numerator of the right side of above equation Fig.75 means the moving distance (in meter) for 1 SS. the denominator is electron's de Broglie's wavelength (= h/mv, in meter ).

In the numerator, we change length unit from MM into meter using the relation 1 MM = 10^{-14} meter.

Here, the estimated electron's orbit is divided into more than **one million** short segments (= each short segment is moving distance for 1SS ) for this calculation.

When the electron 1 has moved one quarter of its orbit and reached y-axis, this program displays electron-1's last velocity (= VX, VY ) at the last point

*(Fig.76) Computing results, when we input 79.0 eV, r1 = 3060 MM.*

After moving **a quarter** of the orbit, the program displays the above values on the screen. The initial r1 automatically increases per each calculation of 1/4 orbit.

VX and VY are x and y components of the last velocity of electron 1 ( unit: MM/SS ). ← The last electron-1's velocities (= VX,VY ) are x and y components of the electron-1's last velocities after electrons have moved one quarter of their orbits (= electron-1 should cross y-axis perpendicularly, so its last VY velocity should be close to zero ).

preVY is y component of the last velocity 1ss before VY ( so preVY is almost the same as VY ).

We pick up the values when this last VY is the closest to zero = meaning electron-1 crosses y-axis at right angles, which condition is necessary for the electron-1's orbit to be symmetrical on both sides of y axis around the nucleus. = Symmetrical orbit (= energetically equilibrium ) gives the lowest total energy, and the symmetrical orbit's total de Broglie wavelength simply becomes 4 × one quarter of de Broglie wavelength.

(mid)**WN** means the **output** result of the total number of de Broglie wavelength in
**one quarter** of the orbit. So, one quarter (= 1/4 ) of this electron's orbit becomes WN × de Broglie wavelength.

When one orbit is an integer = 1 × de Broglie wavelength, the 1/4 of the orbit has to be 1/4 (= midWN is close to 0.25000 ) × de Broglie wavelength.

↑ When the output result of one quarter of de Broglie wavelength becomes just 0.250000 (= just 1/4 ), and its input Helium total energy just agrees with experimental Helium total energy (= -79.005 eV ), this new Helium atomic model proves to be right.

*(Fig.77) When helium total energy is just -79.0 eV, 1/4 electron's orbit is 0.250006 × de Broglie wavelength. ← so close !*

Each time an electron has moved 1/4 orbit and calculated the total de Broglie wavelength included in the 1/4 of the orbit and the electron's last velocities, this program returns the electron back to the starting x-axis, and increases r1 (= initial x-coordinate of electron-1 ) by 1, until r1 changes from input initial x-coordinate value (ex. 3060 MM ) to +100 (= 3160 ).

As shown in Fig.76, when r1 is **3074** MM, last **VY** velocity of electron 1 becomes the **smallest** ( VY = 0.000000 ), which means electron-1 passes y-axis perpendicularly = symmetrical stable orbit.

This means when r1 ( initial x coordinate ) = *3074* × 10^{-14} meter, these electron's orbits become just **symmetric** around the nucleus (= so, only this initial x-coordinate 3074 MM value of electron-1 remains as a legitimate one in this case ), and we can know one orbit is 4 × WN (= 0.250006, when energy is -79.0 eV ) = 1.000024 de Brolgie wavelength.

In this case where we input -79.0 eV as helium ground state energy, the number of de Broglie wavelength contained in **a quarter** of its orbit becomes **0.250006**.

So, **one orbit** is 0.250006 × 4 = **1.000024** de Broglie wavenlength. ( ← so close ! but **NOT** just 1.000000 )

As shown in Table 1, when input energy is **-79.0037 eV**, de Broglie wave becomes just **1.000000**.

So we can get the final value of **-79.0037 eV** as calculated ( predicted ) Helium ground state energy, when Helium has two perpendicular orbits of just 1.000000 × de Broglie wavelength.

The experimental value of Helium ground state energy is **-79.005** eV (= sum of 1st and 2nd ionization energies of helium ), which just **agrees** with the computed ( predicted ) energy value of **-79.0037** eV, proving this new Helium model is **correct**.

Table 1 shows the results in which the last VY (= y component of electron-1's last velocity ) is the *closest* to zero (= electron-1 crosses y-axis perpendicularly to be symmetrical orbit around the nucleus ) in **different** input total helium energies E.

This result shows when the total energy of new Bohr's helium is **-79.0037 eV**, each orbital length is just **one** de Broglie wavelength.

This **excellent agreement** between calculated results (= predicted by this model = -79.0037 eV ) and experimental helium ground state energy (= -79.005 eV ) proves this new Helium model with two perpendicular orbits correctly considering destructive interference of two electrons' de Brolgie waves is **right** with **No** contradiction unlike unrealistic quantum mechanics.

Prediction (eV) | r1 (MM) | 1/4 wavelength | one wavelength |
---|---|---|---|

-78.80 | 3082.0 | 0.250323 | 1.001292 |

-79.00 | 3074.0 | 0.250006 | 1.000024 |

-79.003 | 3074.0 | 0.250001 | 1.000004 |

-79.0037 ← | 3074.0 | 0.250000 | 1.000000 |

-79.005 | 3074.0 | 0.249998 | 0.999992 |

-79.01 | 3074.0 | 0.249990 | 0.999960 |

-79.20 | 3067.0 | 0.249690 | 0.998760 |

WN × 4 is the total number of de Broglie's wavelength contained in one round of the orbital. This computed helium ground state energy value (= **predicted** energy values by this new helium model ) is **-79.0037** eV.

The **experimental** value of helium ground state energy is **-79.005147 eV** (= 1st + 2nd ionization energies, Nist, CRC ). ← almost perfect **agreement** between the prediction and experimental values !

So we can conclude this new Helium model with two electrons' perpendicular orbits giving just the same ground state energy as experimental values, proved to be **right**.

Surprisingly, all experimental ground state energies of all other two-electron atoms and ions just agree with computed results **predicted** by this Helium-like model with two **perpendicular** orbits, proving this new helium atomic model is **real**.

What is the very small difference between them ( -79.005147 - 79.0037 = **-0.001447 eV** ) ?

This tiny, tiny energy difference is said to be caused by "relativistic effect" of seemingly increasing electron's mass when the electron moves faster.

↑ But this name of "relativistic effect" is **wrong**.

Because the effect of electron's mass increase (= though it's impossible ) by increasing kinetic energy was first proposed by classical Maxwell theory ( energy = mc^{2} was first proposed by Maxwell, Not Einstein ). Einstein just copied this seeming mass increase effect in the wrong way called "relativistic".

↑ In Einstein relativistic world, all physical values are "illusory **relative** values" paradoxically changed, seen by differently-moving **observers**, so it's **impossibe** for such an unrealistic relativistic theory to determine or predict only one **definite** absolute physical energy value.

Instead of accepting Einstein ridiculous idea that electron's mass can increase without absorbing anything (= violate mass conservation, and Einstein relativity needs unreal virtual particles with **imaginary** mass as force mediators ), we can say, as an electron moves faster, it faces more resistance from surrounding medium, and becomes harder to move, which increasing resistance from surrounding medium is detected as a seeming increasing electron's pseudo-mass effect.

