Humans' "science" stops progressing forever. (23/6/2 ) Quantum supremacy, computer, information are useless. (23/6/17)
Youhei Tsubono, Japan
QED, particle physics are wrong.
(23/7/1) Gravitational wave does Not exist
Humans' "science" stops progressing forever. (23/6/2 )
Quantum supremacy, computer, information are useless. (23/6/17)
(Fig.1) Unrealistic quantum mechanics copied successful Bohr model.
Despite many years' researches across the world, we are still unable to cure cancers. Alzheimer, autoimmune diseases.. ← medical and drug researches have been deadend.
The only hope left is very old technique vaccine and similiar immunotherapy to tackle viruses and cancers, blindly relying on whimsical natural immunological responses without clarifying detailed underlying molecular mechanism, which cannot avoid vaccine failure and severe side effects, though those clinical trials cost companies a great deal of money and time.
All tools used in the current Biological and medical research such as PCR, polymerase, DNA-ligase, restriction enzymes, nucleotide-protein-immunofluorescence antibodies were obtained from natural bacteria, viruses or immunized animals, Not designed by human's technology nor calculating actual molecular interactions using (fictional) quantum mechanics (= Schrodinger equation ) which impractical quantum mechanical calculations are Not used in any molecular biology research ( this,this,this=Materials and Methods, this p.9-12, this p.8-10 )
↑ In Molecular Biological research, "antibodies" obtained from immunized natural animals (= antibodies Not designed nor controlled by humans, like unpredictable vaccines ) are "the only tool" to investigate (= just "uncertainly guess" ) protein interactions (= by immunofluorescence, immunoprecipitation, western blot, ELISA.. this p.12-lower, this p.3, this p.9-11, this p.3 ) due to the current time-consuming useless mainstream atomic physics consisting of quantum mechanical ( this p.1-left, this p.2-right-upper ) and impractical (pseudo-classical) molecular dynamical (= MD ) simulation (= cancer is incurable ).
↑ All these biological methods can only see whether some protein vaguely binds to its specific antibody (= exact binding positions of proteins or antibodies are unknown ) by seeing (macroscopic vague) immuno-fluorescence ( this p.6-7 ) without looking into any microscopic detailed atomic interaction.
These biological tools are unable to know how exactly proteins change their conformations or properties after binding (= exact protein or enzymatic interaction mechanism behind diseases is unknowable ), and manipulation of target proteins by antibodies is also impossible, so inapplicable to predicting really-effective drug development.
For example, in this recent Nature paper p.10-(pseudo-classical)MD-simulation (= impractically-time-consuming), p.11-left-3rd-paragraph~right= immuno or western blotting using antibody (= obtained from immunized natural animals, instead of being designed by humans ). ← No quantum mechanical calculation is involved in biology ( In most biological researches, even this time-consuming useless classical MD is Not used, either. this p.10-12, this p.12-16 ).
↑ This fact shows the mainstream basic physics or quantum mechanics made No contribution to Biology, medical research or drug development ( this abstract-first, this 4,Biologists' view, this p.30-conclusion, this p.9-second-paragraphs~, this p.6-fifth-paragraph, this two arguments against quantum brain )
Unlike the industirial revolution or real scientific progress that made our life convenient, the current phony mainstream science such as global warming, ineffective vaccine (mandate), and gigantic particle colliders.. just made our life inconvenient and unhappy by wasting taxpayers' money, imposing unneeded restrictions, science tax, subsidizing the rich and, raising tuition of (useless) universities still worshipping fictional extra-dimensional religion as the only theory of everything science.
↑ All these deadend technological innovations originate from the fact that the longtime mainstream basic science consisting of quantum mechanics and Einstein relativity is just useless fake science blocking applied scientific progress by preventing researchers from utilizing real atomic interaction.
Academia, universities try to indoctrinate students with this superstitious religion disguised as "science" that is exploited as political tool to control people like old theological seminaries (= old theological schools teached religion as religion, but the current fraudulent schools try to teach and disguise "superstitious religious concepts" written in ancient paleography as "modern science", which level of academic fraud is unprecedented ).
Contrary to the media-hype, (fantasy) quantum mechanics and Einstein relativity are unsuccessful and useless for developing any modern technology such as computer transistors, NMR, atomic clocks, quantum tunneling, electron microscopy (= all of which can be explained by more realistic atomic model with de Broglie wave exerting tunnel pressure than the occult quantum mechanical negative kinetic energy ).
↑ All of these useful technologies such as computer's transistors were invented by actual observation, researchers' long experience, trial-and-error approach (+ accidental unexpected discovery, this p.2-middle-upper ) like Edison's light bulb, Not by (useless) parallel-world quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.8-conclusion, this 4th~ paragraphs, this p.16-first-paragraph, this-postwar research~ ).
This-lower "trial and error" section says
"the foundations of transistor electronics were created by making errors and following hunches that failed to give what was expected (= there was No such thing as "quantum mechanical prediction", which was just false and illusion created later by academia and media to hide the uselessness of unphysical quantum mechanics )."
But we have been unreasonably forced to accept this (fantasy) quantum mechanics as the only basic mainstream theory, so we have No choice but to baselessly say that quantum mechanics might be involved in developing modern technology, regardless of its uselessness.
↑ Quantum mechanical Schrodinger equations are useless, unsolvable, unable to explain any multi-electron atoms or materials such as semiconductors, so quantum mechanics must rely on fictional models with artificially-created pseudo-potential energies adjusting ad-hoc free empirical parameters with No power to predict any real-world phenomena such as transistors consisting of many electrons or atoms ( this p.2-second-paragraph, this p.3-second-paragraph, this p.1-second-paragraph ).
Quantum mechanical condensed matter (= allegedly used for depicting computer transistor or semiconductors as unphysical band model ) relies only on fictitious electron or unreal quasiparticle models with fictionally-changeable (effective) masses ( this p.14-second-paragraph, this p.2 ) and charges ( which can unrealistically become even negative mass ) expressed as nonphysical meaningless math symbols (= each electron, photon, quasiparticle = a†, b†, c†.. ) with No concrete particles' shapes ( this p.2, this p.2-results ).
The only practical application of Spintronics (= irrelevant to quantum mechanical spin that needs to be unrealistically spinning superluminally ! ) is said to be discovery of Giant magnetoresistance (= GMR ) where electric resistance changes by (unseen spin) magnetic direction of material that led to invention of hard-disk drive. ← Caution: (unreal) electron spin itself can Not be observed, only magnetic field of material can be measured.
↑ This Giant magnetoresistance or GMR symbolizing (imaginary) Spintronics is also one of unexpected surprizing discoveries based on classical trial-and-error approach ( this 10th-paragraph, this p.1-intro-1st-paragraph, this p.2-left-2nd-last-paragraph, this p.1-middle ) irrelevant to (useless) quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.1-right,p.4, this p.1-left ).
↑ Useless quantum mechanics can only show the unrealistic spin (whose measurable magnetic moment can be explained by realistic classical atomic orbit, so quantum mechanics is unnecessary ) as simple arrow with No concrete shape, fictitious quasiparticle model or (pseudo-)ab-initio DFT approximation that must artificially choose fake pseudo-potential exchange-correlation (= xc ) functional energy (= this exact universal form is unknown ) and free-parameters (= so DFT is just empirical, Not ab-initio, this p.6-last-paragraph ) with No power to predict any phenomena of transistors or spintronics ( this p.3-lower~p.4, this p.3, this p.6, this p.2-right-lower, this p.4-right-lower ).
The (misleading) claim that "quantum mechanics was the most successful theory predicting any physical phenomena !" turned out to be a big lie created for academia and the media to protect their old vested interests around the already-deadend hopeless mainstream theory.
Quantum mechanics has No ability to predict any physical phenomena from the beginning, contrary to the media-hype.
No quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations can give right solutions except for the simplest one-electron hydrogen atom ( this p.21, this p.6-upper, this p.6-lower ) which (accidentally) agreed with Bohr's realistic atom.
So physicists have to artificially choose fake wavefunctions or pseudo-solutions adjusting arbitrary free parameters to fit experimental results, which (illegitimate) quantum mechanical (approximate) methods are substantially "empirical" with No power to predict anything from the original quantum mechanical theory itself (= the misleading words "ab-initio" and "first-principle" are often wrongly used, this p.2 ).
↑ Even this (illegitimate) quantum mechanical approximate methods based on experimentally (= empirically ) adjusted parameters or pseudo-potential energies take unrealistically too much time and include fatal contradictions.
Hence, quantum mechanical equations (= whether approximate or not ) can Not be applied to bigger-than-small molecules nor normal material such as semiconductor, transistor, (pseudo-)spintronics.. ( this p.3, this p.11, this p.6-lower, this p.7-lower, this p.4, this p.1-intro-2nd-paragraph, this p.16(or p.4)-1st-paragraph ).
↑ In 1940s when Shocklery and Bardeen tried to discover transistors by classical "trial and error" approach, there were No modern computers (= because there were No computer transistors before they discovered transistors ) to calculate complicated Schrödinger equations, which means the discovery of transistors has nothing to do with quantum mechanical prediction.
Physicists had to rely on quantum mechanical most-widely used approximate method called density functional theory (= DFT ) or Kohn-Sham equation which outrageously replaced the actual many electrons in material by only one pseudo-electron model (= with No physical figure, this p.2-1~2nd-paragraphs, this last-paragraph, this p.1-3 ) existing in the fictitious pseudo-potential called exchange-correlation functional ( this p.3-5, this p.12-13, this p.8 ) which is No longer the original quantum mechanics (= the original quantum mechanics was dead in DFT ).
↑ This ad-hoc DFT approximation must artificially choose various ad-hoc different (fake effective) potentials or exchange-correlation functionals in different molecules or materials with No ability to predict any physical values ( this p.27, this p.1-4,p.14, this 3rd-paragraph, this 3rd-paragraph, this p.17, this p.13 ).
↑ The fact that DFT approximation has to artificially choose various different pseudo-potentials or exchange-correlation functionals due to the lack of universally-correct functional ( this-intro-1st-paragraph, this p.7 ) means this current most-widely used DFT (= pseudo-ab-initio, this p.5-right ) is just an "empirical" method relying on artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials and parameters adjusted to experimental results, Not a true ab-initio method of predicting anything ( this p.23, this p.10-2nd-paragraph, this p.21, this p.11-left, this 7-8th-paragraphs, this p.1-upper, this p.3, this p.48, this p.2-last, this p.2-right, this p.3-left ).
This illegitimate quantum mechanical mainstream DFT approximation with No power to predict anything is the current only way of explaining almost all physical phenomena such as semiconductors, transistors, spintronics and fictitious quasiparticles.
It means all modern technologies such as transistors, spintronics and biology have nothing to do with "quantum mechanics that lacks the predicting power.
The so-called quantum Biology is just a useless overhyped pseudo-science irrelevant to real biology ( this-lower-quantum biology today, this last-paragraph, this-lower Looking ahead, this 4-5th-paragraphs, this 6th-paragraph ).
Quantum biology (= still in its infancy, impractical forever, this 2nd-last paragraph, this p.2-left-1st-paragraph ) tries to unscientifically explain photosynthesis using the baseless imaginary quasi-particle called exciton ( this 3-5th paragraphs, this p.6-right-lower ) or deceptively-vague quantum effects in vain ( this p.11-right-2nd-paragraph, this p.7-second-paragraph, this 7th-paragraph, this p.3-scalable fractality ).
Overhyped deepmind Alphafold has Not solved protein folding problem at all.
All protein-folding prediction methods such as Alphafold just give one static useless protein structure trained from the alreadly-known protein structure database (= PDB, this p.2-right, this 2nd-paragraph, this 29-35th paragraphs, this-5th-last-paragraph, this p.2-2nd~3rd paragraphs, this-lower clinical support ).
This Alphafold can Not deal with protein's motion conformational change, protein interaction (= docking, this 5-6th paragraphs ) nor post-translational modification (= phosphorylation, glycosylation, protein mutation..).
So Alphafold can Not develop drugs ( this p.18-19-What will this mean., this 7-9th paragraphs, this-middle Is the protein folding problem solved?, this 8th-paragraph, this 13~16th paragraphs, this p.10-left-lower, ).
Microsoft's ad-hoc protein diffusion model (= RF diffusion, Evodiff, Diffdock.. ) tries to design and generate somewhat (meaningless) random (noise) proteins' sequences and structures against some target molecule (= static useless protein like Alphafold ) by (overhyped dubious) AI (= Not quantum mechanical prediction, this 7th-paragraph ), which successful protein binding prediction rate is still impractically low (= only less than 19% even with the help of Alphafold-2, this p.8-Design of protein biding, p.9, Fig.6b, this 9th-last paragraph, this p.3-last-paragraph ), and lacking many experimental verification ( this 8,13th paragraphs, this-lower Conclusion, this 7,11th-paragraphs, this p.1,p.2-right ), so it's also useless for drug development contrary to the media-hype.
Artificial intelligence (= AI ) and machine-learning are overhyped useless pseudo-technology created by various global companies and academia to cover up the inconvenient fact that the present science and innovation miserably stop progressing stuck in fictional, impractical mainstream science.
All the present methods for predicting protein docking and interaction are very bad, with extremely low successful rates ( this p.12-second-paragraph, this p.22, this p.4-right ), because all protein docking methods, whether rigid or flexible, can deal only with useless static (backbone) proteins like the Alphafold ( this p.3-last, this p.9-last-paragraph, this p.12-right-2nd-paragraph, this p.5-2nd-paragraph, p.6-6th-paragraph )
Molecular dynamics (= MD = still-impractical ) is the current only method of dealing with dynamical protein's motion or conformational change ( this 4th-paragraph, this p.2-second-paragraph, this p.2-right-1~2nd paragraphs, this p.1-introduction-2~3rd paragraphs, this p.2-left-middle ).
But this current mainstream (fastest) protein's motion simulating method called molecular dynamics (= MD ) takes unrealistically too much time to simulate only the very-short-time protein's motion (= MD computer simulation of only the microsecond (= μs ) small protein's motion takes more than days = very impractical, this 3-5th-paragraphs, this p.3-right, this p.4-left-upper & Fig.2, this 3rd-paragraph, this p.3-left-Coarse grain ). ← This is why cancer and Alzheimer are still incurable.
Time scale (< μs ) accessible to the current fastest simulating method or (pseudo-)classical MD (= only microsecond-simulation is possible ) falls far short of the actual biological reactions such as protein synthesis and folding that take more than minutes~hours~days.
Ab-initio MD (= AIMD or CPMD ) based on impractical quantum mechanics or DFT takes much more time than this (pseudo-)classical MD, so more useless ( this p.2-intro-1st-paragraph, this p.19(or p.13)-3rd-paragraph, this p.23-middle, this p.2-left-1st-paragraph, this p.10-right-10. ).
This impractically-time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ) stops our scientific progress in medicine, drug discovery and energy sector forever ( this p.3-first-paragraph, this p.1-left, this p.2-first-paragraph-lower, this p.2-left-1st-paragraph, this p.2-left-upper, this p.2-second-last-paragraph, this p.1-last~p.2 ).
The reason why the current mainstream (useless) quantum mechanics and even the fastest (pseudo-classical) molecular dynamics (= MD ) take unrealistically too much time to simulate even a very-short-time simple molecular motion is that quantum mechanical unphysical electron-cloud wavefunction spreading to infinity without clear borders and its paradoxical Pauli principle's antisymmetric wavefunction rule prohibit each atom or molecule from having real concrete shape and size.
Instead, they force us to rely on the very time-consuming impractical MD simulating method of calculating and differentiating the artificially-created pseudo-potentiel energies called force fields with artificially-chosen parameters at short-time intervals, many, many times with accumulated errors ( this p.5-12,p.24, this p.2-4,p.17-18, this p.3-right~p.4, this p.1-14 ).
↑ If we can treat each atom or molecule as a realistic tangible object with concrete shape and size, we can easily predict their interactive motions, combine them, construct various molecular nano-machines (using the current already-existing atomic force or scanning microscope technology that can easily measure each atomic shape as Pauli repulsive contact force, and manipulate each atom one by one as real parts with shapes ).
We can treat each atom as a real object with definite shape (= Macroscopic objects made of atoms having definite shapes mean each atom constituting macroscopic tangible objects also has definite tangible shape ), so we can easily simulate their motions (= predicting and simulating the real objects with concrete shapes is far easier like predicting billiard balls's trajectory ) like building and simulating the practical macroscopic machines, cars and planes made of tangible parts with definite shapes (= building practical cars, machines, does Not need the impractical time-consuming quantum mechanics or molecular dynamics ! )↑ If we give the concrete shapes to atoms like the tangible macroscopic objects (= this is the true case ), we can easily predict when two atoms with shapes collide with each other and how they move after collision like predicting billiard balls' motions even without the extremely time-consuming molecular dynamical (= MD ) calculations.
But in the unrealistic quantum mechanical atoms with No definite shapes (= due to unphysical exchange energy ), the time when two shapeless atoms collide is unpredictable, so if physicists try to reduce computing time (= which is impossible ) by choosing each long time step (= long time interval > 2fs ) and try to reduce the number of times of repeating time-step calculations, two quantum mechanical atoms with No boundaries nor shapes easily unrealistically overlap each other (= instead of two real things with shapes colliding and bouncing back from each other ), which unphysically-overlapped atoms acutely increase the total energy by the acutely-increasing Pauli repulsive potential energies (= atomic kinetic energy remains the same ), which means the acutely-increased total energy is Not conserved (= violating total energy conservation law ), hence, it gives wrong simulation results called energy "blow up" or "exploding ( this p.9-10, this p.27-29, this p.1-last~p.2, this p.28-first-paragraph, this 5th-paragraph )".
↑ As a result, in the unphysically-shapeless quantum mechanical atoms, physicists have to take unrealistically too much time by choosing very short-time interval (= each time step must be less than 2fs ), and repeating extremely many time-step calculations, which makes molecular dynamical (or quantum mechanical) simulation impractical forever.
↑ Furthermore, in the quantum mechanical atoms that are Not allowed to have definite shapes, we can Not save time by treating multiple atoms binding to each other by covalent bonds as one rigid object with definite shape together, instead, we have to inconveniently always calculate each atom (= pseudo-potential, force, position, velocity of each atom must be updated in each time step ) one by one separately even in very big proteins (= in this unrealistic molecular dynamical or quantum mechanical simulation, physicists can Not treat "one rigid fork" as "one rigid fork object", instead, they have to split a fork into an infinite number of atoms. ← extremely time-consuming ! The approximate coarse-grained MD treating several atoms as an incorrect round bead cannot give real definite complicated shape, either ), which is impractical, taking an enormous amount of time ( this p.5-12,p.24, this p.26, this p.29-30 ).
The useless dead-end mainstream physics or quantum mechanics needs fake scientific target such as quantum computers allegedly utilizing fantasy parallel worlds or superposition for (illusory) faster parallel calculations, and quantum information.
Contrary to the media-hype, all the researches on these dubious quantum computer, quantum information, and cryptography have been already deadend with No progress, No hope ( this 1st-sentence ) and No advantage, which is why many companies and academia need to spread a lot of misleadingly-exaggerated news every day to make it appear to be progressing.
Quantum computers are still useless ( this middle ), so D-Wave machines allegedly used for optimization or traveling salesman problems ( this last-paragraph ) such as logistics, scheduling, transportation are fake quantum computers called annealers that are also impractical with No advantage over ordinary classical computers ( this 7-8th-paragraphs, this p.2-right-1st-paragraph, this p.2-second-paragraph, this 2nd-last-paragraph, this p.17-second-paragraph, this p.1-intro-1st-paragraph ).
↑ Their fake quantum speed-up came from unfairly choosing very bad time-consuming method as (fake) classical algorithm ( this 6th-last-paragraph, this 2-3th-paragraphs, this 8th-last~3rd-last paragraphs, this abstract ).
All the present quantum computers (= still Not computers or calculators at all ) always give wrong answers due to their extremely high error rates ( this p.1-introduction-2nd-paragraph ), and quantum error correction is impossible.
Photon's quantum computers' error rates are especially worst and terrible where more than 70% fragile photons (= just weak classical light ) are usually lost (which means their error rates are more than 70%, this p.1-right ) during operations, and each photon's gate operation's error rate is hopelessly high = 60~90% (= successful efficiency is only 11~40% = when two fragile photons enter one logic gate composed of ordinary beam splitter, only 24% of those photons can be detected, and all other photons are lost even in the latest research, this p.9-left-first-paragraph, which means photon's quantum computer error rate per one logic gate is impractically high, worst = more than 76% due to severe photons' loss, this 3rd-paragraph, this p.1-left-second-paragraph ).
↑ This severe photon (whose light polarization is used as a qubit information ) loss and high error (= extremely low photon detection efficiency ) is why major companies such as Google and IBM try to use another type or superconducting-qubit quantum computers that also have impractically high error rates ( this 5,15th paragraphs, this last-paragraph ).
Ordinary practical classical computers can always give right answers with No errors, as shown in your very precise and reliable laptop computers, so there is No quantum computer's supremacy or advantage due to its unrealistically high quanum error rates ( this p.1-right, this p.1-right-2nd-paragraph ).
The hopelessly-high error rataes of quantum computers is why some physicists try to create fake quantum supremacy (= that was disproven later ) or fake advantage by letting still-useless quantum computers output random meaningless numbers or detect random photons' numbers (= called boson sampling, this p.1-right-2nd-paragraph ) into which physicists try to hide many errors caused by their hopelessly-impractical error-prone quantum computers.
This p.3(or p.2)-upper says
"But in the NISQ era we
do Not have the quantum resources to implement error correction and so experiments are highly
noisy. For example, Google’s recent quantum supremacy experiment estimated that their fidelity (= accurate rate )
was merely ∼ 0.2% (i.e., the experiment was ∼ 99.8% noise = 99.8 % error rate ! ) and that their fidelity will
further decrease as they scale their system. Therefore their quantum supremacy claim hinges on
whether or not random circuit sampling is intractable in the high noise (= error ) regime, in which there is only
a small signal of the correct experiment in a sea of noise, and this signal diminishes with system size"
↑ Google quantum computer's error or noise rate is extremely high = 99.8% (= only 0.2% accuracy or fidelity ) in the random sampling claiming dubious supremacy which means their random meaningless numbers obtained by Google quantum computer are just results of errors (or noise ) irrelevant to quantum mechanical calculation. ← No evidence of quantum mechanical calculation's speed-up nor supremacy
↑ The fact that the present (useless) quantum computers can Not eliminate their errors (= noise ) means all calculated results given by the error-prone quantum computers are Not right answers nor true quantum mechanical results, whether they are random meaningless or non-random numbers. ← it's impossible to prove that the (unseen fictionally-faster) quantum mechanical superposition or 253 parallel-universe dream-like calculations (= which are unobservable with No evidence ) allegedly inaccessible to classical computer really happen ( 53 of the imaginary 253 superposition states is Google quantum computer's bit number, this 8~9th paragraphs, this middle ).