Thinking commonsensically, it's impossible to increase the electron's original mass **without** adding anything to it, as Einstein irrationally claimed.

So we call the tiny, tiny energy difference between experimental value and computed value ( -79.005147 - 79.0037 = **-0.001447 eV** ) "*pseudo*-relativistic effect" ( which is multi-electron effect, so neither Schrödinger equation nor Einstein relativity can get analytical value for it, so it has nothing to do with Einstein relativistic effect ) from here.

The theoretical ground state energy value of the *helium ion (He+)* can be obtained from usual Bohr model or Schrodinger equation ( Z = 2 ) using the reduced mass.

This value is **-54.41531 eV**.

And the experimental value of He+ ground state energy is **-54.41776 eV** (Nist).

So pseudo-relativistic correction to the energy in He+ ion is -54.41776-(-54.41531) = **-0.00245 eV**.

The theoretical ground state energy value of the *hydrogen atom (H)* can be obtained from usual Bohr model or Schrodinger equation using the reduced mass, too.

This value is **-13.5983 eV**.

And the experimental value of H ground state energy is **-13.59843 eV** (Nist).

So pseudo-relativistic correction to the energy in hydrogen atom is -13.59843-(-13.5983) = **-0.00013 eV**.

This new Bohr model Helium can explain and predict all two-electron atoms and ions perfectly.

Go back to tiny, tiny pseudo-relativistic effect.

The electron's velocity of the neutral helium atom is slower than helium ion, but faster than hydrogen atom.

So the pseudo-relativistic correction in neutral helium atom should be *between -0.00245 eV and -0.00013 eV*.

The above calculation value of **-0.001447 eV** is just between them ! ← The predicted helium total energy value **-79.0037 eV** by this new helium model proves to be perfectly **right** !

As a **control** program, we show the program of hydrogen-like atoms ( H and He+ ) using the **same** computing method as above. Try these, too.

JAVA program ( H or He+ )

C language ( H or He+ )

Here we use the new unit ( 1 SS = 1 × 10^{-23} second ) and compute each value at the intervals of 1 SS.

If we change this definition of 1 SS, the calculation results of the total energy (E) in which the orbital length is just one de Broglie's wavelength change as follows,

1 SS = ? sec | Result of E(eV) |
---|---|

1 × 10^{-22} | -79.00540 |

1 × 10^{-23} | -79.00370 |

1 × 10^{-24} | -79.00355 |

1 × 10^{-25} | -79.00350 |

This means that as the orbit becomes more smooth, the calculation values *converge* to **-79.00350 eV**.

The programs based on other 1 SS definition is as follows,

Sample JAVA program 1 SS = 1 × 10^{-25} sec, calculation takes much time.

Old sample JAVA program 1 SS = 1 × 10^{-22} sec--fast but the results are a little different

*(Fig.78) Two-electron Atomic Model ( He, Li+, Be2+, B3+, C4+ ... )*

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

JAVA program to compute two-electron atoms. ← After stating this program, we are asked to input atomic number Z.

If you pick Z = 2, this program starts to compute ordinary Helium atom in the same way as above

If you pick Z = 3, this program computes Lithium ion (= Li+ = 3e+ nucleus and two electrons )

If you pick Z = 4, this program computes Beryllium ion (= Be2+ = 4e+ nucleus and two electrons ).

So this program method computing all two-electron atoms and ions is almost the same as upper Helium program, except you should input another information = atomic number (= Z ) after running this program.

Computing ( predicted ) results of all two electron atoms and ions agree with experimental ground state energies !

See detailed computing method.

Atoms | r1 (MM) | one wavelength | Predicted results (eV) | Experimental values (eV) | Error (eV) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

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

Li+ | 1944.5 | 1.000000 | -198.984 | -198.094 | -0.89 |

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

↑ The experimental ground state energy of each two-electron atom or ion can be obtained from this this or this ionization energies (= the sum of the first and second ionization energies from the right = two most inner 1s electrons' energies ).

For example, the experimental ground state energy of Li+ ion with two electrons is the sum of the 2nd (= 75.64 eV ) and 3rd (= 122.454 eV ) ionization energies from this or table, hence -(75.64+122.454) = *-198.094 eV*.

Table 4 shows three-electron atoms and ions such as lithium, Be+, B2+, C3+, N4+ ..

See detailed computing method.

Atoms | r1 (MM) | one wavelength | Predicted result (eV) | Experimental values (eV) | Error (eV) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As shown here, we prove when two electron orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength cross each other perpendicularly, they give surprisingly accurate energy results in **all** two-electron atoms and ions !

*(Fig.79) ↓ Helium two electrons e1,e2 orbits must be perpendicular to each other for avoiding destructive interference between two de Broglie waves.*

Many experiments such as Davisson-Germer, diffraction and electron's microscope confirmed that an electron actually causes de Broglie wave and interference.

↑ The interference of all light and matter wave consists of destructive and constructive interference. ← The destructive interference (= canceling out wave ) **excludes** the electron from the place, hence, No electrons are found in the regions where the destructive interference of de Broglie wave occurs in two-slit experiments.

Realistic Bohr's atomic model could successfully predict the exact energy levels of all hydrogen-like atoms ( this p.3-4 ) by **incorporating** this electron's de Broglie wave interference and using the idea that each electron's orbit must be an integer multiple of de Broglie wavelength to avoid its destructive interference.

Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equation also used this de Broglie wave idea and accidentally got exactly the same atomic energy values as Bohr's atomic model.

Quantum mechanics is unrealistic and self-**contradictory**, so false, because the quantum mechanical atoms must always include unreal zero orbital angular momentum where electrons always crash into nuclei (= like the earth crashes into the Sun ! ) and become **unstable** with its electrons causing de Broglie wave destructive interference in its unrealistic linear orbits (= due to zero orbital angular momentum ).

↑ So we can **naturally** conclude two electrons' de Broglie waves in a **helium** atom cause their **interference**, and this electrons' de Broglie wave interference plays a main role in the strong Pauli exclusion principle and its mysterious Pauli repulsion **kicking out** the 3rd electron from the inner 1s orbit into the outer 2s orbit ( this 5th paragraph ) **against** strong Coulomb attraction of a nucleus.

After **ignoring** the **experimentally**-verified de Broglie wave destructive interference, quantum mechanics artificially created the **unrealistic** concept called spin to wrongly explain Pauli principle.

The **detailed** physical mechanism of how such unphysical spins cause strong Pauli repulsion is **unknown** and still Not explained by quantum mechanics.

↑ The unphysical electron spin was originally proposed to explain the electron's magnetic field as a **fictitious** electron's spinning or rotation.

But this idea of the electron spin as "actual electron's spinning" turned out to be **false**, because a tiny electron must be spinning much faster than light (= forbidden by Einstein relativity, this 3rd paragraph ).

So quantum mechanics started to say **contradictory** things "each electron has spin angular momentum and magnetic moment, but the electron is Not actually spinning !" ← nonsense.

Physicists have stopped trying to understand such a **paradoxical** quantum mechanical world.

Though the concept of the electron's spin was introduced to explain electron-generating magnetic field ( this p.2 ), its electron spin-spin dipole magnetic interaction turned out to be **too weak** ( this p.5 ) to explain strong Pauli exclusion energy and ferromagnet.