↑ Ordinary practical classical computers can always obtain right answers with No errors and can give various random numbers more quickly, so there is No quantum computer's supremacy or utility, which is why all the quantum computers are still useless despite their (false) quantum supremacy claim ( this-last, this last-paragraph, this 3rd-last-paragraph ).
In other words, quantum computers are hopelessly error-prone and unable to correct their errors (= quantum computers are unable to give right useful non-random numbers ), so physicists have No choice but to rely on outputting random meaningless numbers into which they try to sneakily hide the quantum computer's errors. ← No quantum advantage.
All the current quantum computers are unable to give right answers, because even the best quantum computer's error rate is extremely high = 10-2 ~ 10-4, which is far worse than the ordinary practical classical computer's error rate (= only less than 10-17, this p.1-left-lower, this 2nd-paragraph, this 17th-paragraph ).
For the quantum computer to be practical, physicists have to build a dream-like quantum computer consisting of millions of qubits ( this 4-5th-paragraphs ) with less than 10-15 error rate, which is impossible to realize forever ( this abstract, this 5th-paragraph, this 7th-paragraph ).
As they repeat each qubit's gate operation, the quantum computer's errors (= or noise ) accumulate, resulting in always giving wrong answers. ← No quantum computer's advantage over the current practical ordinary error-less classical computer or laptop.
For example, the latest Google's quantum computer's error rate is still far higher (= each two-qubit operation's error rate is 6.7 × 10-3, this p.5-left-2nd-paragraph ) than the practically-required level (= less than 10-15 ), and their accumulated error rate after outputting random meaningless numbers in their dubious supremacy experiment drastically increased to as many as 99.8% error rate (= only 0.2% fidelity or accuracy, this p.3(or p.2)-upper, this p.3-right ), which is just the result of errors, Not of quantum mechanical calculation !
If physicists try to detect and correct errors, their error-correction manipulation itself further increases and worsens their original error rate. ← Quantum error-correction operation itself has an adverse effect with No correction.
Even in the latest Google's best error correction experiment, their resultant error rate increased to about 3.0% (= 3 × 10-2 ) from the original error rate (= 10-3 ) by the current devastating quantum error correction opperation ( this 3rd-last-paragraph, this 2nd-paragraph ).
Furthermore, Google's quantum computers could just detect errors, and could Not correct their errors ( this 3rd-paragraph ), so useless. ← No hope nor progress in quantum computer's error correction.
The dream-like (illusory) error-correction of such useless quantum computers is still just pie-in-the-sky empty theory with No experimental realization ( this 5th-last-paragraph, this 4th-last-paragraph, this 4th-last-paragraph, this p.32-conclusion, this 7th-paragraph ).
IBM gave up correcting errors of their hopelessly error prone quantum computers, and tried to rely on illegitimate error(or noise)-mitigating model to indirectly obtain seeming right answers by post-adjustment of artificial error parameters or models without true quantum computer's calculation ( this 2nd-last-paragraph ).
↑ Also in this IBM case published in the recent Nature, ordinary classical laptop computers were proved to calculate and give more accurate answers much faster than their dubious quantum computers ( this 6-11th paragraphs, this abstract, this abstract ), hence No quantum advantage ( this 3rd-last paragraph ).
↑ After this IBM paper (= using dubious error-mitigation, Not legitimate error correction ), many physicists showed that ordinary classical computers (= classical tensor-network simulation of quantum imaginary superposition ) outperformed any quantum computers (= still-impractical due to quantum computers' high error rates and inability to give right answers ) with any numbers of qubits ( this p.1-abstract, p.1-left ). ← Quantum computers proved to be officially dead.
It is impossible for such error-prone quantum computers to give right answers of molecular energy for drug development or climate change, which is the media-hype.
Physicists tried to illegitimately combine ordinary practical classical computer with the current useless error-prone quantum computers, and call them "(deceptive) hybrid computers (= called variational quantum eigensolver or VQE )" that are substantially classical computers, Not quantum computers.
↑ Almost all important complicated molecular energy calculatios (+ error correction of impractical quantum computer ) must be conducted by ordinary classical computers ( this 6~8th paragraphs, this 5th-paragraph, this 5th-paragraph, this 2nd-paragraph, this p.32-33 ).
↑ The current impractical quantum computers use only less than 50 bits or qubits ( this Fig.1 used only 6 qubits or 6 bitstring = still Not a computer at all, this 1~4th paragraphs ) that are far inferior to practical classical computers with billions of bits and the (illusory) future practical quantum computer that will need millions of qubits. There is No quantum computer's advantage in their phony hybrid computers' molecular calculation and chemistry ( this abstract, this 5th-paragraph, this p.4-right-last, this-introduction-4th-paragraph ) contrary to the media-hype ( this 4th-paragraph ).
↑ This (useless) quantum computer's part with only less than 20 qubits (= and error-prone ! ) can do nothing but play with very simple version of (fake) meaningless (Hamiltonian) equation in vain with No power to calculate any molecular energies by itself.
Also in the latest misleadingly-exaggerated news, physicists are unable to calculate any (practical) molecular or chemical reactions, instead, all they could do was (wrongly) disguise only one (useless) trapped-ion or only one single atomic qubit ( this Fig,1g- Fig.2-top ) illuminated by laser light (= No chemical reaction ) as some (irrelevant) molecules involved in photosynthesis without conducting any quantum computer calculations using multiple qubits ( this 4-7th-paragraphs = using only one single ion qubit that is useless, this 7th-paragraph. Another similar paper used only five ion qubits that are Not a computer, either, this 5th-last-paragraph, this p.5-right-2nd-paragraph~p.6 ).
↑ These still-impractical quantum computers with only one or five (trapped ion) qubits (= disguised as some irrelevant chemical reaction without performing any molecular energy calculations ) are far inferior to ordinary practical classical computers or the (imaginary) future quantum computer which will allegedly need at least million qubits with No errors ( this 4th-paragraph, this 2nd-paragraph ) for some useful molecular energy calculations, which is impossible to realize forever.
The current leading quantum computer companies such as IBM and Google use superconducting quantum bits or qubits (= which consist of just classical circuits, ) called transmon ( this p.6-left-1st-paragraph, this 14th-paragraph ) whose error rate is the lowest (= still high, though ) among all types of qubits.
↑ But even this "best" transmon qubit suffers extremely high error rates, whose two-qubit gate error rate is 0.5 ~ 1% or 0.005 ~ 0.01 (= fidelity is 99.5 ~ 99 % ), which error rate is much higher than the current ordinary practical classical computers whose error rate is only less than 10-17 ( this 2nd-paragraph, this 17th-paragraph, this last-paragraph ).
The recent (hyped) news claimed that MIT researchers created (only) two qubits of new type of superconducting qubit called "fluxonium ( this Fig.1 )" whose two-qubit-gate error rate is 0.001 (= 99.9% accuracy or fidelity, this 6th-paragraph ), which is still far worse than classical computer and the (illusory) practical quantum computer whose error rate must be less than 10-15 ( this 5th-paragraph, this 3rd-paragraph ), and the practical quantum computer will need at least millions of qubits ( this 19-21th paragraphs ) which is impossible to realize forever.
↑ In fact, this fluxonium qubit studied by MIT is Not new. However, No quantum computer companies wanted to replace their conventional transmon qubit by this fluxonium qubit ( this 2nd-last~3rd-last paragraphs, this p.1-right-2~3rd paragraphs ).
Because this allegedly-new-type of fluxonium qubit is much more complicated ( this 5th-paragraph ) and much slower than the conventional transmon qubit, hence scaling up or increasing the number of these fluxonium qubits is impractical and impossible ( this 2nd-last-paragraph, this-last~10th-last paragraphs, this p.2-left-2nd-paragraph ).
↑ The time needed to operate two-qubit (= CZ ) gate in fluxonium qubits is about 2~3 times longer (= which means 2~3 times slower than conventional transmon qubit. fluxonium two-qubit's gate time is 85 ~ 200 ns, this last paragraph, this p.7-left-2nd-paragraph,Fig.4, this p.1-right-lower ) than the conventional transmon qubits whose gate time is 20~35 ns ( this p.2-left, this Fig.1b, this p.2 ). ← No advantage, and hopeless situation of quantum computers is unchanged.
Another recent hyped news claimed that Quantinuum's H1 ( consisting of unstably-floating trapped ion qubits ) might successfully excecute fault-tolerant algorithm (= untrue ).
↑ Even in this Quantinuum latest ion-qubit computer consisting of only less than 20 (ion) qubits (= fall far short of million-qubit practical computer ), its error rate is extremely high (= each 2-qubit gate error rate is 2 × 10-3 or 0.13 %, this p.3 ), and the error rate even after the so-called "(deceptive) fault-tolerant" operation is still much higher (> 1.0 × 10-3, this 6th-paragraph ) than the error rates required for the practical computer (= practical computer's error rate must be less than 10-15, this abstract, this p.1-left-lower ). ← still far from practical use.
This ion-qubit quantum computers adopted by Quantinuum and Honeywell can never be put to practical use like all other hopeless quantum computers. ← Physicists have already known this inconvenient fact, but had No choice but to hide this disastrous truth under the current unrealistic dead-end mainstream physics.
First, it is impossible to scale up or increase the number of ion qubits to the practically-required million qubits, because precisely manipulating many unstably-floating ions (whose two energy levels are used as the qubit 0 and 1 states ) by many lasers is unrealistic ( this 12-13th-paragraphs, this p.1-intro-1st-paragraph, this 2nd-paragraph, this trapped-ion qubit section ).
Even the latest quantum computer consists of only less than 50 (ion) qubits ( this 4th-paragraph ).
Second, this ion-qubit quantum computer is more than 100 times slower (= execution time is far longer ) than the current dominant superconducting qubits used by Google and IBM ( this p.4-right-3rd-paragraph ).
The gate time required for performing each two-qubit gate operation in ion qubits is longer than microseconds or μs (> 1000 ns, this p.6, this 2.2, this p.2-left-1st-paragraph, this p.5-right-lower ), which is far slower and longer than the gate time of superconducting qubits (= less than 50ns, this p.2-left, this Fig.1, this p.11-Table.4 ).
Furthermore, this latest Quantinuum's H1 ion-qubit quantum computer could Not correct errors, instead, they just artifically "post-select" results for seemingly removing errors ( this p.7-left ), which ad-hoc method is inapplicable to the practical larger computer.
As a result, the current hopeless situation of impossibility of practical quantum computer is unchanged (forever).
The so-called faster-than-light entanglement and teleportation are junk unnecessary scientific concepts that can Not send any real information, much less faster than light ( this last-paragraph, this 1-2nd pragraphs ).
Quantum information, internet and quantum network are also fruitless, meaningless research which can never be of practical use ( this p.1-introduction, this p.2-left-last-paragraph, this p.1-last-paragraph ).
The illusory quantum entanglement and teleportation are just the act of measurement (= called Bell-state-measurement or BSM ) of the polarization of photons (= weak polarized classical lights ) at the ordinary classical beam splitter (= the useless quantum entanglement or teleportation is Not an act of sending real information by quantum mechanical way ), so physicists must send this light's polarization information by ordinary classical (= Not quantum mechanical ) communication channel ( this lower ). ← No quantum mechanics is involved. And this meaningless Bell state measurement can only distinguish the light's polarization (= utilized as quantum information ) with low impractical efficiency = only 57.9% even in the latest research ( this 8th-paragraph, this p.11 ).
↑ It means the (meaningless) quantum teleportation (= whose meaning is the same as entanglement ) can neither do real work nor send any real information, it needs conventional classical communication channel to send information or communicate ( this-lower-Is quantum teleportation faster than.., this Please note that ).
Quantum entanglement can be explained or replaced by weak classical light wave. ← Unphysical photon particle is unnecessary.
↑ Neither quantum entanglement nor teleportation can send real information, so quantum network or internet just tries to send information encoded in very fragile photons (polarization) or very weak classical light wave that is irrelevant to quantum mechancal (fictional) power in an ordinary classical way (= Not faster-than-light ), and those fragile photons or weak lights, which are easily lost and useless, make it impossible to realize (media-hyped) quantum internet or network forever ( this 2nd-last-paragraph, this 2nd-paragraph, this The Challenge ahead, this p.1-introduction-first ).
↑ Quantum mechanics illogically tries to use this inconvenient easily-lost photon as the reason for "(illusory) secure" quantum cryptography or network (= which can be explained by classical weak light wave, quantum photon is unnecessary ), which is why such fragile-photon's quantum internet or network is impractical forever.
The inconvenient quantum network is Not allowed to amplify or copy the attenuated, easily-lost photons (= just weak classical light wave used as a photon qubit ).
So the detection efficiency of their weak fragile photon is impractically low even in the latest (overhyped) quantum network research (= this single photon detection efficiency is extremely low = only 0.035 or 3.5% = 97% photons are easily lost ! the two-photon coincidence detection rate is miserably far lower = only 8.5 × 10-6, this p.9-I.~p.10 ) after interacting with atoms (= that correspond to the still-impractical quantum repeater or memory, this 10th-paragraph ) and traveling only 36 km which distance is far from practical internet ( this 3rd~ paragraphs, this 13th~ paragraphs, this 7-10th paragraphs, this 2nd-last paragraph ).
In 1910s, Bohr model successfully and perfectly explained all energy levels of all hydrogen-like atoms and ions such as H, He+, Li2+.. ( this p.3, this p.2 )
Contrary to the mainstream narratives, Bohr's realistic atom was stable, Not losing energy just by an electron orbiting around a nucleus, as shown in the fact that Bohr model was awarded Nobel prize as the legitimate mainstream atomic theory ( this last ).
The example of "accelerating charge radiating and losing energy by classical electromagnetism" uses a fictitious charged particle into which many smaller charges are packed against Coulomb repulsion, which does Not correspond to Bohr's realistic atom that uses a single unbreakable electron that does Not consist of smaller charges, and stable de Broglie wave.
Bohr's realistic atom used a real moving electron and the condition of the orbital length equal to an integral multiple of de Broglie wavelength (= avoiding destructive interference of electron's de Broglie wave ) to successfully obtain correct atomic energy levels, quantized angular momentum (= ℏ ), and experimentally-confirmed Bohr magneton (= magnetic field produced by Bohr's electron's orbital motion ), most of these Bohr atomic concepts are used also in quantum mechanics. = Bohr model is right.
This de Broglie wave interference of various particles was confirmed as real in many experiments such as Davisson-Germaer.
But unfortunately, this Bohr's realistic model could not obtain the correct helium atomic energy, because there were No modern computers to compute the complicated helium's two electrons' motion that was an extremely difficult three-body problem, which was impossible to solve with the old pen and paper approach (= the simplest circular helium model disagreed with experiments due to its ignoring the destructive interference of two electrons' de Broglie waves ).
But even in the lack of computing resources, physicists had to continue their researches to build their academic careers, develop new (imaginary) theory, and aim at some science prizes. ← Science was Not allowed to stop progressing, whether it was fake or not.
This is why physicists had to reluctantly accept unphysical quantum mechanics as the only mainstream theory. ← Quantum mechanics cannot give analytical solutions of three-body helium atoms, either ( this p.2-top ). But it could use (illegitimate) approximate method ( this p.2-7 ) choosing (fake) trial wavefunctions, which is the main culprit that prevents today's technological innovation.
Schrödinger equation = quantum mechanical only calculation tool accidentally obtained the same hydrogen's energy levels as the Bohr's model using the same principle of de Broglie wave theory ( this 2~3rd paragraphs ).
↑ Reason why unphysical quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations could give energies seemingly close to experimental values (= not in a legitimate way, though ) is that it uses the same de Broglie wave theory, Bohr magneton and radius as the successful Bohr's atomic model, Not because quantum mechanics itself was right.
Quantum mechanical atoms must always include unrealistic negative kinetic energy ( this p.8 ) and zero orbital angular momentum where an electron must always crash into a nucleus in its linear motion (= zero angular momentum ) which causes destructive interference of de Broglie wave, hence unstable ( this middle ). ← Quantum mechanical model has been false from the beginning.
The so-called quantum tunnel is not supernatural but realistic (= classically-possible ) phenomenon where electrons can naturally penetrate the thin air or vacuum under applied voltage (= containing No solid barriers, but the vacuum is treated like insulator barrier whose exact potential barrier's height is unknown in the case of extremely short distance ). ← Quantum tunneling happens only when the barrier width is extremely short (= only nm wide, this 2nd-paragraph, this 3rd-paragraph, ).
Quantum mechanics can only show unrealistic explanation that tunnel may be caused by the physically-impossible negative kinetic energy ( this p.7 ) whose detailed mechanism is unknown and Not given by contradictory quantum mechanics ( this 2-3rd paragraphs ).
This electron's tunneling can be naturally explained by normal thermal fluctuation or real de Broglie wave's pressure (= proven to have enough power to push or affect an electron's motion as shown in in actually-verified interference experiments ) even without unrealistic quantum mechanical negative kinetic energy.
This unphysical quantum mechanical atomic wavefunction treated as vague electron's probability cloud has to always spread to infinity with no boundary, which means each single electron must always exist in all different places simultaneously like a dead-and-alive cat living in fictional parallel worlds, which is called superposition.
This is why even founders of quantum physics = Schrödinger and Einstein did Not accept such a ridiculous quantum mechanics as a real theory.
To explain two-slit interference experiment of a single electron, quantum mechanics needs unrealistic parallel worlds into which a single electron "splits" in order to pass multiple different slits simultaneously. ← ridiculous.
Quantum mechanics was not only unreal but also useless except for one-electron hydrogen that accidentally gives the same energy values as Bohr's atom, because all quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms and molecules are unsolvable, unable to give right atomic energies.
Contrary to the media-hype, quantum mechanical Schrödinger equation for one-electron hydrogen molecule ion (= H2+ ) is also unsolvable ( this p.2 3rd-paragraph, this p.1-left-last-paragraph, p.2-right uses fictitious quasi-wavefunction ).
So physicists have to artificially pick up fake solutions called trial wavefunctions and basis sets out of infinite choices, and artificially manipulate many parameters, which quantum mechanical method cannot predict any atomic energies. ← Not science but just "art"
↑ There is No way of knowing what (fake) trial wavefunctions can give energies close to experimental values, until physicists waste much time to compare their calculation results with experimental energy values one by one ( this p.4 5th-paragraph, this 2nd-paragraph, this p.21-lower, this 3~5th paragraphs ).
So quantum mechanical calculation method is completely meaningless, it is far better to use the experimental energy values from the beginning instead of wasting too much time in quantum mechanical meaninglessly-inefficient calculation of unsolvable Schrödinger euqations that were unable to predict any physical values and completely useless for developing modern computer transistors consisting of many, many atoms, contrary to the standard explanation.
We proved that quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms can never find true solutions like unsolvable H2+ molecular ion (= true atomic wavefunction must always conserve the constant total energy in any electrons' positions, which is proved to be impossible ), hence quantum mechanics is officially proven false.
Furthermore, quantum mechanics tries to explain Pauli exclusion principle by unphysical antisymmetric wavefunctions allegedly causing fictitious exchange energy (= lacking exchange force, this p.8-last-paragraph, this p.5-first-paragraph ) that can Not be applied to any atoms or molecules with more than two electrons (= ex. Lithium ). ← Quantum mechanics is wrong.
This is why the quantum mechanical (unphysical) molecular orbital theory (= MO ) failed to explain actual molecular or intermolecular energies, and physicists tended to rely on semi-empirical Huckel method that just artificially chooses and adjusts free parameters with No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.4-10.4 ).
Furthermore this failed quantum mechanics takes too much time to approximately calculate even small molecules. ← impractical
So physicists were forced to use the present most-popular quantum mechanical ad-hoc approximation called density functional (= DFT or Kohn-Sham ) theory that outrageously replaces the whole many-electron material by only-one pseudo-electron (= one electron's density coordinate, this p.3-5 ) or fictitious quasiparticle model with fake effective mass, charge, giving up explaining the phenomena of various materials, superconductors, semiconductos using real particles or electrons. ← Basic physics has stalled by this pseudo-mainstream-science based on imaginary particles.
↑ This most-widely-used quantum mechanical DFT approximation has to artificially choose fake different potential energies called exchange-correlation functionals with empirically-adjusted parameters irrelevant to the original quantum mechanics in different materials and situations ( this p.10-second-paragraph ). ← No successful universal (fake) potential-energy functional means DFT has No power to predict actual energies or physical phenomena, and quantum mechanics failed ( this p.32 ).
↑ This unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions making every single electron indistinguishable and spreading over all different atoms ( this p.2 ) is why the time-consuming impractical molecular dynamics (= MD ) bound by pseudo-potential energies called force-field is the current only protein simulating method that stops our innovation or medical development forever.
Quantum mechanical hydrogen atomic ground state has the unrealistic zero orbital angular momentum which produces zero magnetic field and disagrees with experimental result of Bohr magneton actually observed in hydrogen atom.
So physicists had to artificially create another unrealistic concept called electron spin. ← An electron is extremely tiny (= less than 10-16 cm according to Coulomb scattering, as shown in this-middle-3rd-paragraph ), hence, each electron must be spinning much faster than light to produce the experimentally-obesrved Bohr-magneton magnetic field, which disagrees with another mainstream theory = Einstein relativity prohibiting faster-than-light motion ( this 3rd-paragraph ).
This is why quantum mechanics started to say contradictory things: "An electron spin has angular momentum = 1/2ℏ, but the electron spin does Not mean actual spinning or rotation !" ← nonsense.
↑ And it is too good to be true that quantum mechanical electron spin is supposed to accidentally have exactly the same magnetic field (= Bohr magneton, this p.2 ) as the Bohr's model without spin ( this p.3 4. this p.12 ).
This fact shows quantum mechanical electron spin is completely unrealistic and inconsistent with other physical principles, this spin's magnetic field (= Bohr magneton ) can be safely explained and replaced by Bohr's realistic electron's orbital motion (= of course, this Bohr's electron's velocity is slower than light ). ← Ferromagnetism has nothing to do with this unrealistic quantum mechanical spin.
Actually, the famous Stern-Gerlach experiment measured silver atomic magnetic moment that can be naturally explained by the orbital motion, instead of the unrealistic electron spin.
Unlike the tiny,light electron, a proton is more massive and bigger than an electron, hence, the proton can be realistically spinning to produce its very weak magnetic moment, not exceeding light speed.