So the already-contradictory quantum mechanics tried to create another **contradictory** concept called "exchange energy" to explain strong Pauli exclusion repulsion.

↑ This ad-hoc "exchange energy" is **Not** a real energy, because there is No such thing as "exchange force", hence quantum mechanical Pauli exclusion repulsion is **neither** explained by any real objects ( this p.6, this p.8-lower ) nor admitted as real forces ( this p.10, this p.5, this last-paragraph ). ← Unscientific exchange energy is unnecessary, **useless**, even harmful (= preventing innovation ) for us, because we can**not** explain it using real things.

This quantum mechanical "**unphysical** Pauli exchange energy" not only **failed** to explain the real origin of mysterious Pauli repulsion but also prevents our scientific progress or innovation forever due to its nonphysical antisymmetric wavefunctions which cannot distinguish different electrons or atoms in different places by **unrealistically** forcing each electron to exist in all different atoms simultaneously ( this p.11 ) as if each electron exists in fantasy parallel world.

In order to explain the **real** origin and repulsive force of mysterious Pauli exclusion principle, we have to use the **experimentally-verified** de Broglie wave interference.

↑ To admit Pauli exclusion repulsion as real forces caused by some "real tangible objects" and explain a single electron's interference without relying on fantasy quantum mechanical parallel worlds, we definitely need the existence of some "real medium" filling the space around an electron particle compatible with successful Bohr's realistic atom.

Accepting the **experimentally**-confirmed electron's **de Broglie** wave as "real tangible wave or objects" needs the real medium (= Not denied by Michelson-Morley experiment ), which contradicts Enstein **paradoxical** relativity which needs **unreal** virtual partices as fictitious force mediators.

As shown above, using electrons' de Broglie wave interference and considering helium's two orbits crossing perpendicularly to **avoid** the **destructive** interfeference of two de Broglie waves, our new helium model perfectly and **successfully** predict the exact experimental energy values of all two-electron atoms, ions and even all three-electron atoms, which fact proves that real Pauli repulsion by de Broglie wave destructive interference is **right**.

We can successfully extend this **realistic** Pauli exclusion principle explained by the experimentally-verified electron's de Broglie wave interference to **all** other larger atoms and molecules.

*(Fig.80) ↓ Midpoint of de Broglie wave doesn't expel another electron.*

In realistic Helium atom with two electrons' orbits, each electron has to pass through another closest electron's orbital de Broglie wave (= opposite phase ) perpendicularly to **avoid** destructive interference of two de Broglie waves whose interference were confirmed experimentally.

The fact that two de Broglie waves crossing each other perpendicularly can avoid destructive interference is also shown in the fact that two light waves polarized **orthogonally** do **Not** (destructively) interfere with each other ( this p.1-last-paragraph ).

An electron moving around the nucleus has to do a "U-turn" at some point to return to its original point. Of course, also when the electron does a U-turn (= ex. when the electron-1 has moved 1/4 orbit and arrived at y-axis in Fig.60 ), it has to avoid destructive interference from another electron's de Broglie wave.

In this Helium model with two perpendicular 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits, electrons do a **U-turn** when another closest de Broglie wave phase becomes the safe "midpoint phase" between opposite phases (= midpoint is just like this node between wave crest and trough ), as shown in lower orbits in Fig.80.

This midpoint is *neutral* phase (= just between trough and crest ± opposite phases ), so it does **not** affect or destroy another electron's de Broglie wave.

So electrons can do a U-turn **smoothly** and safely when the closest de Broglie wave phase is gradually changing into the neutral midpoint phase, which does not cause destructive interference in this Helium model.

The electron is repelled by the other negative electron by Coulomb electric repulsion, so the electron tends to move towards the opposite phase (= destructive interference area ) of the other electron's de Broglie wave by Coulomb repulsion, hence, the electron automatically needs to cross this opposite phase of the other de Broglie wave **perpendicularly** to avoid destructive interference ( experiencing Coulomb electric repulsion from other electron negative charges simultaneously ).

*(Fig.81) ↓ An example of real Pauli principle by de Broglie wave's destructive interference. When there are four 1 × wavelength orbits in a atom, an electron is expelled by destructive interference from more than one other de Broglie waves' opposite phase. *

Bohr's realistic atom could successfully explain energy levels of all hydrogen-like atoms using the condition that the circumference of the electron's orbit is just equal to an integral number of de Broglie wavelength to avoid destructive interference between de Broglie waves.

The exact ground state energies of the smallest atoms such as Hydrogen and Helium atom could be obtained when the the electron's orbit is 1 × de Broglie wavelength (= corresponds to principal quantum number n = 1, as shown in this p.3 )

Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations also used the same de Broglie wave condition and obtained exactly the same hydrogen energy levels as Bohr's atomic model designated by the quantum number n (= meaning the total orbital length is n × de Broglie wavelength ), though only quantum mechanical atoms include **unrealistic** zero orbital angular momentum whose linear orbits (= like the earth crashes into the Sun ) are **chaotic** and unstable by destructive interference within its own de Broglie wave.

As shown in the ionization energies and periodic table, the ionization energy of the Lithium (= Li ) suddenly becomes smaller than the former Helium atom (= He ), which means the valence electron of the Lithium enters the outer orbit (= n=2 or 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbit which is **farther** away from the nucleus, as shown in good agreement between prediction and experimental Li ground state energy, this 5th-paragraph ) instead of the inner smaller orbit (= n=1 or 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbit which is closer to the nucleus ).

This change seen in the first ionization energies in various atoms shows the maximum number of electrons entering the smallest 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits (or n = 1 ) is **two** (= Hydrogen and Helium ).

Actually quantum mechanics also claims only two electrons as seen in Hydrogen or Helium atoms can enter the innermost 1s orbitals (= n= 1 ), and the 3rd electron of Lithium must be excluded from the inner n=1 orbit and instead, enter the outer 2s orbital due to Pauli exclusion principle.

Here we explain why the **maximum** number of *1 × de Broglie* wavelength orbits contained in an atom is **two** using **realistic** Pauli exclusion principle.

Each 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbit contains only one electron, so each atom can contain up to two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits with up to **two** electrons.

When the total number of orbits is unsymmetrically **odd** number ( ex. three electrons in three orbits, which can**not** form the stable symmetrical orbits, hence must change into the even-number two or four orbital atoms, as seen in Not symmetrical electrically = Not equilateral triangular positions of three electrons ).

In these **unsymmetrical** three electron's orbits, satisfying two conditions of electrically-symmetrical positions of three electrons' orbits balancing Coulomb repulsion among three electrons and three orbits perpendicular to each other is **impossible**, so the odd number electrons' orbits become **unstable** and destroyed (= by destructive interference among three electrons' de Broglie waves )

So we think about the case of the symmetrical even number = **four** electrons in **four** 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits, and explain why this four-electron case is **impossible** (= fictitious Beryllium with four electrons in four 1s or 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits is impossible ) with respect to real Pauli exclusion principle based on de Broglie wave destructive interference.

When a fictitious atom contains **four** 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits, each electron (ex. e3 ) is **surrounded** by **opposite** wave phases of **other two** orbits (= opposite phase thick lines of e1, e2 surrounds and expels electron e3 ) as shown in lower figure of Fig.81.