↑ Proton or nuclear magnetic moments must be determined from actual experimental measurements (= Quantum mechanics cannot predict these values ), and the contradictory electron spin can be replaced by the realistic electron's orbital motion, so quantum mechanics and its spin have nothing to do with developing NMR technology or the so-called spintronics.
Quantum mechanics often tries to unscientifically treat even the ordinary orbital angular momentum L (= S-orbital= 0, P-orbital=1, D-orbital=2.. = Not spin ) as fictional (= effective ) pseudo-spin, as shown in the latest Nature papers ( this p.1-right-last, this p.3-right-2nd-paragraph ). ← Basic physics stops progressing stuck in fictional concepts.
In 1916, Bohr-Sommerfeld model could successfully explain the exact small energy splitting called fine structure (= tiny energy difference between hydrogen's 2p3/2 and 2p1/2 levels = 0.000045 eV ) without using the unrealsitic electron spin ( this 5th-paragraph ).
Later in 1928, the mainstream quantum field theory called Dirac equation accidentally obtained exactly the same fine structure energy formula as the successful Bohr-Sommerfeld atomic model ( this-lower, this p.14, this p.1-last~p.2-top ) using (unphysical) spin and the alleged relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction (= this is untrue, as I explain later ).
↑ This is too unnatural coincidence, showing the later quantum field theory based on relativistic nonphysical Dirac equation copied the successful Bohr-Sommerfeld fine structure energy equation by fabricating the artificial ad-hoc concept called relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction that actually does Not exist even in this Dirac hydrogen.
We can easily show that this current mainstream (relativistic) quantum field theory's fine structure formula (= using Dirac quation's hydrogen model ) based on the (paradoxical) spin-orbit interaction is illegitimate and wrong due to its impossible assumption, and only realistic Bohr-Sommerfeld atomic model without spin is left as the right fine structure theory.
To explain the hydrogen's fine structure energy splitting using the quantum mechanical spin-orbit interaction, we have to assume the impossible situation of electron rest frame or static electron's viewpoint like the old crazy geocentricism where a heavier nucleus is magically rotating around an lighter electron (= spin ) at rest, producing fictitious relativistic magnetic field (= by the crazy heavier nuclear orbital motion around a lighter electron ) at the illusory static electron's position, and causing (electron) spin-orbit magnetic energy splitting depending on the direction (= up or down ) of the electron spin ( this p.2-3, this p.6-8, this p.11 ).
↑ But this (relativistic) electron's rest frame like the crazy geocentricism is impossible, because a ligher electron must always rotate around a heavier nucleus at rest to conserve the total momentum satisfying action-reaction law which demands the ligher electron's velocity must be much faster than that of heavier nucleus when there are only an electron and a nucleus attracting each other.
Furthermore, Einstein relativity causes fatal paradox. In the ordinary rest frame of the heavier nucleus, No magnetic field is produced by the stationary nucleus in the position of electron (= there is only electric field ), hence No electron's spin-orbit magnetic interaction occurs, but only in the (unrealistic) rest frame of the electron, the fictitious magnetic field is produced by the heavier nucleus moving around the ligher electron, and spin-orbit magnetic interaction occurs.
↑ Depending on observers' motions or different frames (= from viewpoints of the stationary nucleus or stationary electron ), the spin-otbit magnetic interaction or fine structure energy splitting is observed or Not, which is clearly paradox and shows Einstein relativity and quantum mechanical spin-orbit fine structure are wrong.
As shown above, Einstein relativity, which lacks the absolute frame, has to contain the unphysical frames where momentum conervation is clearly violated (= a heavier nucleus revolving around a lighter electron, like a heavier Sun revolving around a lighter earth ), which means relativistic quantum field theory cannot define the conserved angular momentum either ( this 2nd-paragraph ).
Einstein (general) relativity is also known to be unable to conserve total energy, which needed to artificially prepare (fictional) gravitational wave pseudo-tensor.
Hence, Einstein relativistic theory violating conservation law of energy and momentum (+ angular momentum ) is proved to be wrong.
In fact, the present quantum field theory or Dirac hydrogen does Not use the tiny spin-orbit magnetic interaction as the fine structure energy splitting.
Quantum mechanical (= or Dirac equation's hydrogen's ) unphysical spin-orbit operator σL (= σ is Pauli spin matrix, L is orbital angular momentum ) gives the total angular momentum numbers (= j = L+S, this p.3-5 ) that represents electron's momentum p or large kinetic energy ( > 3 eV, this p.30, this 2.-(1)-(5), this p.1-right ) like Bohr-Sommerfeld model without spin ( this p.5,p.8-fifth-paragraph, this p.1-left-2~3rd-paragraphs ).
↑ The current mainstream quantum mechanical Dirac hydrogen's spin-orbit operator represents the electron's large (classical) kinetic energy (> 3eV ) instead of tiny, tiny relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction (= only 0.000045 eV ). ← No spin-orbit interaction ! This is the trick.
This is why quantum mechanical fine structure just agreed with Bohr-Sommerfeld model without spin. ← the change of the quantum mechanical total angular momentum j from 1/2 (= p1/2 = spin-down ) to 3/2 (= p3/2 = spin-up ) of Dirac hydrogen's fine structure's energy ( this-last, this p.7,11, this p.3-4 ) corresponds to the change of electron's (large) angular momentum or kinetic energy (= expressed as orbital angular or azimuthal quantum number = nφ or L = 1 → 2 ) of Bohr-Sommerfeld fine structure ( this p.14, this-lower, this p.40-42, this p.4 ).
↑ Quantum mechanical Dirac's hydrogen's electron spin's flip from down to up (= total angular momentum j increases by 1 ) has large power to change the electron's big kinetic (or total) energy by increasing the principal quantum number (= n ) by 1, which is clearly inconsistent with the tiny,tiny relativistic spin-orbit magnetic energy.
↑ Quantum field theory Dirac hydrogen's fine structure expressed using the total angular momentum number j uses the same kinetic energy change (= instead of tiny spin-orbit magnetic energy ) as Bohr-Sommerfeld's fine structure without spin. ← There is No electron spin or relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction !
It is often said that the successful Bohr-Sommerfeld atomic fine structure used Einstein relativistic mc2, but it is completely untrue.
As I said, Einstein relativistic theory cannot define the single absolute frame, instead it needs to create the contradictory relativistic frames where a heavier nucleus must rotate around the ligher electron to cause the fake spin-orbit magnetic interaction even by violating momentum conservation.
Bohr-Sommerfeld fine structure uses only one single absolute frame with a stationary nucleus that does Not fit Einstein's crazy relativity that needs many different unreal relativistic frames like geocetricism.
In fact, Einstein's famous E = mc2 (= E is energy, m is mass, c is light speed ) is Not his original idea but one copying the classical Maxwell's equation's authentic E = mc2.
In 1800s, classical Maxwell equation showed that the light (= electromagnetic ) wave's momentum p is equal to E/c ( this p.9-2.22 ), which means the momentum p = mc = E/c → the light's energy E = mc2, where m is the light (or photon) mass, which is the original authentic Maxwell's mc2 ( this 2~4th paragraphs ).
Correctly, Maxwell showed the Poynting vector S (= equal to cE ) divided by the square of light speed c was equal to the light momentum p ( this p.5.1.29, this p.5-upper ). → S/c2 = E/c = p → E = pc = mc2.
Later Einstein copied this Maxwell original mc2 in the wrong way where his relativistic E/c = p is the same as the original Maxwell equation, but his relativity paradoxically claimed the photon or light has No mass despite non-zero photon's momentum, which causes serious paradox.
↑ In fact, Einstein paradoxically said a (fictitious) photon has zero rest mass ( m0 = 0 ) but non-zero relativistic mass (= photon's relativistic mass m is not zero due to the photon's non-zero relativistic energy E = mc2, this 4th-paragraph ).
Einstein's relativistic energy E is expressed as a function of the velocity and mass of a particle (= such as a photon ) where photon's mass is always zero and its velocity is always light speed c regardless of the photon's wavelength.
↑ This means that Einstein relativistic energy E relation gives only one single photon energy regardless of the photon's different wavelengths ( or frequencies ), which disagrees with the experimental observation, showing Einstein mc2 is invalid.
Because the actual photons (or lights ) have different energies E depending on their different wavelengths (or frequencies), but Einstein relativistic energy E or mc2 cannot distinguish or give different energy values in lights or photons of different wavelengths.
Einstein relativity also contradicts de Broglie wave theory where de Broglie wave interference of a moving electron must magically vanish seen by an observer moving at the same speed as the electron in the rest frame of a moving electron where de Broglie wavelength of the stationary electron looks infinite ( this 2nd-last paragraph ).
Furthermore, if Einstein relativistic theory is right, the matter wave's velocity must exceed the light speed c. ← self-contradiction ( this p.3 3rd-paragraph ).
The matter's wave velocity v equals fλ (= f is frequency and λ is de Broglie wavelength ).
The particle's frequency f = E/h (= E is the large relativistic energy, h is Planck constant), and its momentum p = h/λ, hence, this matter wave's velocity becomes v = fλ = E/h × h/p = E/p where the massive relativistic energy E is equal to the square root of (pc)2 + m2c4, hence, the matter wave velocty v exceeds the light speed c, which contradiction underlies the current maintream relativistic quantum field theory such as Dirac equation ( this p.2-(4),p.15 ) which is a wrong theory, too.
The present (unrealistic) mainstream relativistic quantum field theory (= such as Dirac equation ) can only describe each electron and photon as nonphysical math symbols (= electron or photon = a†, b†.. ? ) with No concrete shape or size ( this p.4-left, this p.3-left ), so they are useless and irrelevant to real world phenomena.
Einstein relativistic theory is useless, unnecessary for GPS due to its various fatal paradoxes which are caused by lack of absolute frame or real medium propagating actual light or de Broglie wave where Einstein relativity can Not define even a real kinetic energy of a moving electron which is allowed to emit only an unreal virtual photon with imaginary mass.
Realistic Bohr-Sommerfeld model uses only one absolute frame (= Not fictitious multiple relativistic frames causing paradoxes ) where an electron moving with respect to the (absolute) medium (= common to light wave ) generates de Broglie wave storing its (kinetic) energy, which additional energy or mass based on Maxwell mc2 is added to the original electron's mass, and the moving electron appears to be heavier with more resistance from the sorrounding medium (= more energy is needed to accelerate a faster electron ).
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 that contradicts the relativistic mc2 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 ).
QED cannot give or predict the analytical Lamb shift value = negligibly-tiny, tiny energy splitting allegedly between 2s1/2 and 2p1/2 caused by unreal virtual photons according to unphysical QED.
QED just chooses freely-adjustable parameters (= virtual average excitation energy = Lamb shift ? this p.3-left ) to give uncertain numerical values that always include illegitimate non-relativistic freely-adjustable values called Bethe logarithm = ln mc2/|Em-En| ( this p.4, p.12-last~p.13, this last-equation includes uncertain free average virtual energy parameter = ωnj or Em-En, this p.15-discussion, this p.23-upper ), instead of predicting Lamb shift values in a purely relativistic, analytical way. ← QED has No power to predict Lamb shift.
This negligibly-tiny Lamb shift energy splitting can be explained by the ordinary thermal fluctuation or smaller fine structure (= by real Bohr-Sommerfeld model ) in n = 3 energy levels (= tiny Lamb shift is said to be measured only in n = 3 → n = 2 transition, hence the tiny, tiny ordinary fine structure energy splitting between 3d3/2 and 3d5/2 is about the same as the tiny,tiny Lamb shift which ignores this real 3d3/2-3d5/2 fine structure splitting by imposing baseless selection rule, this p.9 ) without the unrealistic quantum mechancs or virtual photons.
As a result, the current quantum field theory and QED are not only wrong, unsuccessful but also unable to predict any values such as tiny Lamb shift and anomalous magnetic moment, so unnecessary (= actually nobody uses nonphysical QED in our daily life ), contrary to the media-hype.
Quantum mechanical electron spin's magnetic moment (= accidentally equals Bohr's model's Bohr magneton ) 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 ).
Pauli exclusion repulsive force is important for explaining the contact (or normal ) force that prevents two (rigid ) objects with shapes from approaching further or penetrating each other when they touch each other.
Quantum mechanical (unphysical) wavefunction always spreads to infinity as vague electron cloud without clear border or shape, which unphysical quantum mechanical wavefunction cannot explain the Pauli exclusion repulsion or contact force in a realistic way.
This symmetrically spreading quantum mechanical wavefunction or electon cloud is also unable to explain strong molecular covalent bond attraction using ordinary Coulomb electric force, because the quantum mechanical electron cloud can neither avoid other electrons nor approach other positive nucleus to exert strong Coulomb electric attraction between neutral atoms.
As a result, physicists had to introduce another unrealistic ad-hoc concept called " exchange energy expressed as exchange integral" to explain strong Pauli repulsion ( this p.7-8, this p.6 ), ferromagnet ( this 3rd-paragraph ), and molecular attactive covalent bond.
The point is this quantum mechanical exchange energy also lacks reality ( this p.11 ) and unable to exert real exchange force (= because there is no such thing as an exchange force ), which means even actually-observable contact force or Pauli exchange repulsion allegedly expressed by exchange energy cannot be treated as real force according to the stupid quantum mechanical rule ( this p.9, this p.5-upper ).
And each electron must always exist in all different (separate) atoms and orbitals simultaneously to generate this unphysical exchange energy expressed by Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction ( this p.11, this p.15-upper, this p.3-lower~p.4, this p.3-4, this p.3-4, this p.7-8 ).
When exchanging two electrons (= two electrons' coordinates or labels), the whole antisymmetric wavefunction's sign is flipped.
When two electrons' labels are the same, this whole antisymmetric wavefuncton becomes zero. ← Pauli principle ? No more detailed mechanism is give by quantum mechanics ( this p.6, this p.3-third-paragraph ). ← Science stops progressing, because physicists stop delving into deeper truth.
In fact, this quantum mechanical Pauli principle can Not explain any atoms (= ex lithium ) or molecules with more than two electrons, because mixing spatial symmetric (= spin up-down is antisymmetric or singlet ) and antisymmetric (= spin up-up is symmetric or triplet ) wavefunctions describing atoms with three up-down-up spins is impossible. ← The whole antisymmetric wavefunction is the product of spatial and spin wavefunctions where if spatial wavefunction is symmetric (or antisymmetric ), spin part is antisymmetric=singlet (or symmetric=triplet ).
↑ This means the singlet and triplet states of atoms with more than two electrons can Not be explained by the quantum mechanical (anti)symmetric wavefunctions based on spins and exchange energy (= this is why textbooks deal only with two electrons or helium when they explain the singlet-triplet spin states, this p.17-18, No lithiums with three electrons are mentioned in the singlet-triplet section in textbooks ). ← self-contradictory.
So the contradictory quantum mechanics unreasonably discarded only the symmetric spatial wavefunction or singlet (= which means No molecular bond attractive exchange energy ! ), and left only Pauli repulsive spatial antisymmetric wavefunctions (= unnecessary Pauli repulsion ) exressed as Slater determinant in molecular orbital theory (= MO ) that cannot explain intermolecular van der Waals attraction or multiple molecular covalent bonds due to this unnecessary Pauli repulsion ( this p.3-6 ).
After all, physicists were forced to artificially create and add various ad-hoc pseudo-potential energies to the original quantum mechanical energy as shown in the density functional theory (= DFT ) artificially choosing unknown fake potential energies called exchange-correlation functionals in different situations, which means the original quantum mechanics and its unphysical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction proved to be invalid and wrong.
This quantum mechanical Pauli exchange energy includes another self-contradiction where the electron's kinetic energy must decrease to explain (fictitious) molecular attractive covalent bond (= due to gentler de Broglie wave function of symmetric bonding ), which disagrees with the fact that the real attraction must increase the electron's kinetic energy (= because electrons are attracted and accelerated ).
In the same way, quantum mechanics says electron's kinetic energy must (paradoxically) increase by Pauli exchange repulsion (= due to sharpened antibonding de Broglie wave, this p.9-10, this p.13-second-paragraph, this p.27 ), which disagrees with the fact that real repulsion must decrease the electron's kinetic energy ( due to higher repulsive potential wall ) in the realistic picture.
↑ This clear disagreement between paradoxical quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric exchange energy and real Pauli contact force is why the current applied and medical science has stalled, because the unreasonable quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction prohibits each atom from behaving like a real object with definite shape. ← Quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction failed to explain the intermolecular interactions that are important for chemical and biological reactions.
Quantum mechanical Pauli principle (= origin of contact or normal force ) expressed as unphysical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction demands that each electron must always exist in all different atoms simultaneously to cause (unphysical) exchange energy.
Due to this unscientific quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction, the most popular mainstream quantum mechanical approximate electron calculation tool becomes the density functional theory (= DFT ) or Kohn-Sham theory replacing the whole many-electron material by only one single non-interacting pseudo-electron (density ) influenced by freely-chosen pseudo-potential energy (= No universally correct pseudo-potential energy or exchange-correlation functional is found, hence, DFT has No power to predict physical values, this p.3-5, this p.17 ).
But if every single electron must unrealistically exist in all different atoms simultaneously in this imaginary quantum mechanical superposition, exchange energy with parallel worlds, we cannot separate each atom or give concrete shape to each atom.
Because in this unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction, a single electron has to always bridge different separate atoms which makes all separate atoms unrealistically inseparable, and prevents each atom or molecule from having clear boundaries or shapes.
Quantum mechanical unphysical atoms or vaguely-spreading electron cloud without concrete shapes or boundaries can Not touch each other or exert real contact force, as shown in unreal Pauli exchange force.
So in order to push or move this unphysical shapeless quantum mechanical atom (= actually vaguely-spreading electron cloud has No boundary or tangible shape ), physicists have to aritificially create fictitious (exchange or Lennard-Jones pseudo-potential ) energy equations (= called force field, V or U with many freely-adjustable parameters ) bridging all fictitiously-inseparable atoms, and produce fictitious forces F by differentiating this fictitious (force field exchange) energy at short-time intervals or time-step repeatedly many, many times ( this p.5-12, this p.22-28, this p.2-11, this p.2~16 ).
↑ This current mainstream quantum mechanical or pseudo-classical molecular dynamical (= MD ) methods (= MD is the current fastest simulating method ) of simulating moving atoms or proteins take unrealistically too much time, hence useless forever.
Even this current fastest molecular dynamics (= MD ) simulating method takes more than several days to simulate only microsecond-protein motion ( this 5th-paragraph, this p.3-right ), which cannot simulate important biological reactions such as protein conformational change that takes much longer time = milliseconds ~ hours ( this p.11-second-paragraph, this p.2-left-last~right, this p.1-introduction-2nd-paragraph ).
↑ Applied and basic science stops progressing because of the unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli exchange energy that created the extremely time-consuming, impractical pseudo-classical molecular dynamics as the only protein-simulating method.
In order to develop useful science utilizing actual atomic interactions for medicine, discovery of efficient energy source and effective drugs without side effect, we need to treat each atom and molecule as a realistic tangible object with concrete shape, and move them by real contact force like moving real macroscopic objects or parts with shapes and clear boundaries for building practical cars and machines.
↑ Designing, building and simulating practical machines, cars, planes with concrete shapes str very easy, while quantum mechanics pushes the ridiculous unrealistic molecular dynamics trying to "simulate" atoms, molecules, proteins without shapes (= it's impossible ! ) by using the extremely-time-consuming pseudo-potential energy which is the bad consequence of adopting the unphysically shapeless quantum mechanical atoms.
↑ The unphysical quantum mechanical atoms are Not allowed to have definite shape, so when two atoms or molecules collide with each other is unpredictable, which needs to make each time step very short (= 2fs ) and repeat many, many calculation time steps, taking too much time.
Because if we try to choose the longer single time step (= longer than 2fs ) to save time, the molecular dynamical simulation gives wrong chaotic results due to two shapeless atoms unable to avoid colliding and unrealistically overlapping each other, which (unreal) overlapped two atoms cause extremely stronger Pauli repulsive energy violating total energy conservation called "exploding or blow up ( this p.9-10, this p.28, this p.28 )".
The dreamlike technology of building molecular machines (ex. for medical treatment) is already possible if we replace the present impractical quantum mechanics and molecular dynamics by more realistic atomic model, because humans already have an excellent technology of observing, manipulating each single atom one by one, and measuring each atomic shape as (real) Pauli repulsive contact force using atomic force (= AFM ) or scanning tunnel microscopes (= STM ).
Except for real stable particles such as electrons, protons, nuclei, light wave and neutrino ( a neutron is a composite particle of a proton and an electron ), all dubiously-unstable elusive particles such as Higgs, W boson, fractional-charge quarks (= cannot be isolated ), muons.. are useless, Not real particles ( this 4th-paragraph ) but just some "artifact" created by many irrelevant particles' collisions.
The present particle physics or standard model is just a nonphysical pseudo-theory trying to describe various ad-hoc fictionally-unstable unseen particles such as W boson and Higgs using meaningless abstract math symbols ( this p.2~, this p.6~ = showing No concrete shape or size of each unphysical particle ) and non-existent symmetry irrelevant to the real-world phenomena, so it's an unsuccessful theory that cannot predict any values, contrary to the media-hype.
We cannot isolate such an unphysical theory's (illusory) extremely short-lived particles from particle colliders for practical application (= positron emission or β+ decay of PET can be explained by realistic electron capture, so unstable antiparticles are unnecessary ), so the current particle physics is also one of meaningless pseudo-science just wasting taxpayers' money in unnecessary imaginary particles forever.
Muon tomography can be explained by high-energy penetrating electrons and protons that are mistaken for (unnecessary, fictional, unstable) muons due to seemingly heavier masses (= obeying Maxwell authentic mc
↑ Higher-energy particles (= such as electrons and protons in cosmic rays moving at almost light speed c ) can naturally move and penetrate longer than slower particles with lower energy, which is Not by paradoxical Einstein relativistic time dilation or (illusory) muons.
Experiments of particle collisions are very dirty and unreliable where it is impossible to precisely capture all collided (primary or secondary) particles' energies hidden in infinite numbers of irrelevant particles. ← Precise measurement of masses or energies of the elusive rare particles by measuring all final particles into which they are said to decay is impossible in chaotic particle collision data without artificially choosing baseless pseudo-background model ( this p.2-last, p.6 ).
Almost all particle collision data were discarded, and physicists have to artificially pick up only convenient data from meaningless background noise ( this p.17-second-paragraph, this p.8 ).
We can Not directly detect such extremely short-lived particles Higgs, W boson or fractional-charge quark (= quarks cannot be isolated ). ← No direct evidence of existence of such doubtful particles
Physicists just detect the allegedly final products such as lights (= photons ) and electrons into which (illusory) Higgs and W bosons are said to decay (← No evidence, it's just a baseless theory, because extremely-unstable Higgs and W bosons are directly unobservable ).
↑ There is No way of determining whether such final decay products really come from the elusive Higgs, W boson or unseen quarks.
They just detect many final (irrelevant) products such as lights with various energies, and if there is some small "bump or event excess (= slightly higher probability of finding those lights or final products )" inside a large amount of background noise at some energy range, they baselessly conclude Higgs or W boson might have been discovered, though there is No direct evidence that such ghost-like particles really exist ( this 3~15th paragraphs, this 6. this p.8-last-paragraph, this 8~14th paragraphs ).
↑ Because physicists do Not actually identify or distinguish those lights that might come from rare Higgs or W boson from other irrelevant lights, instead, all they can do in particle colliders is compare the "number of times" those lights are detected.
Standard model just manipulates many freely-adjustable parameters such as (fictional) particles' mass, charges, interacting strength.. all of which are unnecessary concepts for us,
Only (fictional, unstable, heavy) W boson mass is said to be precisely measured and predicted by such an unneeded standard model ( this 11th-paragraph ), but this is wrong, because their so-called successful particle physics or standard model disobeys the most important physical principle of energy conservation law, so an inconsistent theory.
To predict this (fictional) heavy W boson mass, physicists have to rely on the contradictory model of violating total energy or mass conservation where a ligher muon μ (= muon's mass is said to be only 0.105 GeV or 105 MeV ) allegedly emits a much heavier W boson in the measurement of muon's lifetime which is said to be related to Fermi constant GF, and tell us the heavier W boson mass MW (= very heavy, 80 GeV = 80 × proton mass = 800 × muon mass ).
↑ This standard model's only prediction of the very heavy W boson mass (= MW ) from a much ligher muon μ or contradictory Fermi constant GF ( this p.5-10, this p.1-lower ) is illegitimate due to violating total energy conservation (= 0.105 GeV muon's mass emits much-bigger 80.0 GeV W boson's mass !? ← Impossible ! ).
↑ The original standard model (= obeying energy conservation law ) claims a ligher muon (= μ) and neutron emit only unreal virtual W bosons (= Not a much-heavier real W boson whose paradoxically-large mass is the target of standard model meaningless prediction ).
But only when physicists try to "predict" (paradoxically-heavy real) W boson's mass as the dubious standard model's prediction, they suddenly allow violation of energy conservation law ( this p.5-right-p.6-left ) by unscientifically linking a ligher muon's decay or lifetime (= GF ) to a much heavier (directly-unobervable) W boson mass (= MW, this p.4-5, this p.3 ). ← standard model is a contradictory, wrong theory.
There is No conclusive evidence that extremely unstable, useless particles such as muons, W bosons, positrons.. may exist. The measurement of muon's lifetime did Not detect muons themselves.
In experiments of measurement of muon's lifetime, cosmic (unseen) muons (= μ ) or muons allegedly generated from protons colliding with target metals are said to stop and radiate light at scintillator crystals. This unseen stopped muons are said to decay into (or scatter ) electrons or positrons (= directly undetectable ) which also emit light. ← Only from this time difference between two emitted lights detected at photodetectors or photomultiplier (= PM ), they imagine the existence of (illusory) muons ( this p.5-6, this p.4-5, this p.22-23 ). ← They detected only lights. No (illusory) muons or positrons were detected ( this p.4-5, this p.4-5 ).
The unstable muon's magnetic moment or g-2 experiments did Not measure the (illusory) muons.
They collided protons with target metals, applied magnetic field, and the calorimeters or photodetectors detected lights (= only light is measurable, this p.19-middle ) emitted from some unknown charged particles (= electrons or positrons = positrons themselves cannot be identified ) into which the doubtful muons (= whose (spin) magnetic direction allegedly precesses ) might decay ( this middle, this p.5, this p.4-6 ) by artificially adjusting various free parameters ( this p.12 ).
↑ They did Not detect the (illusory) muon's spin magnetic moment itself, they just tried to detect the slight rotating frequency difference from the normal (classical) cyclotron (= momentum ) frequency under adjusted magnetic field by artificially adjusting other electric field influence ( this p.18-20, this p.26-27 ).
Their (heavier relativistic) muon's mass is completely different from the original muon's mass (= 0.105 GeV ) due to their alleged extremely-large muon's energy (= actually high-energy protons or electrons ) exceeding light speed or rest mass energy (= 3 GeV, this p.2-3, this p.5-6,p.28-29 ).
↑ No evidence of muon, spin or (unreal) virtual photons ( this 9th-paragraph, this 2nd-last-paragraph ) which is required for the current unphysical standard model to describe this muon g-2 anomalous magnetic moment whose measurement is based on the unfounded assumption that direction of muon's decay is probably the same as direction of muon's spin magnet.
QED (= perturbation theory ) is invalid and unable to explain nuclear strong force expressed by quantum chromodynamics (= QCD ) which calculations miserably diverge to meaningless infinity ( this p.8, this 3rd-paragraph, this p.3-left-lower ) with No analytical QCD solutions ( this p.1-right-last-paragraph ) even after (hocus-pocus) QED renormalization.
Physicists introduced (unphysical) ad-hoc lattice QCD model (= non-perturbation ) with unreal discretized spacetime and imaginary time ( this p.15, this p.3-fifth-paragraph ), which lattice QCD just artificially chooses and manipulates many fitting parameters ( this p.3 ) of masses of quarks, hadrons, mesons ( this p.3-4 ), nuclei ( this p.2-right ) and interaction energies (= action ).
↑ QCD just artificially manipulating many free parameters means it has No power to predict any values ( this p.12-13, this p.16,17-last-paragraph, this p.10, this p.2, this p.8-10, this p.35-fourth-paragarph ) due to its dubious extrapolation method ( this p.11 ) and dimensionless values (= No absolute values can be predicted by QCD, this p.28-IV ).
↑ The current quantum mechanics, QED, QCD cannot establish the universally-applicable right theory, hence, each time their existing ad-hoc theories break down, physicists had to artificially create different new irrelevant ad-hoc theories or different definitions (= QED using real smooth space-time manipulating parameters by artificial renormalization vs. QCD using unreal discretized space, imaginary time, numerical Monte-Calro outputing random meaningless numbers manipulating many free parameters directly, this p.3-12, this p.4-2.1 ), which approach is completely inconsistent and illegitimate ( this p.14-last ).
This unphysical mainstream quantum field theory or QCD can tell us nothing about detailed realistic mechanism inside nuclei where ad-hoc (unreal) virtual fractional-charge quarks ( this p.3-lower, this p.4 ) and gluons (= imaginary strong force source ) are just unobservable imaginary things ( this p.2-lower ) whose unobservable masses are freely-chosen parameters ( this introduction-upper, this p.3-C ). ← Physicists baselessly fantasize about such un-isolable (quasi-free) virtual quarks only from electrons' scattering from nuclei ( this p.13-14 ).
In the realistic atomic model, we can naturally explain strong nuclear binding force as the short-distance Coulomb electric force (= universally-applicable electric-force theory ), which is why He-2 (= nonexistent helium whose nucleus consists of only two positive protons without neutrons or electrons ) or Li-3 (= whose nucleus consists of only three positive protons ) with No electron or neutron (= proton+electron ) can Not exist (= two protons cannot bind to each other without an electron in He-2 nucleus by short-distance strong Coulomb force. ← In case of three protons + one electron = two protons + one neutron = He-3 nucleus is possibe using an electron as adhesive ).
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
Quantum mechanical hydrogen atom obtained by solving one-electron Schrödinger equation is unrealistic due to its zero orbital angular momentum where quantum mechanical electrons ( of hydrogens, helium.. ) must always crash into nucleus and become unstable.
So quantum mechanical atomic model where the ground state electrons of all atoms with zero orbital angular momentum always crash into the nuclei and become unstable is an unrealistic and wrong atomic theory ( this p.9, this p.20-last ), which unphysical quantum mechanical atomic model must be replaced by other realistic atomic models excluding the impossible zero orbital angular momentum.
↑ The unrealistic quantum mechanical electron with zero orbital angular momentum is like the Earth crashes into the Sun in the linear orbit (= due to the zero orbital angular momentum ), which is impossible
Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations describing atomic wavefunctions use the electron's de Broglie wave (= expressing the electron's kinetic energy, so the quantum mechanical electron must be also moving ), which was experimentally confirmed by observing de Broglie wave ( destructive and constructive ) interference.
↑ But in this unrealistic quantum mechanical zero orbital angular momentum, de Broglie wave of the electron (= moving in the linear orbit like the earth crashes into the Sun ) must interfere with itself destructively and becomes unstable in its unrealistic linear orbit (= zero angular momentum ), which fact also proves quantum mechanical atomic model is wrong and contradictory.
To gloss over these quantum mechanical contradictions, physicists started to say paradoxical things ↓
"Quantum mechanical electrons described by Schrödinger equation have kinetic energies (= so these quantum mechanical electrons must be "moving" at some speeds ), but strangely, those electrons with kinetic energies are Not actually moving ! ← This is clearly self-contradiction, but stop bothering me with more annoying questions about seeking deeper truth, because Nobody understands such an unrealistic quantum mechanical zero orbital angular momentum !"
↑ These paradoxical unscientific excuses rampant in quantum mechanical explanations are also seen in the unrealistic electron's spins which are Not real spinning or rotation, though spins have angular momentum. ← So quantum mechanics full of contradictions is inherently a false theory, which must be replaced by other realistic atomic models.
All energy levels of quantum mechanical hydrogen atom obtained by solving unphysical Schrödinger equation are known to just agree with realistic Bohr's atomic model (= with No crazy zero angular momentum, so Bohr's atomic model excluding unrealistic zero orbital angular momemtum is a right atomic model agreeing with actual phenomena, this p.28 ), which had already successfully explained all hydrogen-like atoms and ions.
"Moving electron radiating and losing energy ?" is a false explanation to unjustly criticize successful Bohr model, because Bohr's realistic atomic model was accepted by the then academia and obtained the most prestigious Nobel prize.
↑ It means physicists at that time accepted Bohr model as the right atomic model Not losing energy ( this last ), and after unrealistic quantum mechanics had to replace it due to an inevitable reason = lack of modern computer in 1920s, they suddenly started to criticize Bohr model by fabricating the false excuse such as "radiating and losing energy".
If a moving electron is really losing energy, Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanical hydrogen atom also has a moving electron (= with kinetic energy ) and must lose energy and become unstable, then, quantum mechanical hydrogen atom must be wrong, too. ← Their explanation is self-contradictory, so false.
Schrödinger equation is the only tool for quantum mechanics to calculate atomic energies. ← But "calculation" is Not a right word, because Schrödinger equation has No ability to predict any physical values by "calculation" (= No exact solutions can be found ), and its approximate method is impractical and useless, too.
Because one-electron hydrogen atom is the only atom for which Schrödinger equation has an "exact solution". In any other multi-electron atoms, Schrödinger equation is unsolvable ( this p.3 ), so quantum mechanics just chooses fake solution instead of solving Schrödinger equation ( this p.10 ).
We have proved that quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms can never have true solutions (= conserving the constant total energy E in any electrons' positions is impossible ), no matter what (fake) trial wavefunctions are artificially chosen. ← Quantum mechanics is proven wrong.
↑ These artificially-chosen fake solutions of quantum mechanical atoms are too impractically-complex and just nonphysical wavefunctions ( this p.2 ), which quantum mechanical fraudulent method of choosing fake solutions (= called 'basis set', this p.14 ) and getting fake atomic energies is a kind of art, Not science.
Only atoms of Schrödinger equation have unrealistic orbitals with zero orbital angular momentum (= hence, quantum mechanical electrons always crash into nucleus ! ), and Bohr model does Not have such unrealistic orbits at all, which fact is enough to prove quantum mechanics is wrong.
All quantum mechanical atoms and molecules always have to include unrealistic zero orbital angular momentum ( all s-orbital such as 1s, 2s, 3s .. orbitals are zero angular momentum, this p.7 ).
When an electron moves around a nucleus without crashing into a nucleus ( like planetary orbit where the earth does Not crash into the Sun ), the electron must always have some angular momentum which is Not zero.
Abnormal zero angular momentum means quantum mechanical electrons are always headed toward a nucleus in a linear orbit, and crash into the nucleus, as seen in Fig.3.
Hydrogen and Helium atoms have 1s electrons, so their electrons are always crashing into nucleus randomly and chaotically according to quantum mechanical irrational rule which makes atomic electrons' motion very unstable.
As a result, quantum mechanical atoms with unphysical zero orbital angular momentum diagree with reality.
(Fig.4) Schrödinger's 2p radial wavefunction, negative kinetic energy area.
The easiest way to find out that quantum mechanics is wrong is to know the fact that an atomic electron of Schrödinger equation must have unreal negative kinetic energy.
Kinetic energy is defined as mass times the square of velocity of a particle, so kinetic energy can never be negative, unless a particle's velocity becomes an imaginary number ( when kinetic energy is negative = 1/2mv2 < 0, the velocity v is an imaginary number. ← Impossible ! )
In Schrodinger equation of hydrogen atom, the sum of an electron's kinetic energy and Coulomb potential energy equals total energy E. ← This total energy E value must be constant and conserved in any electron's positions inside an atom.
Kinetic energy can be divided into radial (= toward the nucleus ) and angular (= perpendicular to radial ) directions ( this p.2 ).
Fig.4 shows Schrodinger's 2p wave function of an hydrogen atom, this 2p orbital contains both radial and angular kinetic energies, because orbital angular momentum of 2p orbital is not zero ( l=1, n=2 ).
Unlike realistic orbits, quantum mechanical wave function, which allegedly represents probability of finding an electron, spreads all over the place, hence, an electron can exist in all places at once using fantasy parallel worlds.
When an electron gets close to the nucleus ( r → 0, ① area of Fig.4 ), angular kinetic energy (= also called centrifugal potential, this p.3 ) inversely proportional to the square of the distance (= r ) between an electron and nucleus increases to infinity so rapidly that it cannot be canceled out only by negative Coulomb energy near a nucleus.
To cancel out this too-rapidly increasing angular kinetic energy of an electron closer to nucleus for keeping constant total energy E, the radial kinetic energy has to become unrealistically negative (= an electron in ① area of Fig.4 ).
Not only when an electron is close to the nucleus, but also when an electron moves far awaty from the nucleus (= ③ area of Fig.4 ), radial kinetic energy has to become negative.
Because as an electron moves farther away from the nucleus ( r → ∞ ), Coulomb potential energy becomes higher than total energy.
To keep constant negative total energy E (= this E must be the lowest negative value ), again, the radial kinetic energy has to unrealistically become negative also in ③ area of Fig.4.
So both ends of the quantum mechanical wave function is classically forbidden region. A realistic electron has to turn around before it enters the area with non-existent negative kinetic energy ( this p.2 ), but quantum mechanical electrons, which have already lost reality, have to enter these unphysical negative kinetic energy area without stopping.
This negative kinetic energy has nothing to do with quantum tunnel.
For example, in ① area of Fig.4, a contradictory thing happens = only electron's radial kinetic energy is negative (= decrease to negative infinity ), and the electron's angular kinetic energy is positive (= increase to positive infinity ).
↑ So this weird electron has negative kinetic energy in radial direction and positive kinetic energy in angular direction simultaneously, which chimera-like thing is impossible in a real physical particle.
In all stable atomic ground state in quantum mechanics, total energy E (= Coulomb potential energy + electron's kinetic energy ) must be always conserved and constant ( this p.2-upper, this p.3-upper, this p.2-1st-paragraph ), as long as the atoms neither emit nor absorb the additional light wave energies.
So any atomic or molecular ground-state energies (= lowest energies ) must be conserved and constant in any electrons' positions regardless of a single or multi-electron atom. ← This inviolable energy conservation law is violated in quantum mechanical unsolvable multi-electron Schrödinger equations, so quantum mechanics is false.
Actually, the total energies of a one-electron hydrogen atom are obtained by solving Schrödinger equation under the condition that the total energy E (= sum of electron's kinetic and Coulomb potential energy ) is always constant, unchanged and conserved in all electron's positions ( this-19.5, this p.3, this p.2-4th-paragraph ).
But except for solvable one-electron hydrogen atom, in all multi-electron atoms such as helium and molecular bonds, quantum mechanics is unable to conserve tortal energy E, because all Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms and molecules are unsolvable.
We prove quantum mechanics is wrong by showing any Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms or molecules can never have true solutions conserving total energy E in any electrons' positions, no matter what artificial trial wavefunctions or basis sets are chosen as fake helium solutions.
↑ For example, if a two-electron helium atom has the true solution by solving the helium Schrödinger equation (= which is impossible, though ), this fictitiously-solvable helium wavefunction must be unrealistically split into three fictional hydrogen-like atoms (= one of which is an unreal electron-electron hydrogen-like atom ) which is impossible.
So solving Schrödinger equation for the multi-electron helium to conserve total energy E in all two electrons' positions can never happen, no matter what artificial trial functions are chosen.
Furthermore, quantum mechanical fundamental idea that each wavefunction means the (unphysical) probability of finding an electron in each position is contradictory and wrong.
For example, in the hydrogen atom, the highest probability position of an electron is supposed to be around Bohr's radius = a0.
But the electron's kinetic energy or velocity is lower and slower, as the electron moves farther away from the nucleus (= kinetic energy + Coulomb energy = constant total energy E. As an electron moves farther away from the nucleus, Coulomb potential energy is higher and electron's kinetic energy is lower and slower, and the slower electron tends to stay in the same position which must increase its probability. )
So if the quantum mechanical "probability" wavefunction concept is right, the probability of finding the electron must be higher, as the electron moves farther away from the nucleus (= hence, the slower electron's position should be higher probability ), which contradicts the fact that the electron's probability is the highest around Bohr radius (= the electron's probability becomes lower moving farther away from the nucleus than Bohr radius ).
So quantum mechanical probability wavefunction is fundamentally wrong due to its fatal self-contradictions.
(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 angular momentum or magnetic moment designated by quantum mechanics, the tiny electron must be spinning much faster than light ( this 3rd paragraph, this 3rd paragraph, this p.2 ).
So the unrealistic uncanny faster 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 unphysical zero orbital angular momentum.
This zero angular momentum means an unphysical one-dimensional "line-shaped orbit" where an electron heads for and crashes into a nucleus (= so unstable electron's orbit ), and cannot produce magnetic field which is generally produced by an electron's circular motion (= angular momentum is necessary to generate magnetic field ).
So quantum mechanical atom with zero angular momentum disagreed not only with reality but also with experimental results showing 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 happen to have the same Bohr magneton as magnetic field of Bohr model ( this p.2 ). ← too good to be true !
The problem is each electron particle is too tiny to produce enough magnetic field or angular momentum ( 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.
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 needs strong repulsion which cannot be explained by contradictory electron spin whose magnetic field is too weak and too negligible to cause strong Pauli principle repulsive force. ← Electron spin is unreal.
Pauli principle based on quantum mechanical spins is invalid in all atoms or molecules with more than two electrons such as Lithium (= so, triplet or singlet description of three-electron Lithium is impossible in quantum mechanics ). ← self-contradiction
Physicists had no choice but to express this physically-impossible electron's spin as the nonphysical math symbols or the meaningless matrix called "spinor (= with No concrete physical picture of spin )" using nonphysical theory called relativistic quantum field theory (= all spin-1/2 particles must be expressed using unphysical Dirac equation, this p.4 ) or quantum electrodynamics (= QED ).
This unphysical relativistic QED is just "scam" that tries to artificially remove the meaningless infinities caused by QED unreal virtual particles by ad-hoc methods called "renormalization" introducing imaginary counter-infinities called "infinite bare charge or mass."
↑ Of course, this unrealistic QED crazy idea that some finite value such as the tiny anomalous magnetic moment should be obtained by infinity minus another infinity is mathematically illegitimate and wrong, because infinities (= uncertain with no bounds ) minus infinities become indefinite uncertain values that cannot be predicted or some finite physical values.
So the QED fraudulent renormalization artificially removing infinities is harshly criticized even by founders ( this 1st-paragraph ).
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 raidus r are far bigger than those of an electron ).
And a nuclear magnetic field is far weaker than electron's (spin ?) magnetic field, which shows each nucleus "spins" realistically slower than light speed.
(Fig.6) Why electron spin is Not a real spinning ? ↓
Unrealistic electron spin must be "spinning" much faster than light ( this p.3-lower, this p.4 ) to generate angular momentum and magnetic field which accidentally agreed with Bohr magneton ( 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. It just measured the whole "silver atom's magnetic field" which can be naturally explained by electron's orbital motion instead of unreal spin.
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 (= 720o ) 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 360o 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 720o (= instead of 360o ) 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 measuread, 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 (= 360o ) instead of unrealistic 720o
Because precession speed is inversely proportional to angular momentum 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 720o to 360o 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 = 360o 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 720o 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 360o rotation instead of fantasy quantum mechanical 720o 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 means an electron's spin is unreal.
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".
(Fig.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.
(Fig.8) Hydrogen shows "normal Zeeman effect" without spin.
When an excited atomic electron moves back from higher energy to lower energy levels, it emits the amount of energy equal to the difference between two energy levels, which was detected as "emitted lights" with some frequencies (= showing the magnitude of energy separation between excited and lower energy levels ) called spectral lines.
Under external magnetic field, each emitted light (= line ) is split into three lines (= three energy levels ) depending on the direction of an electron's orbital magnetic field relative to external magnetic field (= electron's orbital magnetic field parallel, perpendicular, or antiparallel to external magnetic field gives slightly different energy levels ).
These split energy levels under external magnetic field is called Zeeman effect. If each electron does Not have (unreal) spin, it is called normal Zeeman effect where each energy line is said to split into only three energy lines.
Of course, each electron and nucleus are vibrating like ordinary molecules, and each electron's orbital is precessing in different directions from the magnetic field, hence, the tiny energy fluctuation and the different orbital precession angle ( causing differently-split lines with different magnetic interaction energies between the slanting electron's orbit and external magnetic field ) is likely to slightly affect atomic energies and complicate split lines especially in excited states.
At room temperature (= 300 K ), the atomic energies can change by as much as 0.0259 eV even by the ordinary thermal fluctuation which realistic energy variation is far larger than the negligibly small Lamb shift (= less than 0.000005 eV ) and hyperfine structure by nuclear spin.
It means the tiny, tiny, negligible Lamb shift is likely to be caused by the ordinary thermal fluctuation instead of unrealistic unobservable virtual photons which cannot be predicted by useless QED (= tiny Lamb shift is just an aritificially-manipulated numerical parameter, QED cannot give any analytical Lamb shift values, regardless of relativistic or non-relativistic ways, this p.3-left ), as I explain later.