When an atom contains only two orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength like the real helium atom (= an electron crosses the other **one** electron's opposite de Broglie wave phase perpendicularly and safely ), an electron is **never** surrounded by **two** opposite-phase de Broglie waves of other two electrons like Fig.81 lower figure of a 4-orbit fictitious atom.

When an electron does a U-turn (= when an atom consists only of two orbits, it's OK ), in a fictitious atom of four 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits, the electron is **expelled** by destructive interference surrounded by other **two opposite** de Broglie wave phases (= resultantly, can**not** do U-turn at safe midpoint in this fictitious four 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits ).

↑ When **more than one** orbits of the opposite de Broglie wave phase are near an electron, this electron cannot pass just one orbit of the opposite phase perpendicularly. (= an electron crossing two other orbits of opposite phase in **two different directions** perpendicularly at the same time is **impossible** ) = realistic Pauli exclusion principle mechanism.

So the 3rd electron of Lithium and the 3rd, 4th electrons of Beryllium are **unable** to enter the innermost 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits due to **destructive** interference between opposite phases of de Broglie waves..

The maximum number of 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits contained in a single atom proves to be up to **two** like Helium atom.

This is a **realistic** mechanism of Pauli exclusion repulsion based on **real** force and force carrier (= surrounding "medium" causing destructive interference between multiple de Broglie waves corresponds to **force** carrier, which is lacking in unrealistic quantum mechanical Pauli principle's "exchange energy" ).

As a result, we can successfully explain real Pauli exclusion principle using the destructive interference of real electron's de Broglie wave (= **real** objects exerting real forces ) without unreal spin.

*(Fig.82) ↓ Electrons cross the opposite phases of another electron's orbit perpendicularly like Helium without destructive interference.*

Like Helium, another noble gas = Neon with eight valence (= outer ) electrons can be explained by the **same** principle based on avoiding destructive interference of other electrons' de Broglie waves.

In periodic table, Neon is in the 2nd horizontal row which corresponds to **2** × de Broglie wavelength orbits in energy levels ( = n = 2 ).

There are clear ionization energy gaps between atoms of different rows in periodic table, which sudden change of ionization energies shows H and He atoms in the **1st** row of periodic table belong to **1** × de Broglie wavelength orbits (= n = 1 ), and Li-Ne in the **2nd** row belong to **2** × de Broglie wavelength orbits (= n = 2 ).

Neon has **eight** valence electrons.

And one orbit of 2 × de Broglie wavelength (= two pairs of crest and trough wave phases ) can contain up to two electrons.

So we can assume Neon consists of **four** *2 × de Broglie* wavelength orbits, each orbit contains two electrons, therefore the total number of Neon valence electrons is 4 orbits × 2 electrons = 8 electrons, which agrees with the fact.

As shown in above figure, **all** electrons cross the opposite de Broglie wave phase of other electrons **perpendicularly** at vertices of hexahedron (= Coulomb electrically **symmetrical**, hence stable electrons' distribution ).

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

An orbit of 2 × de Broglie wavelength contains **more** pairs of wave crest (= electron ) and trough (= opposite phase ) than an orbit of 1 × de Broglie wavelength, so Neon can contain as many as four orbits ( without destructive interference ), such four orbits were impossible in Helium of two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits.

*(Fig.83) ↓ Electrons safely do a U-turn at midpoints of other electron's de Broglie waves without destructive interference in four 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits (= each orbit contains up to 2 electrons ).*

When Helium contains up to **two** orbits of *1 × de Broglie* wavelength, electrons can avoid destructive interference with other electrons' de Broglie wave of opposite phases and do a U-turn safely at the closest electron's neutral midpoints (= a point just between crest and trough of one de Broglie wavelength orbit, this midpoint between the opposite phases does Not affect or destroy other electron's waves ).

But when the fictitious ( Beryllium ) atom contains four orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength, electrons are **expelled** , surrounded by more than one other **opposite** wave phases (= encounter several opposite wave phases in more than one different directions, hence can**not** avoid destructive interference unlike the helium case where each electron encounters only **one** another electron's opposite wave phase and crosses it perpendicularly ), which is a **realistic** mechanism of Pauli exclusion principle.

In case of **2 × de Broglie** wavelength (= more pairs of crest and trough of wave than 1 × de Broglie wavelength ), it can contain **four** orbits **without** destructive interference from other electons, enabling electrons to move and do a U-turn smoothly and safely at other electron wave's neutral *midpoint*.

This midpoint in de Broglie wave is the point just between opposite wave phases (= between crest and trough ), so this midpoint wave phase is neutral, which neither affects other electrons' de Broglie waves nor causes destructive interference, as seen in Fig.83 lower.

This is why **2** × de Broglie wavelength allows up to **four** orbits (= total electron number is up to eight compatible with Neon's eight valence electros, in comparison to just two orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength in Helium's two valence electrons. )

*(Fig.84) ↓ An orbit of 2 × de Broglie wavelength can contain up to two electrons = two pairs of crest (= a part containing an electron) and trough (= opposite phase to the crest wave phase )*

An atom such as Neon can contain four orbits of 2 × de Broglie wavelength where each electron can cross another electron's opposite de Broglie wave phase **perpendicularly** without destructive interference like Helium consisting of two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits.

This is a **realistic** mechanism of Pauli exclusion principle.

*(Fig.85) Orbits of Neon cross each other "perpendicularly".*

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

Crossing perpendicularly (= Not parallel ) means they can **avoid** "*destructive*" interference between two de Broglie wave opposite phases.

Neon consists of four 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits ( total 4 orbits × 2 electrons in each 2 × de Broglie wavelength = **8** electrons )

*(Fig.86) Maximum orbits = midpoint lines + 2 (= two perpendicular orbits )*

We can prove all atoms use the same principle as Helium where two de Broglie waves cross perpendicularly to avoid destructive interference of electrons' de Broglie waves.

As the number of de Broglie wavelength in each orbit is higher (= more pairs of crest and trough of electron's de Broglie wave ), more orbits and more valence electrons can be contained in each atom.

For example, an atom can contain up to two orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength (= total two electrons ), as seen in Helium, and can contain up to four orbits of 2 × de Broglie wavelength (= total eight electrons ), as seen in Neon.

If an atom tries to contain more than two orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength, multiple electrons' de Broglie waves interfere with each other destructively, hence impossible.

An atom can contain **6** orbits of 4 × de Broglie wavelength, as seen in
Krypton. Coincidentally, Krypton has 18 valence electrons (= based on experimental ionization energy change in periodic table ), 18 is a multiple of **6**.

↑ In the **4** × de Broglie wavelength, the maximum is **6** orbits where every single crest phase of de Broglie wave can find and cross its partner = trough opposite phase in one of other electrons' de Broglie waves perpendicularly in Coulomb electrically symmetrical stable position.

If an atom tries to contain **more** than 6 orbits of 4 × de Broglie wavelength orbits, it **destroys** the symmetrical positional relation of a pair of trough and crest opposite de Broglie wave phases crossing perpendicularly. → destructive interference like more than 2 orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength

So as the number of de Broglie wavelength (= number of de Broglie wave's crest and trough ) **increases**, each orbit can **cross more** other orbits perpendicularly (= opposite wave phases cross each other perpendicularly ), avoiding destructive interference.