One electron hydrogen atom shows this normal Zeeman effect, which means an electron does Not have spin. ← Electron spin is illusion.
Lithium with one valence electron is also known to show normal Zeeman effect pattern called "Paschen-Back effect ( this lower )."
So one-electron hydrogen atom (= with No influence of other electrons as seen in complicated spectral lines in multi-electron atoms ) shows there is No electron spin.
(Fig.8') Einstein relativistic effect = a electron is at rest ? ↓
The current mainstream quantum field theory's relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction is paradoxical and wrong.
All the present solid and condensed matter physics based on unphysical quantum mechanics rely on fictional band model containing unreal electrons with fictitious effective mass, quasiparticles and effective (= fake relativistic ) spin-orbit effects (= these are all freely-adjustable parameters, so these theories have No power to predict anything, this p.3, this p.2 ).
These fake relativistic spin-orbit effects widely used in the current solid physics ( this p.7 ) are said to be unrealistically more than six orders of magnitude stronger than the original Einstein's relativistic spin-orbit effect (= this p.24, this is also illusion, though ) in vacuum, and have the opposite sign to the original relativistic effect ( this p.2-right-4th-paragraph, this p.2-left-1st-paragraph, this p.9-4th,5th paragraphs ).
↑ The alleged relativistic (pseudo-)spin-orbit coupling (= SO ) constant (= λ = 5.3 in GaAs ) in the current solid physics itself contradicts the original Einstein relativistic spin-orbit coupling constant (= λ = - ℏ2/4m2c2 = - 3.7 × 10-6 = opposite sign, and far smaller, this p.2-left-1st-paragraph, this p.6-7 ), hence, obvious self-contradiction !
↑ The original relativistic spin-orbit coupling constant (= λ = - ℏ2/4m2c2 = - 3.7 × 10-6 ) must be fixed in any materials whether they are vaccum or not, because this value consists of the fixed physical constants which can Not be conveniently changed.
But the contradictory quantum mechanics tries to change this unchangeable fixed physical constant (= allegedly represents relativistic spin-orbit coupling ) into completely different artificial values ( λ - 3.7 × 10-6 → +5.3 in GaAs = far larger and the opposite sign ! ), which is No longer the original Einstein relativity.
So the spin-orbit effect (= one of pseudo-quantum mechanical models ) used in the current condensed matter physics completely contradics the Einstein's original relativistic spin-orbit effect. ← The current mainstream theory is self-contradictory, so false.
The present physics plays only with meaningless fictional concepts with respect to particles, masses, spins, and pseudo-relativistic effect, so useless.
(Fig.9) ↓ Unreal spin has No relation to energy levels
When excited atomic electron energy levels are split into more energy levels under external magnetic field in larger atoms, quantum mechanics claimed the electron's spin or its unrealistic spin-orbit interaction may cause these further splitting of energy levels. ← This is wrong.
First of all, quantum mechanics baselessly assumes the fine structure energy splitting between 2p1/2 and 2p3/2 energy levels is caused by the (fictitious) electron-spin-orbit interaction, which is proven wrong, as shown in the unphysical relativistic Dirac hydrogen illegitimately copying the Bohr-Sommerfeld real fine structure without spin.
These more splitting energy levels under magnetic field is called anomalous Zeeman effect.
This anomalous Zeeman effect is known to happen especially in large atoms (= with many electrons ) such as sodium, while smaller atoms (= with fewer electrons ) such as hydrogen and lithium show normal Zeeman effect pattern.
This fact means anomalous Zeeman effect is caused by complicated interaction between inner electrons and excited valence electron instead of unphysical spin.
Or, in the magnetic field, the electron's orbital motion can orient to various directions by the precession, which can cause more energy splitting patterns than the simplest normal Zeeman effect even without using the unreal electron's spin.
We can easily disprove the electron spin's involvement in anomalous Zeeman effect.
Textbooks often use sodium D line doublet as a typical example of anomalous Zeeman effect, which allegedly represents energy transition from two excited 3p3/2 and 3p1/2 (= split by spin ? ) energy levels to lower 3s1/2 energy levels.
But in fact, this sodium D line has nothing to do with electon spin from the beginning, which means anomalous Zeeman effect has nothing to do with spin, either.
Because an electron spin-orbit interaction, which allegedly causes sodium D line energy splitting, is too weak to separate two energy levels between 3p3/2 and 3p1/2 as widely as experimental energy separation.
Furthermore, if anomalous Zeeman effect is due to spin, its energy splitting must obey Lande-g-factor (= gj ) spin theory which should split the original line symmetrically (= just equal interval ) with respect to the direction of external magnetic field.
But actual anomalous Zeeman effect disobeys Lande-spin-g-factor theory, and energy line splits into more complicated unsymmetrical lines ( this p.3 lower, this p.38-39 ) relative to the direction of external magnetic field in anomalous Zeeman effect which should be theoretically symmetrical relative to external magnetic field .
Actually, in alkali atoms such as potassium (= K ) and rubidium, there are No experimental data of Lande g factor (= gj, this p.9 Table.10, this p.28 lower ). ← This is an excuse, because their experimental results of anomalous Zeeman effect were significantly different from prediction of quantum mechanical spin-based Lande g factor theory.
It is said the excited energy splitting of the anomalous Zeeman effect under external magnetic field should obey the artificial Lande-g-factor and L(=orbit )-S(= spin ) coupling rule ( this p.11 ).
But most of atoms show more complicated energy splitting (= disobeying quantum mechanical Lande g factor ) or anomalous Zeeman effect than the ad-hoc quantum mechanical rule or formula ( this p.4-last, this p.4-last, this p.8-upper ).
And there are very few reliable anomalous Zeeman effect data especially in light elements ( this p.2-left ), as if physicists tried to hide the wide discrepancy between quantum mechanical bad prediction and actual data.
First of all, quantum mechanics has No power to predict any anomalous Zeeman effect's energy levels. ← Because quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations cannot predict or give exact energy solutions in any multi-electron atoms regardless of the ground-state or excited states.
To fix the discrepancy between the theory and experimental values of complicated anomalous Zeeman effect, quantum mechanics tries to create many other artificial concepts such as J-J coupling, J-K coupling ( this p.3-4 ) in addition to the original L-S coupling Lande g factor rule.
↑ But in most atoms, energy levels in anomalous Zeeman effect show more complicated intermediate states among thouse artificially-created rule or LS, JJ, JK coupling, which No longer obey the original Lande g factor formulra ( this p.22, this p.19 ).
As a result, "anomalous Zeeman effect" might have been "predicted" by quantum mechanics ( or its impractical Schrödinger equations ) is untrue, they just artificially created many new ad-hoc rules to forcibly fit experimental values.
(Fig.10) Spin is too weak to cause Big Na splitting. ↓
Hydrogen 2p energy level is split into two 2p3/2 and 2p1/2 states, which small energy splitting (= called fine structure ) is said to be caused by relativistic effect = spin-orbit interaction. ← But this is untrue.
2p orbital has angular momentum ( l = 1 ), so the 2p electron moves around the nucleus. ← From the viewpoint of 2p electron (= rest frame of an electron ), the hydrogen nucleus unrealistically appears to be moving around the fake stationary electron (= though, such an unphysical thing never happens ) according to irrational Einstein relativity.
And this fictitious nucleus orbiting around the stationary electron should generate pseudo-magnetic field at the position of the electron, which could split electron's 2p state into two energy levels based on the electron's spin direction (= up or down, by electron's spin-nuclear-orbit magnetic interaction ) relative to the direction of this pseudo-magnetic field allegedly produced by orbiting nucleus.
But Einstein relativity suffers from fatal paradoxes, and the electron spin needs faster-than-light spinning, hence, this spin-orbit interaction contradicts Einstein relativity from the beginning, so it is unreal.
Sodium (= Na ) also has one valence electron like hydrogen (= H ), so sodium D-line, where 3p Na energy level splits into two 3p1/2 and 3p3/2 states, is said to be due to the same (fictional) spin-orbit interaction as hydrogen's fine structure splitting.
The problem is electron spin is too weak to cause very wide energy splitting as seen in sodium D-lines, hense, spin has nothing to do with fine structure energy splitting or anomalous Zeeman effect.
The magnitude of energy intervals between two energy levels (= between 2p3/2 and 2p1/2 in hydrogen, and between 3p3/2 and 3p1/2 in sodium ) in fine structure is known to be proportional to Z4 (= Z denotes the average entire central charge putting a positive nucleus and all inner negative electrons together, except for one valence electron ) and inversely proportional to n3 (= n is valence electron's quantum number, this p.2-right~p.3-left ).
So the magnitude of fine structure energy splitting is proportional to Z4/n3 ( this p.7, this p.14. Other angular quantum number such as j and l are common to hydrogen and sodium fine structure energy states, so we can ignore them.
( Both hydrogen-2p1/2-2p3/2 and sodium-3p1/2-3p3/2 have the same angular quantum number l = 1, j=1/2 or 3/2 )
Hydrogen fine structure energy splitting is very small = energy difference between 2p3/2 and 2p1/2 is only 0.000045 eV ( this p.4-5 ).
On the other hand, sodium fine structure energy splitting is very big = energy difference between 3p3/2 and 3p1/2 is as big as 0.0021 eV ( this p.8, this Table.1 ).
↑ This huge discrepancy between hydrogen's and sodium's fine structure energy splitting shows the spin-orbit interaction, which allegedly causes both hydrogen's and sodium's fine structure, does Not occur in actual atoms.
Using these two energy splitting values, quantum number (= hydrogen 2p is n = 2, sodium 3p is n = 3 ) and hydrogen central charge (= Z = 1 ) in upper spin-orbit formula, we can get sodium average central charge is as big as Z = 3.54 ( this p.3 ).
As I said, this average central charge Z is the sum of charges of a positive nucleus and all other inner negative electrons than one outer electron, so Z should be close to "1".
( total charge of Na 11e+ nucleus and all inner -10e electrons are - +11e -10e = +e = Z = 1 ).
The value of Z = +3.54e ( instead of 1 ) needed for generating very wide sodium fine structure energy splitting is unrealistic, so electron spin has nothing to do with fine structure energy splitting or anomalous Zeeman effect in sodium.
It is more natural to think this very wide energy splitting in sodium fine structure is caused by "Coulomb electric interaction" between inner electrons and an outer electron, Not by fictional relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction.
If quantum mechanical spin-orbit formula is true, sodium's energy splitting between 3p3/2 and 3p1/2 states has to be smaller than hydrogen's energy small splitting between 2p3/2 and 2p1/2 ( this p.9 lower ) which quantum mechanical spin theory disagrees with experimental results. ( this p.5-left )
(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.
So 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 Z2/n2.
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.
(Fig.12) Spin-spin magnetic energy (= 0.0001 eV ) is too small !
Quantum mechanics claims the 3rd electron of lithium cannot enter inner 1s orbital, instead, the 3rd electron is kicked out to outer 2s orbital against strong Coulomb attraction of the nucleus, due to mysterious repulsive force called Pauli exclusion principle allegedly acting between two electron spins.
Pauli principle says two electrons with the same spin cannot enter the same orbital. ← But No more detailed physical mechanism is given by quantum mechanics, because serious contradiction will be exposed if you try to delve into Pauli principle. ← Science stops progressing now.
This repulsive force by Pauli exclusion principle must be strong enough to cancel out Coulomb attraction. Electron spin was introduced as a tiny magnet. But the magnetic ( dipole ) interaction between two electron spins is too weak to explain powerful Pauli exclusion force. ← So the electron spin disagrees with facts.
This (p.6) says "The magnetic dipole interaction" energy of two (spin magnetic) moments m.. If we evaluate this using uB (= electron's spin magnetic moment called Bohr magneton ) for the momnet and 3 Å as the separation, the (electron-spin-spin magnetic dipole ) interaction strength is 3 × 10-25 J or 0.02 Kelvin (= only 0.0000017 eV = far smaller than Pauli repulsive energy = about 20 eV ). This interaction is evidently far too weak to account for the fact that permanant magnet exists at room temperatre.. "
".. Instead, we have to turn back to Pauli exclusion principle, this is known as the exchange interaction .. Unlike (spin magnetic) dipolar interaction, the energy of the exchange intearction can be large, many times the thermal energy at room temperature. "
This (p.5) says "Magnetism comes from the interaction among the electrons: the classical magnetic dipole-dipole interaction (= electron spin-spin magnetic interaction ) is too weak to explain it ( this p.7 )."
So the magnetic force of electron's spin is completely useless for explaining strong Pauli repulsive force.
The paradoxical quantum mechanics introduced the (unrealistic) electron spin as the tiny magnetic moment, but later, this spin turned out to be unable to explain strong Pauli exclusion repulsion and room-temperature ferromagnetism ( this p.8 or p.7 ), they were forced to artificially create the unrealistic energy called "exchange interaction (= Not even a real force, this p.6 )", which ghost exchange energy is said to be three orders of magnitude larger than the original spin magnetic interaction ( this 4th-paragraph, this p.11 ).
If there was not Pauli repulsive force, the 3rd electron can enter inner 1s orbital together with other two electrons (= generating fictitious lithium with 3 × 1s electrons ), getting total energy lower than the experimental ground (= lowest ) state energy of lithium by Coulomb attractive energy caused by fictitious lithium atom getting all three electrons into 1s orbital closest to a positive nucleus.
Pauli exclusion repulsive energy between lithium 3rd electron of 2s outer orbital and the remaining two inner electrons of 1s orbital is more than 25 eV ( this 2nd-3rd paragraphs, this 5th-paragraph ) which Pauli energy is far larger than electron spin-spin magnetic energy (= less than 0.0001 eV, this p.4 ).
↑ Electron spin has nothing to do with Pauli exlusion principle ! Even singlet-triplet energy splitting is too large to explain by the weak electron's spin magnet (= instead, unphysical ad-hoc exchange interaction was introduced, this p.10 )
The total energy of this fictitious lithium of three 1s electrons (= by choosing three fictitious hydrogen atomic orbits as fake approximate solutions for unsolvable lithium Schrödinger equation ) becomes much lower = -230 eV (= -8.4609 Eh, this p.2, this p.3 ) than the actual lithium total ground state energy (= -203 eV )
The actual total energy of lithium is -203 eV (= sum of 1st-3rd ionization energies of lithium ).
Therefore, Pauli repulsive energy is as big as 27 eV (= 230 - 203 eV ).
On the other hand, the magnetic energy between two electron spins is just 0.0001 eV, which is far smaller than Pauli exclusion force ( this p.10-left, this p.17, this p.3, this p.2 ).
Quantum mechanics discarded the original definition of spin introduced as a tiny magnet, which turned out to be too weak to cause strong Pauli repulsive energy, and made up another new unphysical concept called "exchange interaction."
This "exchange interaction (= which has nothing to do with actual electric or magnetic forces )" is an unrealistic ghost-like concept, which cannot even be a force, and it lacks force carrier.
Quantum mechanics can Not explain the mechanism of this mysterious Pauli repulsive force using real objects ( this p.6, this p.10 ).
↑ The fact that quantum mechanics tries to explain strong Pauli repulsion by nonphysical "exchange energy" lacking real (exchange) force means the original electron spin introduced as a tiny magnet has nothing to do with this Pauli principle. ← If electron spin-spin magnetic interaction caused strong Pauli repulsion, they have insisted Pauli principle is a real (magnet) force, which didn't happen.
It tries to ascribe uncanny Pauli exclusion energy to the dubious exchange interaction which uses nonphysical abstract math antisymmetric wavefunction (which tells us nothing about detailed physical mechanism of Pauli repulsion), and the nonphysical exchange interaction unrealistically requires each electron to exist in multiple different places at once, violating energy conservation law ( this abstract ), so false.
We prove the quantum mechanical antisymmetric wavefunctions obeying Pauli principle nonphysical exchange rule can never conserve total energy, hence, quantum mechanics is intrinsically false.
Furthermore, atoms or molecules with more than two electrons (= such as lithium ) combining the symmetric (= between the opposite spins ) and antisymmetric (= between the same spin ) wavefunctions cannot be expressed by the defective quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions ( this p.12-third-paragraph ).
So quantum mechanical unphysical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions expressed as Slater determinants have to exclude only the symmetric wavefunctions giving molecular attractive exchange energies, which resultantly causes unneeded Pauli repulsive exchange energies disagreeing with actual molecules such as intermolecular van der Waals attraction and Pauli repulsion that need to artificially create and add the ad-hoc pseudo-potential energies disproving the original quantum mechanics.
This unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli exclusion principle based on unrealistic exchange energy is said to be explained by unphysical relativistic quantum field theory or Dirac equation.
But this relativistic quantum field theory or Dirac equation just shows nonphysical abstract meaningless math relation called anticommutation where each electron is described just as a nonphysical math symbol ( this p.5-lower, this p.17 ), which thoery and unphysical description are useless and tell us nothing about the detailed mechanism of how to cause Pauli exclusion repulsion at all.
(Fig.13) Spin magnet is 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 exixt 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 ). ← 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.
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.
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 simbol = 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.
(Fig.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) ↓ This was really a lucky coincidence ?
In much smaller energy splitting such as Lamb shift, quantum mechanics uses unrealistic math trick called QED renormalization where infinity caused by unreal virtual particles minus infinity gives some finite value (= very tiny Lamb shift energy caused by unreal unobservable virtual photons ? ← nonsense, this p.1-left )
↑ Two kinds of "infinite values" can be artificially manipulated to give convenient finite values, so this dirty method discrediting quantum mechanics was criticized even by QED founders as "hocus-pocus".Though negligibly-tiny energy splitting = Lamb shift is said to be explained by relativistic QED ad-hoc renormalization artificially cancelling infinite unreal virtual particles, these virtual particles with unreal imaginary masses clearly contradict Einstein relativistic mc2 mass-energy relation ( this p.5 ).
So the present Lamb shift by artificial QED virtual particles is an illegitimate and false theory.
In fact , even after artificially removing infinity ( by sweeping infinites under rug ) caused by unreal virtual particles, QED can neither eliminate other infinities nor get meaningful finite physical values.
First of all, the purely-relativistic QED methods can Not obtain exact analytical solutions of Lamb shift ( this p.6-7, this p.8, this p.4 ), so "QED is successful, predicting some physical values" is a big lie.
Even in the so-called "relativistic QED Lamb shift calculation", most of the calculated Lamb shift values were obtained from non-relativistic Bethe methods which rely on the freely-adjustable numerical (= Not analytical, see this p.3-left ) calculations artificially choosing convenient different virtual (average) excited energy values in different energy levels 2s1/2, 2p1/2.. called Bethe logarithm ( this p.4, this p.23, this p.5-3th,4th paragraphs, this p.3 )
In this unphysical relativistic QED calculation of the negligibly tiny energy splitting of Lamb shift, physicists can Not obtain or predict the precise analytical values of Lamb shift (= so QED is useless ), instead, they rely on the artificially-created virtual photons' average excited energies called Bethe logarithm ( this p.3 ) to estimate (virtual) 2s1/2 and 2p1/2 energy levels' splitting or Lamb shift ( this p.21, this p.4 ).
↑ These (unmeasurable) illusory probability equations of exciting the electron to virtual higher energy levels (= Bethe's average excitation energies ) by unreal virtual photons to allegedly cause tiny Lamb shift splitting are artificially-chosen parameters ( this p.3-right ) using fictitious quasi-principlal numbers ( this p.1-2 ← These R or ad-hoc average virtual excitation energies have nothing to do with the hydrogen's wavefunctions, quantum mechanics or QED, hence, completely irrelevant fabricated parameters and fake concepts are used to get convenient Lamb shift values illegitimately ). ← QED itself cannot predict Lamb shift values.
↑ So basically QED has No ability to predict analytical values of Lamb shift using relativistic quantum field theory based on unreal virtual particles.
We must replace this unrealistic useless Lamb shift theory by other realistic explanation without ghost-like virtual particles.
We can think of other more realistic possibilities such as an electron and nuclear tiny fluctuation or something than unreal virtual particle QED to explain such a small negligible energy splitting Lamb shift (= which is too weak to need, useless for our daily life )
Even at the extremely-cold = almost absolute zero temperature (= 1 kelvin ), the thermal fluctuation energy is as much as 8.6 × 10-5 eV which is larger than the negligibly-tiny tiny Lamb shift energy splitting = only 4.3 × 10-6 eV, which energy is too small to measure by the normal spectrum observations. ← The ordinary thermal energy fluctuation is the more realistic explanation of the tiny-tiny energy splitting than unreal infinite virtual photons of QED.
Also in very small hyperfine structure (= tiny enegy splitting by nuclear spin ), quantum mechanical model is unrealistic and just artificially manipulating freely-adjustable parameters such as nuclear spin g-factor (= this value cannot be predicted by quantum mechanics, it must be determined by experiment and measurement. this p.4-right ).
Because relativistic QED and QCD just artificially adjusting free parameters obtained from experiments are unable to predict any nuclear values such as nuclear masses, spins and hyperfine structure ( this p.3, this p.10-1st-paragraph ).
The extremely tiny hyperfine structure energy splitting (= ~ 10-6 eV ) involving spins of nuclei and protons can neither be calculated nor predicted by the original quantum mechanics, quantum field theoy or QED due to the imaginary unknown virtual (sea) quarks allegedly popping up inside nuclei ( this 8th-paragraph, this p.12, this 1.Hadron physics ).
Physicists have given up calculating nuclear masses or spins analytically ( this 2-9th paragraphs ), and created other nonphysical lattice QCD model which just chooses many arbitrary free parameters and cannot predict any nuclear values such as spins and hyperfine structure.
So there is No evidence indicating that quantum mechanical unphysical model is right in regard to atomic energy levels.
Useless quantum mechanics cannot predict any physical values.
The current mainstream (unrealistic) quantum mechanical theory claims that the energy levels of 2p1/2 and 2s1/2 are slightly different by the negligibly tiny, tiny energy splitting called Lamb shift.
But this Lamb shift energy splitting (= allegedly only 4.3 × 10-6 eV ) is so tiny = about 10 times smaller than the tiny fine structure energy splitting (= 4.5 × 10-5 eV, which is proven to be Not relativistic spin-orbit effect ) that Lamb shift energy splitting cannot be measured in the ordinary spectral lines emitted by hydrogen atoms. ← The existence of Lamb shift is doubtful.
↑ They claim that uncertain thermal fluctuation causes uncertain atomic fluctuation and Doppler shift of the emitted line's light wavelength, so they cannot measure the tiny,tiny Lamb shift.
But the uncertain Doppler shift doesn't prevent them from knowing the peak light wavelength emitted by hydrogen atom, which tell us the precise ordinary fine structure energy splitting perfectly explained by Bohr-Sommerfeld model.
The dubious tiny Lamb shift cannot be detected even in this peak light wavelength, which means the tiny, tiny Lamb shift energy splitting is extremely doubtful.
In the deuterium, another small peak light wavelength is slightly observed between two fine structure energy peaks in spectral lines, but this peak wavelength (= about half of fine structure ) is completely different from the quantum mechanical Lamb shift peak (= allegedly 10 times smaller than fine structure, this p.4-5 ).
Lamb conducted the completely different type of "non-rigorous" experiment of "electron's bombardment", which very rough method of randomly bombarding the target metal with accelerated H atoms and detecting ejected electrons is unreliable and inappropriate for measuring the tiny, tiny Lamb shift energy splitting ( this p.14-18, this p.9 ).
↑ Lamb used the high-energy hydrogen atoms (= randomly oscillating and rotating ) heated and excited by the electrons' random collisions to 2s state (= alleged metastable state, but No direct evidence ), and then, he applied very weak magnetic field to generate weak Zeeman splitting (= irregular splitting contradicting quantum mechanical Lande g factor ), illuminate them by microwave with some frequencies to cause transition from the metastable 2s1/2 to 2p1/2 (= unstable, this p.9 ) for roughly estimating the tiny, tiny Lamb shift energy splitting between 2s1/2 and 2p1/2.
↑ But it is almost impossible to align the vigorously-fluctuating and rotating hydrogen atoms with the weak magnetic field (= weak Zeeman energy splitting is changeable and uncertain due to electron's random fluctuation and precession, so this tiny energy splitting of fluctuating hydrogens under weak magnetic field is unreliable ), and he intentionally did not use the transitions from the magnetic stable states under the applied magnetic field such as the lowest energy lines of 2p3/2 (=d ) and 2s1/2 (= β ) as shown in this p.5 and this p.4.
Lamb intentionally did not look at the tiny Lamb shift transition from the alleged 2s1/2 metastable state to unstable 2p1/2 under no magnetic field (= so their spurious tiny Lamb shift could not be directly measured under no magnetic field, this is strange. His Lamb shift may be a fake artifact caused by the artificially-applied magnetic field ), which means he might try to create artificially-stable magnetic states (= Not due to the illusory metastable 2s1/2 or quantum mechanical selection rule ) under applied magnetic field to make it look like pseudo-metastable 2s1/2 state.
Another method called "saturation spectroscopy" supressing Dopper shift uses the alleged transition of energy levels between n = 3 and n = 2 ( this p.8 ) represented by Balmer's Hα line.
↑ In this energy transition between n = 3 and n = 2, the ordinary fine structure energy splitting between 3d3/2 and 3d5/2 (= Not dubious Lamb shift ) can produce the very small energy splitting resembling Lamb shift (= energy splitting between 3d3/2 → 2p1/2 and 3d5/2 → 2p1/2 is also about 4 × 10-6 eV like Lamb shift ).
By substituting n = 3 and l = 2 into the fine structure energy splitting equation ( this p.2-(4) ), this fine structure splitting between 3d3/2 and 3d5/2 gives the tiny energy splitting which is about 10 times smaller than the fine structure splitting between 2p1/2 and 2p3/2 (= n = 2, l = 1 ), which energy splitting resembles Lamb shift, so Lamb shift is unneeded.
↑ Quantum mechanics created the artificial ad-hoc rule called "selection rule" which prohibits the transition between 3d5/2 and 2p1/2 (= Δj = 2, this p.3, 9 ), but there is No guarantee that this artificially-created selection rule is always valid, and the fine structure energy splitting between 3d3/2 and 3d5/2 could be mistaken for the irrelevant Lamb shift energy splitting between 2s1/2 and 2p1/2 in the saturation spectroscopy using the energy transition between n = 3 and n = 2.
And this saturation spectroscopy uses the absorption of light (= Not seeing the emitted light ) by exciting the hydrogen atoms by laser which energy excitement process can cause the uncertain energy fluctuation of an electron slightly modifying its energy level which can be mistaken for the dubiously tiny Lamb shift.
So there is No reliable experimental or theoretical evidence of the negligibly-tiny Lamb shift, which is completely a useless and unnecessary concept.
(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 cannot 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 cannot 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 cannot 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.
The problem is another mainstream theory = Einstein relativity rejected real medium (= which real medium existence was Not denied by Michelson-Morley experiments, though ).
Hence, Einstein relativity and quantum mechanics have to rely only on fantasy superposition or parallel-world theory where even an indivisible single electron must magically split into two different parallel universes to interfere with itself.
The trouble is that the paradoxical Einstein relativity needs another fictitious medium consisting of unreal virtual particles or virtual photons with imaginary masses ( this p.3 ) contradicting Einstein mass mc2 relation to explain fundamental forces between particles, though Einstein unreasonably rejected the real medium in space.
All experiments such as light wave interference, refraction, and diffraction of an electron clearly show the existence of real medium in space.
Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations also use the experimentally-confirmed de Broglie wave as wavefunctions which can interfere constructively and destructively ( this p.9 ).
The use of the same electron's de Broglie wave theory is the reason why the fantasy quantum mechanics accidentally gave the same results as the successful Bohr's realistic atomic model.
But the quantum mechanics relying on de Broglie wave theory contradicts de Broglie wave interference itself, hence, quantum mechanics is self-contradictory and wrong.
Quantum mechanical unphysical atomic wavefunctions always have to include the unrealistic s-orbitals with zero orbital angular momentum where electrons crash into nuclei.
↑ In this unrealistic zero orbital angular momentum of quantum mechanical s-orbitals, each electron interferes with itself destructively in its linear orbit with zero orbital angular momentum, hence, unstable (= quantum mechanical electrons are also supposed to be actually moving, because quantum mechanical electron wavefunctions also have kinetic energies ).
As a result, the only realistic explanation for experimentally-verified electron's de Broglie wave destructive interference without self-contradictions is possible based on the realistic atomic model with non-zero orbital angular momentum separating a real electron particle and its de Broglie wave traveling through medium, which real moving electron is necessary to generate real Coulomb electric forces in actual molecular bonds.
(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 unphysical 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 p2, so, the equation of p2 = p2 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 p2.
Of course, when momentum p is zero, its square p2 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 ( p2 = 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 p2 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 Bohr model.
In any other 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.
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 cannot 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 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 aribitrary 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.
(Fig.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 cannot describe this Pauli exclusion principle or repulsive energy (= expressed as unphysical exchange energy ) using any real things or forces.
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 forces all electrons to be indistinguishable, existing in all different atoms simultaneously ( this p.2 ). Furthermore, quantum mechanical wavefunction must take an artificial, unphysical form called antisymmetric ( 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 space 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.
If this quantum mechanical illogical rule describing Pauli exclusion principle rule as nonphysical antisymmetric wavefunction is true, an unreal H3 molecule consisting of three hydrogen atoms is possible (= using three separate energy equations, each of which equation contains two hydrogen atomic symmetric or antisymmetric wavefunctions out of three hydrogens ). ← Quantum mechanics is wrong.
↑ According to this quantum mechanical stupid rule, when three hydrogen atoms (= H1, H2, H3 atoms ) align as H1 (= spin-up ) + H2 (= spin-down ) + H3 (= spin-up), these three hydrogen atoms can attract the neighboring atoms with the opposite spins and form the unrealistic H3 molecule, because the neighboring hydrogen atoms form symmetric wavefunctions (= spin part is antisymmetric with one up-spin and the other's down-spin between neighboring atoms in unreal H3 molecule ).
In fact, this quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions can Not express the mixed wavefunction combining the attractive symmetric wavefunction between the opposite spins and Pauli repulsive antisymmetric wavefunction between the same spin, as shown in the failed Lithium atom.
So physicists have to express multi-electron atoms and molecules as one antisymmetric wavefunction excluding the (molecular attractive) symmetric wavefunction between the opposite spins, as shown in Slater determinants, which just generate only unneeded Pauli repulsion with No molecular attractive exchange energy.
↑ As a result, all multi-electron quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions failed, and only the unrealistic one-pseudo-electron approximation called DFT remains as the only quantum mechanical calculation tool, which also failed.
(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 nonphysical antisymmetric wavefunctions without showing any concrete physical mechanism.
According to this stupid 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 cannot 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 nonphysical 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 cannot 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 unphysical 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 cannot predict any real values.
In DFT, we need to artificially choose
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 unphysical 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 is bigger than 1000 meter !? ← unreal
A photon is often said to be an elementary particle of light or electromagnetic wave.
But No one can answer even basic questions "What size and shape is each photon particle ?"
Textbooks always show the picture of electromagnetic wave, and call the light wave "photon", perfunctorily.
If there was a rigid particle called "photon", the photon particle could be as Big as 1000 meter in a radio wave (= one of electromagnetic wave, so a photon ? ) with extremely long wavelength ?
We could easily touch and see such an uncanny photon (= if it existed ) as Big as 1000 meter = wavelength of long radio light wave ! ← It's impossible.
So an imaginary photon, which has the wave-like wavelength, is Not a particle but just a light wave traveling through medium like other sound and water waves.
All observed phenomena such as light interference, diffraction, refraction, light speed change based on medium prove light is wave, a photon particle cannot explain any of these phenomena including light polarization (= an illusory photon has a sharp shape, and points in various directions mimicking observed polarized light wave ? ← Impossible ! )
In fact, a photon was introduced as a kind of fictitious quasiparticle interacting with other unreal quasiparticles in the current imaginary condensed matter physics or quantum mechanics.
So there is No such thing as a photon. A photon is just light wave.
This realistic light wave picture is compatible also with photoelectric effect.
Actually, the present mainstream (unphysical) quantum field theory only shows an abstract unphysical math operator (= a†, b† .. = unobservable math objects ) as a (fictitious) particle = photon without showing any detailed shape. ← There is No such thing as a photon.
Furthermore, the present quantum field theory or quantum electrodynamics claim an electron can emit or absorb only unreal virtual photons with unreal imaginary mass. ← The present quantum mechanical photon is a contradictory and unreal particle.
If the light wave is really an "indivisible photon particle" as quantum mechanics claims, it is impossible to explain a single photon interference in double-slit experiments in a realistic way.
According to the confusing quantum mechanical photon's theory, a single unbreakable photon particle must paradoxically split into two fictional parallel universes or multiverse to pass through two slits simultaneously (= called superposition ) and interfere with itself ( this p.2 ).
Basically, a fictitious photon lacks reality.
It is said that a (fictitious) photon particle has conveniently the same property such as polarization, wavelength (= if a photon is really a rigid particle, it cannot have an artificial arrow-like polarization or wavelength, though ), frequency and interference as an ordinary electromagnetic light wave.
↑ So such an uncanny photon is unnecessary, there is only the realistic electromagnetic light wave which can naturally have the wave property such as polarization, wavelength and interference, as Lamb said "there is No such thing as a photon (this p.18 )".
Actually, all textbooks show only the classical polarized light wave (= Not a particle ) pictures as a (fictitious) photon ( even in the illustration of photoelectric effect, they use the ordinary light "wave" picture instead of an illusory photon "particle" ). ← these photons are clearly "wave", Not particles at all.
Quantum mechanics is unable to give a concrete shape and size to each illuosory photon, instead, it just shows the abstract nonphysical math symbols as a fictitious photon ( this p.5, this p.6, this p.78 ).
The point is that the so-called single photon detector can Not detect an illusory photon itself.
A single photon detector can measure only electrons' current excited by light wave (= Not a fictitious photon ) by the photoelectric effect, which means the photoelectric effect is Not a proof of a ghost-like photon particle itself.
Even if a fictitious photon (= which is just very weak light wave ) hits a single photon detector, it has No power to generate electrons' current enough to tell us a photon is detected (= the present quantum field theoy says each electron can interact only with unreal virtual photons. this p.13 ← A photon lacks reality ).
They need to apply some amount of ( bias ) voltage to the photodetector in order to generate electrons' current enough to be a detectable signal, excited by the incident light.
We can freely adjust and change this applied bias voltage which needs to exceed the threshold (breakdown) voltage. ← This is a trick of how an unrealistic ghost photon seems to appear.
It means the existence of a fictitious photon is just an artifact created artificially by the photodetectors freely adjusting the so-called photon detection efficiency or probability ( this p.2 ) with changeable excess bias voltage, so that the light or photon whose intensity is weaker than the adjusted threshold cannot be detected and ignored ( this p.5, this p.2-left-lower, this 15th-paragraph ).
When the (excess) overvoltage (= difference between the applied bias and the threshold-breakdown voltages ) is bigger, it can increase the photon (= just weak light ) detection efficiency = increase the chance of detecting a photon ( this p.5 ).
The problem is that this photon detection efficiency is very low, usually less than 50 % (= in most cases, a detector cannot detect a single photon, even when a photon or weak light enters the detector, this p.4, this p.14-third-paragraph ).
Furthermore, even when No target photon enters the detector, the photodetector often mistakingly detects an irrelevant dark photon, light or thermal fluctuation as dark counts.
To avoid detecting irrelevant light as dark counts, they need to increase the incident photon or light intensity, because if they increase the bias voltage to make it easier to detect weaker photons, the false dark count rate (= DCR ) also becomes higher ( this p.2 ). ← The precise detection of a single (illusory) photon itself is impossible.
When a very weak light or a fictitious photon splits into two weaker lights at two slits or a beam splitter, these split weaker lights with lower intensity is less likely to be detected by the photodetector (= Hence, it is very hard to detect those two split weaker lights or photons at the same time. = each "photon" or weaker light is seemingly detected as one click or a ghost photon signal with extremely lower detection efficiency ).
Due to the artificially-adjusted detection threshold, the very weak light or fictitious photon with weaker light intensity is harder to detect in the single-photon detector ( this p.4-6, this p.11 ), even when a weak light ( or a fictitious photon ) is actually split into two weaker light for interferencce, which lower detection efficiency gives a false impression that a single ghost photon is indivisible in double-slit interference.
And when those weaker split lights meet and interfere with each other constructively again, the light intensity becomes stronger enough for a photodetector to detect as a (fictitious) photon signal in the form of electrons' current.
↑ This is the true mechanism of the paradoxical interference of a fictitious single photon, which is just an ordinary weak classical light wave interference combined with the photodetector whose detection threshold voltage can be freely adjusted.
We don't need the fantasy concepts such as quantum mechanical pararell worlds and "rewiting or changing the past" for the photon or light to interfere with itself, because a photon itself is just a splittable ordinary light wave, Not a fictitious indivisible particle.
As shown in the fact that quantum mechanics started to say contradictory things "An originally-indivisible single photon particle can "split" into several photon particles." ← nonsense.
(Fig.26) Electron is ejected at some light "wave" frequency.
Textbooks often insist Einstein photoelectric effect proved light is a (fictitious) photon particle. But this claim is completely baseless and unscientific.
In photoelectric effect, when light with energy proportional to "light wave frequency" shines on a metal, the high-energy light is absorbed into a metallic electron which is resultantly ejected from the surface of a metal.
All they can detect is this "electron (= Not a fictional photon ! )" ejected by light wave. A photon particle itself can never be observed or detected.
Photoelectric effect has a close relationship with light wave frequency which equals light speed divided by light wavelength. ← All these concepts such as light wave frequency and wavelength show photoelectric effect proved "light is wave", Not an imaginary photon particle.
In fact, according to the current unphysical mainstream quantum field theory or QED, each electron cannot interact with a real photon. A electron absorbs or emits only an unreal virtual photon with imaginary mass also in official interpretation of photoelectric effect, hence a real photon has nothing to do with photoelectric effect ( this p.15, this p.18 ).
Because the ratio of an incident photon's (= light ) momentum to energy is completely different from the ratio of a target electron's momentum to energy. ← Conserving both total energy and momentum is impossible when an electron absorbs a real photon or a fictitious light particle ( this p.10 ). → Unreal virtual photon must be absorbed by an electron in photoelectric effect to conserve energy and momentum !
Compton light scattering or effect is also said to prove the existence of an imaginary photon particle. ← This is untrue Compton effect has No connection to a photon particle, either.
In Compton scattering, when incident light hits and reflects off an electron, the light wavelength becomes longer, losing energy, but keeping the constant light speed c.
↑ If a photon is a rigid particle, a photon losing its energy by hitting and bouncing off an electron has to decelerate, decreasing its light speed instead of elongating its wavelength (= a rigid photon particle cannot shrink or be elongated just by bouncing off something ! ).
As a result, both photoelectric and Compton effect proved light is "electromagnetic wave", Not a photon particle which completely contradicts actually-observed phenomena.
To understand both these important phenomena correctly, we need to consider light as a kind of "oscillating wave" in the medium both in the transverse and longitudinal (= moving ) directions.
The light oscillating energy stored in the transverse (= polarized ) direction which is perpendicular to the light moving direction tends to be absorbed in an electron (= an electron also stores its kinetic energy as a form of de Broglie oscillating wave in the common medium ) in photoelectric effect.
Light oscillating in the transverse direction (= perpendicular to the light moving direction ) has almost zero average momentum (= due to moving back and forth in transverse direction = total average momentum of light in the transverse direction is almost zero, because two momentums in the opposite directions = back and forth cancel out each other to be zero ).
But the light oscillation in the transverse directon has high energy enough to excite an electron through interaction between light and de Broglie wave, which is compatible with conservation of total energy and momentum without relying on unreal virtual photons.
The average momentum of an electron orbiting around a nucleus inside an atom is also zero, because an electron is moving back and forth around a nucleus (= two momentums in the opposite directions = back and forth, cancel out each other, giving zero average electron's momentum like light oscillating in the transverse direction ).
As a result, using classical light wave and electron's de Broglie wave, a real electron can naturally absorb and emit real light wave in photoelectric effect conserving energy and momentum, without relying on unreal virtual photons of quantum mechanics.
And light propagating in the longitudinal direction hits and reflects off a target particle in Compton effect which does not absorb the whole light (= so light reflects off an electron without being absorbed ).
In the process of this Compton scattering between the light wave and electron, the light hitting an electron slightly loses its energy ( by pushing the target electron a little ) and elongates light wavelength (= light oscillating medium slightly loses its oscillating energy and frequency by pushing a target electron, hence, elongating its light wavelength ).
This is a realistic interpretation of photoelectric and Compton effects by light wave interacting with an electron with No contradictions or virtual particles.
Quantum mechanics avoids detailed mechanism of how exactly a fictitious photon interacts with an electron due to contradictory quantum mechanical picture.
(Fig.27) electric current illuminated by light = a photon ?
In fact, the so-called single photon detector can Not detect a photon particle itself.
A photon detector uses photoelectric effect, which means it just detects electrons ejected by light wave (= imaginary photon ? ) as electric current ( this p.7 ).
So the claim that a photon particle could be detected using photodetector is a total lie. All they can detect is just "electrons" illuminated by light wave.
As a result, there is No evidence of a photon particle.
Light is just electromagnetic wave.
The photodetector can detect the very weak light as a photon, when this weak light's intensity (= light wave pulse amplitude ) exceeds the "detection threshold" of the photodetector (= some amount of light energy or intensity is necessary for the photodetector to respond to the incident light, this 15th-paragraph ).
↑ If a photon is just a weak classical light wave, it can naturally explain why even a single photon can interfere with itself in the two-slit experiment, while a "photon particle" cannot interfere with itself.
Instead of a unbreakable photon particle splitting into fantasy two different quantum parallel worlds, the weak light wave can naturally split into two weaker waves at two slits and interfere with each other. →The intensity of the constructively interfered light can exceed the threshold needed to trigger the photodetector. → the light wave after interfering is detected as a photon ( by seeing electrons ejected by classical light ).
If the total amount or light intensity of the weak classical light in the system is very small, it looks like we can detect only "one photon (= a photon is just "weak classical light" with some light intensity which exceeds the detection threshold of the photodetector )" at the photodetector at the same time.
But actually the seeming photon (= just weak classical light "wave", Not a unbreakbale photon particle ) can split into multiple weaker lights ( most of these split weaker lights are too weak to detect at the photodetector, only one of split weaker lights can be detected as a seeming photon at the photodetector by exceeding the light intensity detection threshold ) and interfere with earh other.
This is a "photon" trick. There is No such thing as a photon particle. A photon is just a very weak classical light wave which can split into multiple weaker lights (= one of which weaker lights may exceed the light intensity detection threshold and be detected as a photon ) and interfere with each other without fantasy quantum parallel worlds.
The existence of such an imaginary photon particle completely depends on "what threshold detection voltage" scientists choose in a single photon detector which just detects classical light with some intensity exceeding some freely-adjustable detection threshold voltage applied in the photon detector ( this p.9 upper )
Classical light entering the photon detector is more likely to be "counted" as a (imaginary) photon particle, when the difference (= excess ) between detection bias voltage and breakdown voltage, both of which voltages are freely adjustable, increases ( this p.4, this 7-8th paragraphs, ).
Scientists have to artificially discriminate unnecessary photons (= false or dark count ) caused by other weak lights or irrelevant heat, while increasing photon detection efficiency, which they "desire", by manipulating detection threshold voltage ( this p.10, this p.3-right-lower, this p.2-lower ).
This 4th paragraph about the detection threshold of a single photon detector says,
"The single photon generates charge carriers in the optical detector, which is the most important component in the single photon sensor. The photocurrent caused by these charge carriers is amplified by a broadband low-noise amplifier. The output of the amplifier is a voltage pulse that can typically have an irregular shape. Once a portion of this pulse exceeds a threshold voltage, it is usually assumed a single photon has been detected."
Depending on the different incident light intensity (of weak classical light wave or a fictitious photon ), the detection threshold voltage (= which can be adjusted artificially ) of a single photondetector changes ( this p.5-6 ) to detect weak light as a ( fictitious ) photon.
(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 misconception 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 = 1/2εE2 ) 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 1/2εE2 ). ← 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 a virtual photon with imaginary mass !?
In the current mainstream quantum field theory, all interactions between elementary particles are expressed using unphysical 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 cannot 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 mc2 mass-energy relation ( this p.6, this p.4-last-paragraph, this p.3 ) or violating 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 ) !
↑ QED unreal virtual particles or virtual photons with imaginary masses ( this p.17 ) could 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-contradicotry (= virtual particles contradict Einstein famous relativistic mc2 mass-energy relation, this p.10-11, this p.4-2nd-last-paragraph, this p.4 ), hence wrong theories.
(Fig.31) ↓Coulomb, Higgs depend on fictional virtual particles.
In fact, according to today's mainstream quantum field theory and particle physics, all interactions and forces between all particles are said to happen through unreal virtual particles with imaginary masses which disagree with Einstein relativistic mass energy relation ( this p.5 ).