As a result, this new atomic model not only **agrees** with experimental results, but also explains real Pauli exclusion principle based on experimentally-verified de Broglie wave interference, **without** relying on unreal spin or unphysical exchange interaction.

*(Fig.87) The opposite de Broglie wave phases cross perpendicularly.*

Electrons spin is unrealistic and can explain neither the maximum valence electrons' number nor real mechanism of strong Pauli exclusion principle.

The maximum numbers of valence electrons by quantum mechanics and its unrealistic spin description are **false** and **inconsistent** with experimental facts.

According to quantum mechanical rule, the maximum numbers of valence electrons in different energy levels or principal quantum number (= n ) must obey 2n^{2}, so ↓

n = 1; maximum valence electron = 2 (= actual number = 2)

n = 2; maximum valence electron = 8 (= actual number = 8)

n = 3; maximum valence electron = **18** (= actual number = **8**) ← disagree !

n = 4; maximum valence electron = **32** (= actual number = **18**) ← disagree !

↑ But the actual maximum valence electron numbers are 2 (= n = 1 ), 8 (= n = 2 ), **8** (= n = 3), **18** (= n = 4 ) as shown in the way of the ionization energy change and atomic sizes in periodic table, which **contradicts** quantum mechanical prediction of **2n ^{2}** valence electron's numbers.

So irrational quantum mechanics started to make a **contradictory** claim that electrons of 3d orbital (= n = 3 ) should exist in the 4th row (= n = 4 ), and the 3d orbital energy levels should be magically higher than 4s orbital (= n = 4 ).

Quantum mechanics can **neither** predict these contradictory energy levels nor
explain why 3d orbital energy is higher than 4s using its useless
Schrödinger equations ( this p.1-left ).

Useless quantum mechanics just **vaguely** says the approximate effective central positive charge (= Z_{eff} ) is higher in 4s orbital (= then, Coulomb energy is lower ) than 3d orbital due to 4s electrons' penetrating inner electrons **without** showing any exact analytical solutions or energy values.

Because quantum mechanics is **unable** to solve any mutli-electron atomic Schrödinger equations ( this p.7 ), it just chooses **fake** solution (= called variational method, this last-paragraph ) by **adjusting** free **parameters** such as effective central charge Z_{eff} to fit empirically-obtained energy values ( this p.2, this 4th-paragraph ) instead of obtaining physical values from quantum mechanical theory ( this middle-effective nuclear charge, this p.7 )

So quantum mechanics is useless and unable to predict any experimental physical values which **disagree** even with approximate vague quantum mechanical description.

Using the experimentally-verified **de Broglie** wave interference, we can naturally explain Pauli principle and valence electrons' number without unreal spin and nonphysical exchange energy.

Each orbit crosses another orbit perpendicularly in the center line P as shown in Fig.87 (= 2 orbits ).

An orbit of 1 × de Broglie wavelength contains a pair of wave crest (= includes an electron ) and trough (= opposite phase of crest ).

And an orbit of 2 × de Broglie wavelength contains two pairs of wave crest and trough (= so, including two electrons ).

In Neon with outer 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits in Fig.87, both upper and lower parts of each orbit include 2 nodes (= crest or trough ) on the right and left sides (= total is four nodes = two pairs of crest and trough ), each orbit can cross other 2 orbits perpendicularly in a cruciform way (= wave crest crosses another wave's trough perpendicularly, one to one of opposite wave phases ).

So the total number of orbits ( where each wave crosses another wave's opposite wave phase perpendicularly one to one ) becomes 2+2 = 4 orbits, which is Neon containing 2 × 4 orbits = 8 valence electrons.

Neon (= Ne, 2 × de Broglie wavelength ) and Argon (= Ar, 3 × de Broglie wavelength ) have the same 2 nodes (= a pair of wave crest and trough ) in both the upper and lower parts of each orbit, so their total orbital numbers become the same 4 orbits, which can explain their **same** maximum valence electrons' number 8 (= 2 × **4** orbits ).

Krypton (= Kr ) is 4 × de Broglie wavelength, its orbit has 4 nodes in both upper and lower parts ( one orbit contains eight nodes ) which can cross additional four other orbits with their opposite wave phases crossing each other perpendicularly.

So an atom of 4 × de Broglie wavelength can contain at maximum 6 orbits (= 2 + 4 ), which can explain Kr valence electrons' number 18 (= 3 × **6** orbits ).

The fact that the valence electron numbers of those noble gas mean the maximum electron's number in each de Broglie wavelength can be found in the change of ionization energies in the periodic table.

**1** × de Broglie wavelength = up to 2 orbits (= each orbit contains 1 electrons ) = **2** (= 1 × 2 ) valence electrons as shown in **Helium**.

**2** × de Broglie wavelength = up to 4 orbits (= each orbit contains 2 electrons ) = **8** (= 2 × 4 ) valence electrons as shown in **Neon**.

**3** × de Broglie wavelength = up to 4 orbits (= each orbit contains 2 electrons + 1 hole to satisfy **Coulomb** electrically symmetrical distribution ) = **8** (= 2 × 4 ) valence electrons as shown in **Argon**.

**4** × de Broglie wavelength (= n = 4 ) = up to 6 orbits (= each orbit contains 3 electrons + 1 hole to satisfy Coulomb electrically symmetrical distribution ) = **18** (= 3 × 6 ) valence electrons as shown in **Krypton**.

**5** × de Broglie wavelength = up to 6 orbits (= each orbit contains 3 electrons + 2 holes to satisfy Coulomb electrically symmetrical distribution ) = **18** (= 3 × 6 ) valence electrons as shown in **Xenon**.

**6** × de Broglie wavelength = up to 8 orbits (= each orbit contains 4 electrons + 2 holes to satisfy Coulomb electrically symmetrical distribution ) = **32** (= 4 × 8 ) valence electrons as shown in **Radon**.

The point is a wave crest of one electron's orbit needs to cross the opposite phase (= trough ) of another electron's orbit perpendicularly, **one to one**, in this realistic Pauli repulsion mechanism based on electron's de Broglie wave interference.

If an electron's wave crest crosses another electron's crest (= both crests contain electrons, so this case where an electron ( = crest ) approaches another electron (= crest ) is unlikely due to Coulomb repulsion between electrons ), there must be places of two trough orbits crossing (= trough-trough crossing or opposite-opposite phase crossing ) each other near electrons.

After all, these two trough (= trouhg-trough crossing ) orbits (= opposite phase in two different directions destroying other electron crest phase ) kicks out another electron due to destructive interference between de Broglie wave opposite phases (= an electron or crest phase can**not** cross more-than-one trough opposite phases in more-than-one different directions perpendicularly at the same time ← destructive interference occurs ).

So to avoid destrucive interference of de Broglie waves, each electron (= crest part ) has to cross another ( **only one**, Not two ) electron's de Broglie wave's trough part perpendicularly, one to one.

When de Broglie's wave crest (= electron part ) and another electron' trough part crosses perpendicularly ( like He and Ne ) , a pair of wave crest and trough becomes harmless **neutral** phase (= the opposie crest and trough crosses perpendicularly, cancel each other seen by other electrons which tend to move in the symmetrically-middle or neutral part of other electron's crest and trough phases in multi-electron atoms ), which does not cause destructive interference in other electrons, so makes the whole atomic electrons stable.