All these forces and interactions between particles are described by unphysical Feynman diagrams which are too abstract to clarify detailed underlying mechanism. ← So the basic science stops progressing, stuck in unrealistic model.
So in the current unphysical quantum field theory and quantum electrodynamics based on useless abstract Feynman diagrams which are just unphysical math theories with No relation to our real world ( this p.21 ), all unstable doubtful particles such as unseen fractional-charge quarks ( this p.3 ), weak force of W bosons ( this p.4 ), Higgs ( this p.7 ), virtual particles mediating them are unreal useless particles described by nonphysical abstract math symbols with No concrete shapes.
When a neutron decays into a proton and an electron in beta decay, fictitious weak force and virtual weak (= W ) boson are said to be generated in this neutron beta decay.
Quantum mechanical explanation of this beta decay is so unrealstic that they claim a neutron can decay into a almost-same-mass proton (= proton's mass is 938 MeV ) and far bigger W boson (= whose large mass is allegedly 80 GeV = 80000 MeV ) which is said to be 80 times heavier than the original neutron (= neutron's mass is 939 MeV ) !
↑ This is impossible, because a ligher particle (= neutron ) cannot emit a heavier particle (= W boson ) due to violating mass conservation.
But the current insane particle physics claims much heavier W boson can be produced from much ligher neutron ( or proton ), flagrantly.
So this dubious extremely heavier W boson allegedly involved in neutron beta decay must be an unreal virtual particles (= violating Einstein mass relation, this p.8, so self-contradictory ) which can never be detected like a ghost, so weak force or W boson are scientifically meaningless, and Not proved yet.
In the more unrealistic β+ decay (= this unrealistic β+ decay can be replaced by realistic electron capture doing exactly the same reaction even without nonphysical antiparticle ), they unscientifically claim that a ligher proton could emit a much heavier W+ boson with 80 × proton mass, and change into a heavier neutron, which clearly violates the total energy conservation law, which shows these dubious weak force mediated by the unrealistic W boson is unreal.
Unlike the paradoxical positron emission or β+ decay where a lighter proton must emit a much heavier W+ boson and change into a heavier neutron, the electron capture is a realistic reaction where a lighter proton absorbs an electron and changes into a heavier neutron causing the same result and reaction as the (imaginary) positron (= antiparticle ) emission.
But the present standard model based on unphysical Feynman diagram's explanation about this realistic electron capture is unrealistic.
They unreasonably claim that a lighter proton must emit a much heavier (virtual) W+ boson to change into a heavier neutron (= violating energy and mass conservation law ! ), and this unrealistically heavier (unobservable) W+boson must merge with an electron to emit neutrino (= so the current unrealistic particle physics paradoxically claims that an electron is Not cauptured or absorbed into a proton inside nucleus even in the electron capture, instead, an electron just merges with a virtual W+boson emitted from a proton ).
(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, 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 ).
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.
↑ 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 misinterprets such real macroscopically-observed phenomena as ones caused by unreal quasiparticles or fictitious negative ( effective ) mass.
For example, they just misinterpreted 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.
(Fig.36) ↓ No evidence of faster quantum computer
Photon quantum computer allegedly using photons, beam splitter and photodetectors is impractical forever, because their photons (= just weak classical light wave ) whose light polarization is used as a qubit state are extrermely fragile and easily lost, causing miserably-high error rates (= low photon-detection efficiency, this p.1-right ), and building the simple two-qubit gate is extremely hard ( this p.1-right-second paragraph, this photon qubit ).
So most major companies such as Google and IBM focus on another-type quantum computer using superconducting qubits (= just classical circuits ) which also cause impractically-high error rates ( this 5th-paragraph, this p.1-introduction-2nd-paragraph ), and the necessity to always cool their bulky qubits (= each qubit is as big as millimeter ! this 3rd-last-paragraph ) to almost absolute zero makes it impossible to realize the (imaginary) practical quantum computers that will need millions of qubits ( this 4th-paragraph, this 4th-paragraph ) forever.
Trapped-ion quantum computers using unstably-floating ions (= two energy levels ) as qubit are also far from practical, still barely building less then 50 ion qubits ( this 11th-paragraph ).
Overhyped D-Wave annealers and Harvard-MIT's quantum simulators using neutral atoms for optimization problems are fake quantum computers whose illusory speed-up ( this p.2-second-paragraph ) was due to unfair choice of the very slow bad method as classical algorithm ( this 2-3th paragraphs ).
Silicon-type quantum computers allegedly using a tiny electron spin dot as a qubit is far more impractical than other-type qubits. ← They only achieved highly-impractical 12-qubit or less than 6-qubit (= only 6 quantum dots or 6 bits, this Fig.2 ) even in the latest published paper, which fall far short of the practical quantum computer requiring millions of qubits ( this-lower Disagreement with Intel, this 10th-paragraph ).
↑ This silicon-type quantum computer (= still Not a computer at all ) just measures the atomic energy state or magnetic field ( this Fig.4 ) interacting with light ( this Fig.4 ), can Not directly measure the (fictional) electron's spin itself.
Topological quantum computer trying to use an illusory quasiparticle with fractional-charge called anyon or Majorana is unreal, fraudulent and impractical forever, Not achieving even a single qubit yet.
↑ The latest topological quantum computer is fake and unable to realize the true fault-tolerant quantum computer based on imaginary braids (= unseen non-existent braids ) at all ( this 9~10th paragraphs ).
(Fig.37) ↓ Electron, photon are just meaningless math symbols.
The impractical quantum mechanics can only express each particles such as 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 ) and 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 nonphysical 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.
(Fig.39) All Einstein relativity, quantum mechanics, relativistic quantum field theory, QED, particle physics lack reality.
The present quantum field theory, QED, particle physics are all nonphysical useless theories irrelevant to real world.
The present mainstream nuclear theory is lattice QCD, which tries to just randomly calculate and find some desirable nuclear physical values using the fictitious model, artificially-chosen energy equation and algorithm, takes extremely much time.
So physicists needed to create other rough simpler approximate models called "ab initio no core shell model with chiral effective field theory."
This approximate chiral effective theory introduced the fictitious effective nuclear potential energy (= like fake ab-initio DFT ) between the fictitious multiple nuclei such as two-nucleon (=NN) and three-nucleon (= NNN ) interactions with multiple optimized fitting parameters by applying the ordinary nonrelativistic Schrodinger equation also to the (fake) nuclear energy approximately ( this p.4-5 ).
↑ This chiral effective field theory or no core shell model also can Not predict any nuclear physical values, like the unsuccessful lattice QCD.
Because this approximate nuclear shell model just artificially chooses freely-adjustable parameters and fits these parameters to experimental data ( this p.3, this p.1-2, this p.4-left ).
This p.1-right-lower says
"Chiral effective field theory (EFT) is a promising theoretical approach to obtain a quantitative description of
the nuclear force from first principles..., the interaction is parametrized in terms of low energy constants (LECs) that are determined by fitting
experimental data."
As a result, all the current nuclear physics based on the unrealistic lattice QCD and fictitious chiral effective field theory is unsuccessful, useless and unable to predict any nuclear physical values.
In spite of thes unsuccessful nuclear physics, many hyped news repeats the misleading claim like ( this 3,6 paragraphs )
"State-of-the-art calculations with the ab initio symmetry-adapted no-core shell model... The results are found to be consistent with the Standard Model prediction (= No predicting power, though )."
↑ This fictitious no core nuclear shell model just artificially fits its parameters to experimental data with No power to predict any physical values.
This news is false, because the present nonphysical abstract standard model cannot predict anything except introducing artificial parameters.
(Fig.40) ↓ Unrealistic picture of quantum field theory
The current unphysical quantum field theory describes particles such as electrons and photons just as nonphycial simple math symbols with No physical figures except abstract Feynman diagram ( this p.7, this p.5-8 ), so useless.
Interaction between electrons and photons (= when an electron emits or absorbs light = virtul photon, this p.3 ) is also described by nonphysical representation where an electron symbol and a photon symbol are just put side by side with No more explanation of true physical mechanism ( this p.13, this p.4 ).
Therefore, the current quantum field theory or QED can never clarify concrete physical mechanism of how electrons emit ( virtual ) photons for causing Coulomb force or photoelectric effect. → Quantum field theory and QED are harmful, just stopping our science from progressing forever.
(Fig.41) Unseen fractional-charge quark, Higgs, W,Z bosons are unobservable, unreal and useless forever.
The present particle physics has been just wasting money and time in building meaningless gigantic colliders, pursuing imaginary particles and unrealistic concepts such as superstitious God particle, wormholes, extra-dimensions or something, which are all undetectable and useless forever. ← Particle physicis itself is nonphysical theory irrelevant to real world phenomena.
Actually, even after many years have passed since physicists claimed (imaginary) unseen quarks, weak and Higgs bosons might have been discovered (= Not directly, though ), those unstable doubtful particles are still useless, producing only fictional theories, except for physicists selling "sci-fi" books, repeating same old lectures, unscientific episodes, podcasts, getting prizes, celebrating newly-created anniversary with No practical application, forever.
Higgs boson or particle allegedly discovered (= Higgs is too short-lived to detect directly, though ) in Large Hadron Collider (= LHC ) is said to be the origin of mass.
But in fact, this elusive Higgs boson in LHC does Not give mass at all, instead, the still-unseen and undiscovered "Higgs field (= Not Higgs boson in LHC )" allegedly filling space is said to give mass to other particles ( this 3rd-paragraph, this-1.misconception, ), which means wasting huge money for hunting the (illusory) Higgs boson inside the collider has nothing to do with the origin of mass.
If "Higgs field" was really filling space and constantly giving mass to particles, we could have easily found those abundant Higgs field even outside the colliders. But we couldn't. It means Higgs does Not exist.
↑ Furthermore, the idea of this Higgs field filling all universe to give mass is clearly inconsistent with Einstein relativity rejecting the medium filling space called "ether.", which discrepancy shows the current mainstream relativistic particle physics is self-contradictory and wrong.
The current particle physics or standard model's mechanism of how Higgs gives masses to electrons, quarks and other particles is expressed just as nonphysical abstract meaningless math relation relying on the artificially-created fictional concepts such as "gauge symmetry" and infinite virtual particles' renormalization, which nonphysical particle physics clarifies nothing about the detailed physical mechanism of particles' interactions at all.
Massive (imaginary) W boson is said to mediate weak force of beta decay where a neutron decays into a proton and an electron, but this involvement of the massive W boson in neutron beta decay is impossible and untrue.
Furthermore, there is No evidence that such a dubious Higgs or W bosons really existed.
Because the lifetimes of the extremely-unstable Higgs and W boson are so short that it's impossible to observe such unstable Higgs or W boson directly ( this 3rd-paragraph ).
Physicists just collide accelerated protons and see other irrelevant real particles such as electrons and emitted lights to baselessly "speculate" such unseen short-lived Higgs, W boson or fractional-charge quarks might have been generated sometimes inside the sea of other irrelevant more abundant particles with No direct evidence.
Furthermore, in the present nonphysical particle physics, physicists just artificially choose only convenient data accounting for only less than 1% of all the irrelevant particles' collision data to explain their artificially-created ad-hoc theory.
↑ Even in these artificially-chosen convenient data, the (imaginary) unstable Higgs or W boson are said to be generated only one in millions or trillions of protons' collisions ( this 5th-paragraph, this p.34 ), which means they just pick up convenient data suitable for their fictional particle physics model which actually has nothing to do with the real world's phenomena.
To estimate the masses of (imaginary) short-lived particles, physicists have to precisely measure all energies of particles into which those imaginary unstable particles allegedly decay.
But it's impossible to detect all energies emitted by those (imaginary) unstable particles which are said to excite or ionize atoms in the detector's medium ( this p.7 ) and emit lights which must be detected by scintillators or photodetectors.
Only lights with some particular wavelength (= emitted by ionization energies lost in charged particles passing the absorber medium ) can be detected by those scintillators ( this p.10 ) with not-so-high detection efficiency = total light or photon's detection efficiency combining conversion efficiency, quantum efficiency and collection efficiency is unreliably low, less than 20 % ( this p.11, this p.14, this p.5 ).
↑ Only lights with the particular wavelengths close to visible light can be detected. Neither high-energy X-rays, γ-rays nor low-energy infrared lights (= heat ) can be detected directly by those photodetectors (= it's impossible to estimate uncertain masses of unknown unstable particles by collecting all energies of final products in the particle colliders ).
These particle colliders' detectors or calorimeters cannot detect energies lost as heats, breaking atoms, nuclei, or particle's shower leakage ( this p.9, this p.28, this p.9-11, this p.14, this p.54 ).
So particle physicists have to depend on some speculative models to roughly estimate those (lost) energies allegedly emitted by the decaying particles ( this p.2-6, this p.6 ), and artificially define the (unreliable and uncertain) background noise models ( this p.8-3,4th-paragraphs, this p.10-right ) using uncertain (= unscientific ) random-sampling Monte-Calro method ( this 3rd-paragraph, this p.56-chapter 5 ) instead of precisely detecting all decay products' energies.
Basically, particles' collisions are a random, disorderly and extremely-inaccurate experiment (= precise estimation of many-particle random scattering effects is impossible even by using ad-hoc artificially-chosen background models ), so the precise measurement of particles' energies is impossible in the chaotic particle collision experiments, hence, the particle physics or standard model's "prediction" of the (imaginary) unseen short-lived particles based on such chaotic random collisions of particles is unreliable and meaningless.
Particle colliders such as LHC try to measure the amount of electric currents induced by electrons and ions (in gas or solid ) ionized by unknown passing charged particles (= ex. fictitious muons ) for identifying those charged particles and roughly estimating their energies (loss, this p.24 ).
↑ The problem is these particle detectors (= ex. resistive plate chamber or RPC for detecting muons, this p.4 ) can detect only the amount of induced charges with drift velocity artificially accelerated by the detector's electric field ( this p.15-41, this p.37 ) and can Not measure the original kinetic energy of each electron or ion excited by the passing charged particle (= kinetic energy perpendicular to the drift velocity is impossible to measure only by looking at those electric current signal or drifted electrons ), so they cannot measure the precise (kinetic) energy of the original charged particle nor identify the unknown particle in the current particle colliders' detectors.
The (illusory) muon is said to be an unstable elementary particle with extremely-short 2.2 μs lifetime and mass (= muon's mass is 106 MeV ) which is 200 times larger than an electron's mass (= 0.5 MeV ).
This unstable muon is a completely unnecessary particle which always decays into an electron + unseen neutrino in an extremenly short time.
We can reasonably say this dubious, unnecessary muon is just a high-energy electron or proton, Not an independent elementary particle. ← A true elementary particle must be a stable particle that can No more decay into other particles, so an unstable muon is Not an elementary particle.
Muons are said to be created from high-energy cosmic rays (= consisting mostly of protons moving at light speed ) colliding with the atmospheric molecules.
Most of those cosmic muons are moving at light speed with high energy (= about 1 GeV or 1000 MeV ) which is larger than the rest mass energy of muon (= mc2 = 106 MeV = 0.106 GeV ), electron (= rest mass energy 0.5 MeV ) and proton (= rest mass energy 1 GeV ).
↑ It means muons, electrons and protons physicists usually use are moving at light speed where such high-energy masses become much larger than the original masses (= relativistic masses based on Maxwell mc2 of high-energy muons, electrons, protons are indistinguishable, all these particles have the same 1 GeV/c2 heavier-looking masses, when they exceed light speed in cosmic rays ). ← No evidence of muon's mass.
↑ They make excuse that slowing down or stopping (illusory) muons immediately decay (= muons themselves are directly undetectable, physicists can only detect the light emitted from some charged particles passing scintillators ) into other particles such as electrons and lights which are only detectable at photodetectors or photomultipliers ( this p.4-5, this p.6 ).
It is often said that the lifetime of the high-energy cosmic muons moving at almost light speed c could be longer because the (hypothetical) clock time of muons moving at high speed could slow down due to (fictional) Einstein relativistic time dilation. ← But this is untrue.
It is natural that the particles such as muons with higher energies (= higher speed ) can travel and penetrate longer distance (= which means longer lifetime ) even without the help of the fantasy special relativity which time dilation causes the serious irreparable paradox, hence wrong.
As the energy of a particle such as an electron ( or an illusory unstable muon ) is higher, the particle can penetrate the longer material with longer life time, which high-energy electron (or cosmic ray's proton ) was mistaken for the illusory muon experiencing the (fantasy) relativistic time dilation due to its higher velocity.
The muon was said to be discoverd in 1937 by Carl Anderson observing the cloud chamber's tracks left by some high-energy particles created from high-energy protons of cosmic rays hitting the atmospheric molecules ( this p.11 ).
The problem is this cloud chamber detector can Not identify or distinguish the (illusory) muon from other more abundant real particles such as high-energy electron or proton !
Physicists see the particle's track left in the cloud chamber under applied magnetic field where Lorentz magnetic force curves the particle's track whose radius of curvature tells us about only the information of the particle's momentum (= mass × velocity ) from which we can Not know the particle's velocity or mass ( this-(11.4.2) ).
In order to identify the particle's mass of a (illusory) muon, physicistis need to obtain more information about the particle's energy.
Physicists use some hypothetical theory called Bethe-Heitler formula, which claims the particle's track length could enable us to estimate how much energy is lost per some distance (= called stopping power ) traveled by a particle ionizing the medium's atoms in the cloud chamber, and roughly guess the ( muon ) particle's energy ( this p.1-left-lower, this p.4-right-p.5, this p.13-17 ).
Due to this hypothetical Bethe formula, the higher-energy particle with higher speed is more likely to move or penetrate the longer material, which means the heavy particles with lower-energy such as protons are said to move less and easily stop.
↑ But if the particle with higher energy has more penetrating power, a lighter electron can have more higher kinetic energy with the same momentum than a heavier muon, hence the ligher electron with higher energy has the more penetrating power than a heavier muon, which means the so-called "muography" allegedly exploiting the high penetrating power of muons just uses the high-energy electrons instead of (illusory) muons.
To handle this discrepancy, physicists deliberately add more artificial relation to the original Bethe energy-loss formula, which paradoxically claims that when a particle is moving faster, the particle has more penetrating power, but the particle is moving much much faster, it is more likely to radiate, lose energy and start to lose penetrating power. ← paradoxical mechanism, and too good to be true, artificially prepared for justifying (illusory) muons
So they say when a cosmic muon's energy is about 1-100 GeV, the muon can penetrate the longest distance, and the cloud chamber's stopping power becomes minimum = the rate of energy loss (= stopping power ) of muons with energy 4-6 GeV is conveniently close to minimum ( this p.5-10, this p.18, this p.3, this p.5-6, this p.27-29 ).
This p.2 says
"Bethe-Heitler theory predicted large energy loss for electrons and smaller
losses for heavier particles. Neddermeyer and Anderson concluded that
penetrating particles (= muon ? ) are heavier than electron.
• They could not be protons because protons would be slower and would ionise
medium stronger (according to Bethe-Heitler theory, this p.1-right-upper )"
The problem is this hypothetical Bethe-Heitler (or Bethe-Bloch relativistic ) theory roughly estimating the particle's energy from its track's length is known to often disagree with experimental results ( this p.5-6th-paragraph, this last ).
This p.5-left says
"they observed particles which were ligher than protons and more penetrating than electrons .. if the Bethe-Heitler theory were valid.. they interpreted as particles of a new type (= muon ? ), but this interpretation followed only if the Bethe-Heitler theory were assumed not to break down at the energies concerned.."
↑ This means it is likely that some high-energy electrons can move longer with large penetrating power, escaping this speculative Bethe-theory, and the high-energy electrons were mistaken for (illusory) muons.
And of course, cosmic rays consist of many high energy protons with heavy mass moving with almost light speed which can also have large penetrating power due to the heavier proton's less energy loss through radiation than the ligher muon (= which means there is a chance that some high-energy protons moving at light speed c were mistaken for illusory muons, as well as high-energy electrons ).
The energy of particles contained in cosmic rays is about 1~6 GeV = 1000 ~ 6000 MeV ( this p.6 24.3.1 ), which means a electron with 0.5 MeV rest mass energy (= mc2 = 0.5 MeV when m is the electron's mass, and c is light speed ) originating from cosmic rays has far larger energy than the energy needed for the electron moving at light speed, and each electron appears to be much heavier and harder to accelerate by the electromagnetic field (= which transmits at light speed ), which is also one of reasons that a lighter electron was mistaken for a (illusory) heavier muon.
In experiments of the so-called anomalous magnetic moment of muons, physicists just measure the light emitted from electrons or charged particles (= not illusory muons ) into which (illusory) muons is said to soon decay ( this p.11 ) by scintillator or light detectors..
When producing these rare unstable (illusory) particles such as muons, much more abundant particles such as electrons, protons and high-energy lights are generated and scattered by other charged particles in the detector's medium through Coulomb force which can change or modify the particle's tracks under magnetic field.
↑ It means the estimation of particle's momentum under the (false) assumption that the particle curves its track under magnetic field behaving like a free particle even inside many other atoms in cloud chamber is wrong, and some of those more abundant irrelevant electrons and protons scattered by Coulomb interaction (= Not only magnetic force ) are easily mistaken for rare (illusory and unnecesary) particles such as muons or antiparticles.
Actually, when physicists try to generate (illusory) muons by colliding high-energy protons with the target atoms, they only roughly apply only the simple magnetic field and don't try to separate the irrelevant abundant electrons or protons from the unstable rare muons.
The (illusory) very unstable muon's mass (= 106 MeV ) is said to be roughly estimated from measuring the energy level of (illusory) unstable muonium allegedly consisting of positive muon (= μ+ ) orbited by an electron, but this muonium energy level ( 1s = 13.539 eV, this p.2 ) is almost same as the ordinary hydrogen atom (= proton + electron = 1s = 13.598 eV ).
↑ The process of producing the (illusory) muonium needs very large energy (> 20 MeV, this p.3, this p.16,19, this p.1-left ) that is enough to break nuclei (= producing isolated neutrons, protons, electrons, this p.7-25, this p.2 ) and generates many ordinary hydrogen atoms which are mistaken for the illusory muonium in such high energy circumstances where each (hydrogen) atom is moving and oscillating at high speeds and could slightly modify its spectrum line (= ex. osillating electric field causes Stark effect ) mistaken for the illusory muonium.
Another illusory composite particle called muonic hydrogen where a proton orbited by a negative muon is said to emit light energy 200 times larger (= ~ 2 keV X rays ) than the ordinary hydrogen atom due to the muon's mass 200 times larger than an electron. But generating such (illusory) unstable muonic hydrogen also needs very large energy (= 5 keV ~ MeV, this p.2-left, this p.37 ) which large energy imput is just detected as X rays allegedly emitted from (illusory) muonic hydrogen ( this p.3-4 ) instead of really generating the (illusory) muonic hydrogen.