*(Fig.88) If Ar has 12 valence electrons, Coulomb repulsion is Not uniform.*

Argon is 3 × de Broglie wavelength, and it has 4 orbits, so the total valence electrons should be 12 (= 3 × 4 orbits ) instead of actual Argon's eight valence electrons ?

Unfortunately, in this case, Coulomb **repulsion** among electrons is **unsymmetric** (= Not uniform ) and stronger **only** in some parts (= Coulomb repulsion among electrons in the atomic upper or lower part becomes stronger due to the shorter distance among electrons than the centeral part of the atom, as shown in the upper figure = electrically-**unsymmetrical** electrons' distribution around a nucleus in the upper 12-electron fictitious atom ).

So a fictitious atom with 4 orbits, each of which contains three electrons, total 12 electrons, becomes **unstable** and needs to exclude some electrons due to Coulomb repulsion, for electrons' distribution to be symmetrical around a nucleus.

As shown above, if Ar has 12 electrons, it contains **3** layers of the **same** 4 electrons, which electrons' distribution is **asymmetric**, and Coulomb repulsion among packed 12 electrons does not allow these 12 all electrons to be packed in a single atom with 3 × de Broglie wavelength orbits.

For Coulomb repulsion to be **uniformly** (= symmetrically ) distributed around nucleus, the electrons' numbers of the upper and lower layers must be smaller than that of the middle layer (= the upper and lower layers have 2 electrons, and the middle layer has 4 electrons, the total is 8 electrons ).

When the total valence electron's number is **8** (= each orbit has 2 electrons + 1 hole in each 3 × de Broglie wavelength orbit ), the Ar valence electrons are **evenly** distributed in hexahedral way like neon, so stable due to balanced Coulomb force.

This is why both Neon (= 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits ) and Argon (= 3 × de Broglie wavelength orbits ) have the same 8 valence electrons due to balanced Coulomb repulsion among 8 **symmetrical** electrons.

Coulomb repulsion must be considered also in Kr with 4 × de Broglie wavelength orbtis, and each orbit contains 3 electrons and 1 hole in Kr 6 orbits (= total valence electrons are 3 × 6 = 18 in Kr ).

Classical orbit is far more useful and easier to handle in molecular calculation than unreal quantum mechanical wavefunction.

*(Fig.89) If the number of orbits exceeds the maximum number ↓*

As I said, there are the **maximum** (= limit ) numbers of orbits depending on number × de Broglie wavelength.

In 1 × de Broglie wavelength, an atom can have up to two orbits like helium.

If an atom tries to contain more than two orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength, an electron is **expelled** by destructive interference of opposite phase of other electrons' de Broglie waves. ← this is real Pauli principle mechanism.

In 2 × de Broglie wavelength, an atom can contain up to four orbits like neon.

If an atom tries to contain **more** than four orbits of 2 × de Broglie wavelength, it also **expels** electrons by **destructive** interference with *opposite* phase of other de Broglie waves.

How are these maximum orbit numbers determined ?

When an atom has just the maximum number of orbits like helium and neon, each electron can cross the opposite phase of another electron's de Broglie wave perpendicularly, **one** to **one** (= crest-1 crosses trough-1 | crest-2 crosses trough-2 | crest-3 crosses trough-3 | crest-4 crosses trough-4 .. = all perpendicular crossing ).

For example, in neon atom of Fig.89, e1 electron (= crest-1 ) crosses the opposite phase (= trough-1 ) of e3 de Broglie wave perpendicularly, e3 electron (= crest-2 ) crosses the opposite phase (= trough-2 ) of e2 de Broglie wave perpendicularly ..

When an electron (= electron phase, crest ) crosses the opposite phase (= trough ) of another electron perpendicularly, this pair of crest and trough de Broglie waves becomes "**neutral** phase" which can**not** affect other electrons any longer by destructive interference. So all electrons' motions become **stable** and OK.

But if an atom contains **more** than the maximum number of orbits, this symmetrical "neutral phase" is broken, and **destructive** interference of de Broglie waves occurs, and electrons' motions become unstable.

↑ If more electrons are added to the original symmetrical hexahedral structure of Neon's 8 valence electrons, this **symmetrical** distribution of electrons around Neon's nucleus is **broken**, and de Broglie wave destructive interference occurs, which prevents more electrons from being added to Neon.

In case of more orbits than the maximum number contained in an atom (= if one excessive e1' orbit is added ), some intersection points contain the **abnormal** same electron-electron (= crest-crest ) phase (ex. e1 and e4 in Fig.89 right lower ), and other intersection points contain the abnormal same opposite (= trough-trough ) phase (ex. e1' and e3 opposite phase in Fig.89 right upper ).

This abnormal "trough-trough (= opposite-opposite phase )" crossing de Broglie waves are **Not** neutral ( only when different phases: wave trough-crest cross each other, these two crossing de Broglie waves is neutral and does no harm to other electrons ), so abnormal "trough-trough" waves can affect other electrons by destructive inteference and makes electrons' motion unstable.

For example, in Fig.89 right lower, e1-electron (= crest ) crosses e4-same (= crest ) phase wave, perpendicularly and abnormally. ← "Perpendicular crossing" means these e1 and e4 same-phase (= crest-crest ) orbits do not affect each other (= so, originally, e1 electron should cross the opposite phase of e4 electron perpendicularly ).

But other e1' and e3 opposite phase waves (= trough-trough, in Fig.89 right upper ) affect and **destroy** e4-electron (or e1-electron ) wave (= destructive interference ) from **two** different *directions*.

Because neither e1' nor e3 opposite phase wave is perpendicular to e4 orbit (= it's impossible for e4 orbit to cross two different-directional opposite-phase orbits perpendicularly at the same time ).

→ e4 electron is **excluded** by e1' and e3 opposite-phase de Broglie waves from **two** different directions by **destructive** interference.

In Fig.89-lower (= which configuration is prohibited also by Coulomb repulsion among unsymmetrical distribution of more than eight electrons ), e4-electron is excluded from e1'-opposite wave phase by two de Broglie wave destructive interferece, because this e4-electron orbit is perpendicular only to e3 opposite wave phase, and **Not** perpendicular to the excessive e1' opposite wave phase (= real Pauli repulsion ).

↑ In this case, e1' and e3 same electron phases overlap each other.

This destructive interference of de Broglie waves determines the maximum number of valence electrons in different de Broglie wavelength orbits.

And, this is a realistic physical mechanism of Pauli exclusion principle.

*(Fig.89') If Neon (= 4 orbits with 2 × de Broglie wavelength ) contains more than 8 electrons, electron (= e1 ) is kicked out by destructive interference with excessive electrons' de Broglie waves's opposite phases = real Pauli repulsion.*

As I said, Neon with 8 valence electrons contains 4 orbits with 2 × de Broglie wavelength, each of which orbit contains two electrons (= Neon 8 electrons = 2 × 4 orbits ).

According to the real Pauli repulsion, when excessive electrons are added to the original 8 electrons of Neon's orbits, it causes **destructive interference** among the de Broglie waves of the original electrons and the added excessive electrons's opposite wave phases.

As a result, in the upper figure, the original electron-1 (= e1 ) is **excluded** by the added excessive electrons e1' and e3' de Broglie wave's **opposite** phases (= jagged waves ) = These de Broglie waves are Not perpendicular to each other, hence, cannot avoid destructive interference.

This is real Pauli repulsion, unlike the unrealistic quantum mechanical Pauli exchange energies lacking real (exchange) forces.

*(Fig.90) Two perpendicular de Broglie wave orbits in H2*

Helium has two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits which cross each other perpendicularly to avoid destructive interference.

In the same way, hydrogen molecule (= H2 ) also contains two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits which cross each other perpendicularly, as shown in Fig.90.

We can explain Pauli exclusion principle which prevents three hydrogen atoms from forming imaginary H3 molecule (= joining three hydrogens together ) using realistic mechanism based on repulsive force and force carrier (= medium ).

If the 3rd hydrogen atomic orbit approaches H2 molecule, this 3rd H orbit interferes **destructively** with the **parallel** *opposite* phase of one of two hydrogen orbits in H2 molecule, as seen in Fig.90 lower.

Because it's impossible for an electron to cross more-than-one other electrons' opposite de Broglie wave phases (= more-than-one different directions ) perpendicularly at the same time.

This is a realistic mechanism of Pauli repulsive force in molecules which cannot bind to more external electrons than the maximum number of electrons determined by de Broglie wavelength.

In multi-electron atoms such as Neon with 8 valence electrons, multiple electrons' pairs of de Broglie wave crest and trough phases crossing and canceling each other (= crest and trough opposite wave phases crossing each other become neutral seen from other electrons ) generate the harmless neutral phase in the symmetrically middle directions where other electrons' orbits pass safely avoiding destructive interference.

Unlike the multi-electron atoms with longer orbits of multiple electrons' pairs canceling each other, in the shorter one-electron hydrogen atomic 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbit (= with no holes ), the 3rd hydrogen atomic orbit (= right side ) crossing the 2nd-middle small hydrogen atomic orbit perpendicularly **cannot** avoid being parallel to the 1st hydrogen atomic opposite de Broglie phase (= left side ) causing destructive interference, which realistic Pauli principle mechanism can perfectly explain why unreal H3 molecule is impossible.

Realistic Pauli exclusion principle of all other atoms such as oxygen atoms of C=O bonds can also be explained by this realistic atomic model without fatal paradoxes of quantum mechanical molecular orbitals.

This realistic atomic model based on actually moving electrons can perfecty explain the single (= C-C ethane ), double (= C=C ethylene ) and triple (= acetylene, HCCH ) molecular bonds.

Quantum mechanical molecular orbital theory cannot explain the carbon monoxide (= CO ), making a **paradoxical** claim that a carbon atom absorbs a oxygen's two electrons and becomes a unrealistic carbon negative ion (= C- !?, this last ), despite the oxygen's stronger electronegativity.

Unlike the paradoxical quantum mechanical CO molecule, the realistic moving electron model can easily explain the carbon monoxide electrons' structure without any contradiction.

Quantum mechanics tries to explain Pauli exclusion principle as unphysical exchange interaction (= unrealistically indistinguishable electrons ), even this fake exchange interaction cannot generate strong repulsion enough to prevent the 3rd electron from binding to H2 molecule, so quantum mechanical nonphysical exchange interaction allows **unrealistic** H3 molecule. ← Quantum mechanical Pauli repulsive mechanism is **false**.

↑ According to **contradictory** quantum mechanical Pauli principle's exchange energy rule, when two neighboring hydrogen atoms have the opposite spins (= one atom has up spin, and the other atom has down spin ), these two hydrogen atoms can bind to each other and form H2 molecule.

In the case of three hydrogen atoms aligned side by side (= H-atom-1 with up spin + H-atom-2 with down spin + H-atom-3 with up spin ), any two neighboring hydrogen atoms have the **opposite** spins to each other (= symmetric bonding ), hence **unreal** H3 molecule is possible in quantum mechanical spin exchange rule.

Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations are completely **useless**, unsolvable and unable to obtain exact molecular orbitals or wavefunctions ( this p.2, this p.6 ).

Such a useless quantum mechanics can only artificially choose **fake** solutions called trial functions or basis sets ( this p.27, this p.2-3 ), adjusting many free parameters to fit experimental results (= **without** predicting experimental values ) by variational approximate methods ( this p.36-37 ), which is extremely time-consuming and impractical ( this Approach, this p.8-left ) with **No** power to predict any molecular bonds.

One of the most serious problem is the quantum mechanical atoms and molecules with more than two electrons can **Not** be expressed by the quantum mechanical wavefunctions either in the conventional valence bond method or molecular orbital theory, which forced physicists to **give up** the multi-electron quantum mechanical models and reluctantly adopt the unphysical one-pseudo-electron DFT as the only choice.

So physicists have relied mainly on empirically-obtained energies or adjusted parameters instead of deriving them from the useless quantum mechanical theory in various molecular bonds, as seen in the popular Hückel approximate method for π double bonds ( this 2.2.7, this p.12-14 ).

↑ This is the clear proof that quantum mechanics made **No** contribution to the actual molecular science.

The most serious problem is the unrealistic quantum mechanics can neither use real Coulomb force nor separate actually-separable atoms and electrons, so quantum mechanics is intrinsically unable to deal with any multi-electron atoms and molecules, forever, so we must find realistic practical molecular models as soon as possible.

Due to the circular motion of an electron inside an atom, the influence of de Broglie wave or Pauli repulsion is limited, Not affecting distant area, hence, the inner orbital de Broglie wave cannot affect or destroy the outer 2s electron's orbital de Broglie wave where the outer orbits keep some **distance** from the inner orbits (= 1 × de Broglie wavelength inner orbits do not affect or destroy the outer 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbit, because outer orbits keep some **distance** from the inner orbits ).

*(Fig.91) Wave nature is needed for closed stable orbits ↓*

Only in the simplest one-electron hydrogen atom and helium with just 2 symmetrical perpendicular orbits, each electron orbit is naturally **closed** even if we simply compute the orbits using just Coulomb force.

In all other complicated atoms and molecules, each electron's orbit is usually **Not** closed, if we consider only Coulomb force for predicting electron's motion.

As shown in two slit experiments, de Broglie wave interference has strong power enough to modify Coulomb force (= an electron is scattered by Coulomb force of slit wall atoms, but the direction in which an electron is scattered is changed by de Broglie wave interference causing fringe. ).

Electron's de Broglie wave tries to avoid destructive interference and **synchronize** in phase with each other.

Due to constructive interference of de Broglie wave, the electron's orbit is naturally closed (= both ends with the same phase tend to automatically fit and bind to each other for avoiding destructive interference by the pressure balance mechanism where the opposite de Broglie wave phases with low and high density area tend to attract and connect with each other naturally ).

This realistic de Broglie wave interference effect modifying Coulomb force a little needs to be determined by actual experiments. = We should move forward with new experiments by treating electrons, de Broglie waves and Pauli repulsion as **real** physical objects which realistic atomic model-based scientific progress and experiments are miserably forbidden in the present unrealistic quantum mechanics due to "unrealistic exchange interaction" lacking real physical forces. → Our science **stops** progressing now.

↑ The current unrealistic quantum mechanics **never** even admits de Broglie wave as real waves or useful tool, and the concept of real force is Not available (= instead, nonphysical exchange energy prevails ) in impractical quantum mechanics.

*(Fig.92) ↓ This realistic H2 molecule proves to be true by computation.*

Except for the simplest one-electron hydrogen atom and the helium with two symmetrical (perpendicular) orbits around the same single nucleus, all other aromic and molecular orbits with different multiple nulei or multiple electrons are unable to have the closed orbits (= it's hard for two ends of an orbit to just meet each other on the same point under the complicated multi-electron or multi-nuclear Coulomb forces ), if we simply calculate only Coulomb force.

We need to consider other forces such as **de Broglie wave** constructive and destructive interference (= which de Broglie wave force or influence must be determined by actual experiments, like Coulomb force relation and electric charge had to be determined by actual experiments at first, a long time ago ) to explain the closed orbits (= de Broglie wave's lower and higher pressure regiones attract each other, and form an integral multiple of de Broglie wavelength by constructive interference ) in more complicated multi-electron atoms
and molecules.

So we need to use the **approximate** method of estimating real H2 molecular orbits using the following computing program, and prove that realistic Coulomb force and de Broglie wavelength can reasonably explain the actual hydrogen H2 molecular experimental bond energy, even **without** relying on the contradictory unrealistic exchange energies.

Two orbits of H2 molecule are supposed to be **perpendicular** to each other.
Here we suppose electron-a (= or electron-1 ) moves in the orbit parallel to x-z plane, and electron-b (= or electron-2 ) moves in x-y orbit, as shown in Fig.92.

Sample JAVA program to compute H2 molecule (= two perpendicular orbits ).

When you run this program, you need to input the initial x-coordinate of electron-a (= ea ) and electron-b (= eb = distance between nucleus-b and electron-b ) in the unit of MM ( 1MM = 10^{-14} meter ).

Then, you are asked to input the absolute value of the binding energy of H2 molecule (= experimental value of H2 binding energy is 4.746 eV, this p.2 ).

Lastly, you are asked to input the distance between two nuclei of H2 molecule (= experimental value of H2 internuclear distance is 0.7414 Å ).

From these 4 input values, this program calculates two electrons' motions and orbits based on Coulomb electric force (= calculate Coulomb force and de Broglie wavelebgth, change the electrons' positions and velocities at short time intervals, until an electron moves a half orbit ), and outputs de Broglie wavelength (= a value closer to "1" × de Broglie wavelength is better ) in one orbit, final coordinates of two electrons, and average forces acting on two nuclei (= for H2 nuclei to keep staying in the same positions, average forces acting on nuclei need to be close to zero ).

As I said, each H2 molecular orbit cannot be closed, only if we simply calculate it.

So we approximately suppose these two electrons experience the **same average** Coulomb force (= summing Coulomb force acting on two electrons and divide it by 2 at each electron's position at short-time intervals ), and two electrons have approxiamtely the same average velocity in two (perpendicular) symmetrical orbits.

↑ So this approximate method tends to give the lower binding energy (= higher H2 total energy ) than the actual H2 binding energy without approximation, but can give a pretty good result close to reality.

For example, we input the initial electron-a x-coordinate = ea (= "**3370**" MM = 0.3371 Å, here this unit is used, so input "3370" ), the initial electron-b's x-coordinate eb (= "**4938.5**" MM ), binding energy (= "**4.746**" eV = experimental value ) and distance between two nuclei (= "**7414**" MM = experimental value ).

In this case, the calculation results show one orbit of each H2 orbits is **0.98488** × de Broglie wavelength, which is almost an integer = "**1**" × de Broglie wavelength orbit, so this good result proves the realistic H2 molecule model with two perpendicular orbits is right (= as I said, this "approximate" method tends to give lower bond energy, so this de Broglie wavelength result tends to be slightly smaller than 1.00, which is a **reasonable** result ).

And in this case, average forces acting on nucleus-a is **-0.000082** ( here, the force between electron and proton separated by Bohr radius is supposed to be "1" ) which is **almost 0**, meaning nucleus-a of this H2 molecule is almost **stationary** and **stable** at the same position surrounded by these H2 realistic electrons' orbits.

In the same way, the force acting on nucleus-b is also **almost 0** (= -0.000128, The sign = "plus+" force is in the direction of the other nucleus ), meaning nucleus-b is also stationary and stable at the same position in this realistic H2 molecule.

So this realistic hydrogen molecule model with two perpendicular orbits of almost 1 × de Broglie wavelength just **agrees** with experimental values of H2 binding energy (= 4.746 eV ) and internuclear distance (= 0.7414 Å ).

Here we calculate another case when two orbits of H2 molecule is on the **same** plane instead of perpendicular to each other.

↑ When two electrons are on the same plane (= neglecting de Broglie wave destructive interference causing realistic Pauli repulsion ), two electrons can avoid each other more, lower the total energy, and its H2 bond energy becomes bigger than two perpendicular orbits.

Sample JAVA program to compute H2 molecule (= two orbits on the same plane ).

After running this program (= compile it with the file name of "hhmol.java" ), when we input the initial electron-1's x-coordinate ea = **3250** MM (= 3250 × 10^{-14} meter ), the initial electron-2's x-coordinate eb = **5570** MM, H2 bond energy = 4.746 eV (= experimental valeu), and the H2 internuclear length (= 7414 MM = experimental value ).

The result shows the one orbit is **1.001982**, which is slightly bigger than the integer = 1.00 de Broglie wavelength (= when average forces acting on two nuclei become almost zero = stable nuclei ).

↑ This result shows when we consider two H2 orbits on the same plane, its total energy becomes slightly lower and its bond energy becomes bigger then the experimental values (= if we try to choose the case giving an integer 1 de Brolgie wavelength instead of 1.001982, its bond energy is bigger than the experimental value of 4.746 eV ).

This means the actual H2 molecular two orbits are perpendicular to each other by the realistic Pauli principle based on de Broglie wave interference instead of two orbits on the same plane.

Here we use the rough approximation supposing two electrons of H2 molecule always have the same velocity and experience the same Coulomb force (= average of two electrons ), so the upper 0.98488 de Broglie wavelength of two approximate perpendicular orbits become closer to an integer "1" with non-approximate method (= as I said, this truly non-approximate method needs to consider de Broglie wave interference's effect, which must be determined by experiments, in order to give closed orbits ).

These calculation results show that the **realistic Coulomb attractive energies** are **strong** enough to give the experimental values of H2 molecular bond energy (= unrealistic quantum mechanical exchange energy is **unneeded** ), and the actual H2 molecule orbits are **perpendicular** to each other (= proving the realistic Pauli principle ) instead of two electron orbits existing on the same place.

*(Fig.93) ↓ Quantum mechanics uses unreal quasi-particle without force.*

Atomic physics stops progressing in quantum mechanics and molecular dynamics.

We havet to give concrete shape to each atom like macroscopic objects to utilize atoms for technological innovation.

♦ Valence electrons

♦ Bohr's Neon,
Carbon bonds,
Four-fundamental forces.

♦ de Broglie waves determine all atomic structures.

♦ Truth of electromagnetic waves.

♦ others atomic size.

Japanese version

2020/ 12/17 updated. Feel free to link to this site.