As a result, there is No evidence that a (unnecessary) muon really exists.
Particle physics, standard model, QED are unsuccessful, meaningless theories.
Besides (contradictory) W boson, another important ( illusory ) elementary particle of the current standard ( Glashow-Weinberg-Salam ) model is a neutral Z boson which is also a ghost and useless pseudo-particle = too short-lived to detect directly (= No real evidence that these extremely-unstable Z or W bosons exist ).
This ghost-like neutral Z boson is said to be involved in (unphysical) weak interaction of unseen neutrinos (= ν ) being scattered by other particles such as electrons and nuclei, which interaction is called neutral current (= NC ), which dubious Z boson's weak interaction is extremely hard to distinguish from other common electromagnetic interaction.
This unseen illusory Z boson was said to be discovered by observing the scattering of such an unseen neutrinos (= neutrino itself cannot be detected, its existence must be inferred from "missing momentum" or other surrounding particles ).
↑ Of course it's unrealistic to obtain reliable data from these uncertain, unpredictable particle scattering experiments using unseen elusive neutrinos, hence, these scattering experiments often gave different wrong results in different physicists, disagreeing with the standard model's predictions ( this p.7 ).
This unseen Z boson is extremely massive (= 90 GeV, which is 90 times heavier than a proton ).
But the unscientific standard model allows even the violation of energy and mass conservation law, so they claim even lighter neutrinos with lower energies ( < 50 GeV, this p.2-right, this p.55, this p.20-lower ) could magically generate heavier Z boson with higher energies (= generating a Z boson or its mass should need at least 90 GeV or 90000 MeV = Z boson's rest mass energy ), which is impossible, hence a wrong contradictory theory.
In the experiment allegedly discovering this unrealistically massive neutral Z boson in 1973, Gargamelle team hit the accelerated protons with 26 GeV against the target beryllium atoms to produce neutrino beam with energies of 1 ~ 10 GeV (= far smaller energy than Z boson's rest mass energy = 90 GeV ! this neutrino beam, this p.9 ).
↑ This neutrino (= 1~10 GeV ) allegedly generated the unrealistic unseen massive Z boson (= 90 GeV mass energy by violating energy conservation law ), and this unseen Z boson collided with nuclei in the liquid causing the nuclear or hadronic reaction which are extremely hard to detect ( this p.3 ). ← They claim that the neutral Z boson couldn't generate easily-detectable charged particles.
↑ They tried to use this undetectable neutral Z boson reaction with the target nuclei (= which equals the reactions where the unseen neutrinos are scattered by nuclei ) to infer the standard model's artificial parameter called Weinberg angle (= sinθW) or weak mixing angle, which unphysical parameter = Weinberg angle is said to be equal to the ratio of probabilities of neutral current events mediated by the unseen Z boson to the charged current events mediated by the unseen W- boson using the artificially-created formula.
↑ They claimed only charged W boson could generate unstable charged particles such as muon (= μ- ) which decayed into the detectable electrons, while the neutral Z boson couldn't generate the easily-detectable charged particles, but they tried to compare the chances of these two charged (= W boson ) and neutral (= Z boson ) current reactions happening to infer the artificial Weinberg angle (= θB ) parameter ( this p.10, this p.4 ).
↑ The neutral current reaction mediated by Z boson is much harger to detect than the charged current reaction mediated by charged W boson (= allegedly causing easily-detectable charged particles ), so the estimation of unphysical Weinberg angle parameter based on this reaction's ratio of neutral Z boson to charged W boson is unreliable.
Contraty to their claim, the neutral Z boson could also generate charged particles such as electrons (= e-) and muons ( this p.7, this p.4 ), so distinguishing reactions between Z boson and W boson is intrinsically impossible. ← So they conveniently started to say the chance of the neutral Z boson decaying into the charged particles is extremely low. ← This is clearly the artificial manipulation of the theory to fit the experimental results or obtain its artificial parameter (= Weinberg angle ) !
This very unreliable experiment using the unseen ghost-like neutrino scattering, virtual Z, W boson and unseen various unspecific nuclear reactions gave the various wrong results of Weinberg or weak mixing angle parameter (= sin2 θw = 0.3-0.5, this p.18, this p.21-last ) disagreeing with the current accepted or adjusted values ( sin2 θw = 0.23 ).
And any experimental results disagreeing with the Weinberg angle adopted by the mainstream standard model were deliberately ignored and dismissed. ← Not a legitimate scientific process at all !
This p.17 says "This result by the HPWF group, contrary to the their (positive) mixed-beam-result and contrary to Gargamelle’s result, was in fact inconsistent with the predictions of the GWS model (= Glashow-Weinberg-Salam theory = mainstream standard model ). However, this negative published result was largely ignored"
As a result, the present particle physics or standard model is Not successful at all, instead, it just blatantly violates the inviolable physical laws (= energy conservation is violated in unrealistically-heavy W and Z bosons in nonphysical weak force ) and deliberately dismisses any experiments contradicting the mainstream standard model which just artificially manipulates many free parameters in their the ad-hoc model to seemingly fit the (artificially-chosen) experimental results.
The current particle physics or standard model baselessly argues that a proton or neutron consists of three (valence) quarks with unseen fractional charges.
But those fractional-charge quarks can never be isolated, so there is No evidence of existence of the (fictional) fractional-charges of quarks, contrary to the mainstream theory's baseless claim.
The present particle physics tries to find the evidence of fractional charges from the electrons or (unseen) neutrinos scattered from the nuclei in vain, ignoring the obvious fact that fractional charges can never be isolated (= so proof of unseen fractional charges is intrinsically impossible ).
Those scattering exeprimental results disagreed with their original quark model claiming each proton or neutron consists of three (valence) quarks, so physicists needed to artificially add many other (unreal) virtual sea quarks to the original three valence quarks inside a proton and neutron ( this p.8, this p.7 ).
It is intrinsically impossible to extract the precise fractional-charge values such as 1/3e, 2/3e.. (= why other fractional charges such as 2/5e, 4/7e.. are Not allowed cannot be explained by the current ad-hoc standard model ! ) from those data of nuclei scattering other particles, because the unseen quarks are allegedly tightly bound to each other, which means fractional-charge quarks are Not free particles, and only an integer charge tightly binding fractional charges can be measured by experiments. ← So the present standard model claim of fractional charges of unseen quarks is completely baseless.
(Fig.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.
(Fig.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
(Fig.44) ↓ Positron (= antiparticle ) emission is impossible.
Antimatter or antiparticle is also a ghost-like fictional particle which can be neither isolated from virtual circumstances of particle colliders nor confirmed directly.
Positron (= antiparticle of an electron ) was said to be discovered in 1932 when Anderson studied the photos from the cloud chamber where positron was strangely moving upward from the bottom (= the opposite direction of cosmic rays that contain high-energy particles moving downward towards the earth ! this p.7, this p.8 ), struck the lead plate and lost energy as seen in the greater curvature of the upper part of track under the applied magnetic field.
But all these types of the experiments in the particle physics often dismissed the multi-particle Coulomb electric influence ( caused by many ionized electrons and nuclei inside detectors ), instead, physicists tried to consider only the influence of the applied magnetic field (= ignoring multi-particle Coulomb electric field's effects ) on the particle track's curve to identify the particles.
There were many other irrelevant particles or ions (= excited by cosmic rays ) besides a very rare antiparticle inside cloud chamber, so one of more abundant electrons (= going down ) could be deflected by other ions' electric field (= not only magnetic field ) especially in the upper part of the inserted lead plate where more atoms were ionized (= more black dots are seen in the upper part ) by cosmic rays falling downward, causing stronger electric field, and resultantly, the electron moving downward (= in the same direction as cosmic rays ) was misunderstood as a (illusory) positron which was said to be strangely going upward (= opposite direction to cosmic rays ).
Or cosmic rays including high energy particles and gamma rays (= ~ GeV ) occasionally break nuclei and emit high-energy positive protons (= Not positrons ! ) which are likely to be mistaken for (illusory) positrons in the cloud chamber where higher-energy particles moving at higher speeds (= whether they are protons or electrons ) tend to leave thinner trajectories due to their less interaction with the surrounding atoms ( this lower ).
Antiparticles such as positrons and anti-protons are said to be generated rarely by colliding many accelerated protons or electrons with target heavy atoms under magnetic field.
These kinds of particle collision and cloud chamber experiments are very dirty and chaotic where isolating and confirming only a very rare, unstable particle such as an antiparticle is physically impossible.
Under this chaotic condition inside particle colliders and cloud chambers, it's impossible to isolate or confirm a single rare antiparticle directly, because in order to confirm the existence of the elusive antiparticle from the particle trajectory left in the particle detector or cloud chamber, physicists have to remove any irrelevant external disturbance or influence from other more abundant charged particles such as electrons and nuclei, which removal is impossible.
Other more abundant stable particles such as electrons and protons are more likely to be detected and easily mistaken for one of illusory rare antiparticles.
An electron could be scattered by many other atoms and ions (or high-energy electrons or lights easily excite and kick out other electrons of instruments' walls in various directions ), "mimicking" an illusory rare positron's trajectory.
Actually, many physicists such as Nobel laureates Millikan and Bohr dismissed Anderson's dubious positron as some "experimental artifacts" ( this p.7-right-3rd-paragraph ).
Anyway, as long as we cannot isolate such rare elementary particles as antiparticles from other more abundant electrons or protons, thinking about such dubious unnecessary antiparticles is meaningless.
The only practical application of antiparticle is said to be positron-emission tomography (= PET ).
In fact, the illusory antiparticle = positron emission (= β+ decay ) can be safely replaced by another realistic particle reaction called "electron capture" which produces exactly the same neutron from the same initial particles = a proton and an electron.
So both electron capture and positron emission are said to cause the same nuclear reaction changing (a positive proton of ) Na-22 into ( a neutral neutron of ) Ne-22 by emitting gamma rays and absorbing one negative electron from the outside.
But only the positron emission needs an unrealistic reaction where a ligher proton has to emit a heavier neutron and a positron. ← This is impossible (= a ligher proton → a heavier neutron + a positron ).
If Einstein relativity was true, in any frames (= seen by any moving observers ) including the rest frame of a lighter proton (= with No additional kinetic energy ), a heavier neutron with higher energy (+ positron ) must be emitted from a lighter proton with lower energy, which is impossible and self-contradictory, so positron emission process is unrealistic due to the violation of the mass and energy conservation law.
So there is No evidence of the existence of antiparticles such as positrons which illusory particles are completely unnecessary even for their alleged only-application = positron emission tomography (= PET ) where the realistic electron capture can perfectly explain the gamma ray light released by PET, replacing the illusory positron emission.
For example, Na-22 nuclei are said to decay into the same resultant Ne-22 nuclei through conveniently choosing either of two different paths of (illusory) positron emission (= β+ decay ) or (realistic) electron capture, which path is chosen is indistinguishable, because all physicists can detect is the emitted light (= γ rays ) energy or other stable electrons in the detectors instead of directly observing the very short-lived dubious antiparticles ( this p.99, this p.2-lower ).
There are many cases which cannot be explained by (fantasy) positron emissions, but can be explained only by the realistic electron capture.
The positron emission reaction needs to emit the gamma light whose energy must be greater than 2mc2 (= electron + positron rest mass energies ? ).
But in many nuclear decays mimicking positron emission, emitted energies are often less than 2mc2, which can be explained only by realistic electron capture, Not by positron or antiparticle emission ( this p.6-7 ).
Na-22 radioactive nucleus emits the high-energy γ rays more than 2.0 MeV (= 2 × 106 eV, ) through the realistic electron capture or the paradoxical positron emission ( this p.9 ).
So inside the capsule of the Na-22 radioactive source, many high-energy electrons and sodium (= Na ) ions excited by γ rays emitted from other radioactive nuclei before are already moving around at extremely high speed and high energies.
↑ These excited Na-22 positive ions, high-energy electrons and gamma rays are scattered by other atoms (or excite other atoms inside detectors ), and bring as much energy as the 1 ~ 2 MeV level to the gamma-ray detector, and they may be falsely detected as (unseen) antiparticle or positron (= which is said to annihilate with another electron to emit gamma rays, too ).
↑ Te present experiments about the dubious antiparticles can Not eliminate the possibility that the dubious antiparticle or positron was just an artifact caused by the high-energy electrons, positive ions or gamma rays scattered by other atoms or walls inside instruments, hence, there is No conclusive evidence that antiparticles exist, as seen in the fact that the concept of positron emission can be safely replaced by the realistic electron capture with No problem.
The gamma ray detector such as NaI scintillator cannot detect the gamma ray itself.
The gamma ray detector has to divide the high energy gamma rays into many lower-energy detectable visible lights ( this p.2 ), so the collection of (visible) lights emitted from the high-energy electrons or γ rays originating from Na-22 radioactive source can be easily mistaken for the (illuosory) positron, which can be detected only as the emitted gamma rays, Not as an (unseen) antiparticle.
In any reactions involving antiparticle production and decay, the total energy and momentum conservation law is broken between antiparticle and light (or photon ), which unphysical violation of total momentum conservation law clearly shows that antiparticles are unreal.
In the pair production of antiparticles, the incident light ( or photon ) with energy E more than 2mc2 and the momentum (= p = E/c ) allegedly changes into a pair of a particle (= electron ) and an antiparticle (= positron ) acquiring the rest mass from the incident light's energy. ← The electromagnetic wave, light or photon cannot stop, so the light's momentum must Not be zero.
When this light with the total energy = 2mc2 changes into a stationary electron with rest mass energy (= mc2 ) and a stationary positron or antiparticle with the rest mass energy (= mc2 ) in pair production, only the total energy is conserved, and the total momentum is Not conserved.
Because the momentums of the resultant stationary electron and positron are zero, hence, the initial light's momentum (= p = E/c = 2mc ) must disappear somewhere else to conserve the total momentum.
The present unrealistic mainstream particle physics claims that this magically-vanishing light's momentum may be absorbed into the irrelevant nucleus near the place of the pair production ( this 8th-paragraph ).
↑ But in this ridiculous mainstream particle physics logic, the nucleus must absorb the light's momentum without the energy. ← Absorbing only the momentum (= hence, the kinetic energy of a nucleus must be generated by absorbing the energy, not only momentum ! ) without absorbing the energy is physically impossible, so the antiparticle pair production is unrealistic and illusion.
Fictional antiparticles need unreal virtual particles with unreal masses for their reactions described by abstract nonphysical Feynman diagrams ( this p.4, this p.3, this p.16-last, this p.56 (or p.57 ) ) invalidating real antiparticles.
And the present unphysical particle physics cannot describe each particle or antiparticle in the realistic way, except as nonphysical math symbols.
Anyway, for a pair of a positively-charged positron and a negatively-charged electron to be produced and separated from neutral light (= unreal virtual photon ) as pair production, it needs unrealistically infinite energy (= infinite energy is needed to separate an electron and a positron from the initial neutral light = allegedly a negative electron and a positive positron are bound to each other by "infinite Coulomb attraction between zero distance of particle and antiparticle", stably fused into one neutral light, where the distance between these two attractive charged particles is zero and the Coulomb attraction between the initial electron and positron is infinite inside initial fused light of photon ), so antiparticle generation from light is impossible.
Because inside an initial neutral light (= photon ), the distance between a positron and an electron is almost zero, which means Coulomb attraction between positron and electron is infinite inside the initial light, which Coulomb attraction is too strong to separate a particle from an antiparticle. = No antiparticle generation !
Antiprotons (= antiparticle of proton ? ) are extremely-short-lived virtual particles, which can never be isolated from colliders as real particles, hence useless and unnecessary particles.
As I said, it is impossible to isolate these extremely-unstable rare (illlusory) particles from other more abundant stable electrons and ions, hence, there is No evidence that these antiparticles such as antiprotons could exist even for an extremely short time.
Antiparticles are said to be produced when high-energy protons hit and break the target metal's nuclei into other more abundant irrelevant electrons, protons and ions.
Particle physicists choose high-energy antiparticles with far more than 1 GeV energies ( this p.6 ) which exceed the proton or antiparticle's rest mass energy mc2 = 0.938 GeV, which means the alleged antiparticles are moving at almost light speed c.
Physicists often apply the magnetic field to bend the particle's track to know its momentum (= track's curvature under magnetic field tells us only about the particle's momentum, Not the particle's mass or energy ), deliberately ignoring other multi-particle Coulomb scattering.
When the particle such as a (anti)protons and an electron is moving at almost light speed c (= its velocity v = c ), the (relativistic) mass of the particle derived from the same particle's momentum (= producing the same bent track under magnetic field ) becomes almost the same in all different particles with different rest masses, whether it's a (anti)proton or an electron.
↑ The (relativistic heavier) mass equal to the (same) momentum/light speed c is the same in all different particles such as an electron and an (illusory) antiproton moving at almost the light speed c. ← Distiguishing an electron from an (illusory) antiproton based on their mass difference under the applied electromagnetic field is impossible, when they are moving at almost the same light speed c.
This seemingly-heavier (relativistic) mass of the particle moving at higher speed can be explained by the realistic Maxwell's energy mass relation which was illegitimately copied by the paradoxical Einstein relativity later (= So the seemingly heavier mass of the particle moving at higher speed is just due to the increased resistance which the higher-speed particle feels from the surrounding medium, Not due to the fictional Eistein heavier relativistic mass ).
↑ Almost the same apparent (relativistic) masses of all different particles moving at almost light speed c means physicists cannot distinguish between the illusory antiproton allegedly with the same mass as a proton and the ligher electron moving at light speed c with the same higher momentum (> 1 GeV ).
Hence, like the dubious cosmic muons, which are also moving at almost light speed c, it is impossible to distinguish these (illusory) antiparticles, muons from other real high-energy electrons and protons due to their apparently same heavier (relativistic) masses, because they are moving at almost the same light speed c (= this means they experience the same Lorentz magnetic force ), and accelerated in almost the same way under the electric field (= due to the same relativistic mass ).
Actually, all particle colliders try to only distinguish the high energy (illusory) negative antiprotons moving at almost light speed (= its energy is more than 1 GeV ) from the positive protons only under the simple magnetic field ( this p.21-24(or p.6-9), this p.2, this p.2 ). ← They cannot distinguish the more abundant high energy negative electrons from the negative (illusory) antiparticles or antiprotons under magnetic field.
This means the illusory short-lived antiparticles are unnecessary and useless, because antiprotons can be replaced by other high-energy electrons or ions scattered by other particles.
Positrons (= antiparticles of electrons ) allegedly created inside particle colliders are also useless and unnecessary, because positrons are just other particles such as protons, ions or scattered electrons, instead of (illusory) antiparticles.
In particle colliders using (illusory) positron-electron collisions, elusive positrons (= e+ ) are said to be generated by accelerated electrons (= e- ) moving at almost light speed (= about 200 MeV ~ 10 GeV ) hitting the target metallic nuclei ( this p.2-3, this p.2 ).
When such a high-energy electron hits the target nucleus, the nucleus breaks down, and producing neutrons, positive protons and electrons.
But the current particle physics baselessly claims that when the accelerated electron crashes into the target nucleus, it emits a (virtual) photon or high-energy gamma rays (= called bremsstrahlung ), which eventually causes a (virtual) pair production of a positron and an electron by violating momentum conservation law.
So particle physicists try to separate only negative electrons, neutral γ rays (= or photon ) from the positive (illusory ) positrons using magnetic field in the particle collider's positron source ( this p.4, this p.17, this p.9 ).
↑ It means they do Not exclude more abundant positive protons generated from broken nuclei hit by high-energy electrons, so the (illusory) positrons are likely to be just abundant protons, ions or scattered electrons. ← No need of antiparticle positrons.
Actually energies of only 30 MeV is enough to break nuclei by accelerated electrons to produce protons and neutrons
Particle colliders use higher-energy electrons (ex. 3.5 GeV = 3500 MeV, or 500 MeV this p.2-right, this p.34-35 ) to generate positrons, which can be reasonably interpreted just as more abundant protons or scattered electrons.
Distinguising a (illusory) positron from abundant protons is impossible unless they rely on some artificial (baseless) theory such as the alleged radiation difference ( this p.1-middle ).
Artificially-created concept such as the neutral anti-neutrino cannot be distinguished from ordinary neutrino due to the lack of detectable positive or negative charges in the neutral (anti-)neutrinos.
So we can conclude all these doubtful particles, which are too short-lived to isolate from colliders, are unreal and unnecessary for us, forever.
If the initial light transiently changes into an electron and a positron for an extremely short time, and quickly returns to the initial light by merging with each other again, the existence of positron or antiparticle is unnecessary and unreal (= positron emission of PET can be explained and replaced by realistic electron capture ).
In fact, there is No direct evidence that the hypothetical particle called positronium where an antiparticle = positron and an electron are said to be orbiting around each other like hydrogen atom.
If this (illusory) positronium really existed, physicists should have detected the spectral line or light with energy difference between n = 1 and n = 2 of the positronium atom (= emitted light should have 2430 A wavelength and 5.10 eV = replacing the ordinary hydrogen's Lyman series by using a half of the reduced mass, this p.4 ).
But the environments using positrons are always filled with many much-higher-energy lights or gamma rays (= ~ MeV or 106 eV ), hence, such a smaller-energy light (= only 5 eV ) allegedly emitted from positronium is easily hidden, undetectable and indistinguishable from the much-higher-energy background lights ( this p.21-22, this abstract, Fig.2-4 ). ← Proving the existence of positron using positronium's energy levels is impossible.
Some experiments tried to illuminate the (undetectable) positronium with three small-energy lights with different wavelengths to ionize the positronium to detect positrons for estimating n = 1 → 2 energy level's transition, but those smaller-energy lights are easily buried inside many other much-higher-energy lights (= MeV = much more easily ionizing positroniums ), so these experiments are unreliable, and they did Not detect positrons themselves that cannot be distinguished from high-energy scattered electrons, positive ions and lights by their particle detectors = MCP ( this Fig.2, p.2-3 = using multiple lights with wavelengths different from the original 243 nm or n=1 → n=2 transition ).
So there is No reliable evidence of existence of the positronium or antiparticle, positron.
The tiny hyperfine-structure energy difference of the (illusory) positronium is much, much smaller (= 203 GHz = only 0.0008 eV, this p.3 ) than positron's annihilation energy (= ~ MeV or 106 eV ) filling the space as gamma lights, hence, such a tiny, tiny positronium's hyperfine structure energy splitting is undetectable and indistinguishable from the much-higher-energy background lights or gamma (= γ ) rays.
↑ When trying to measure such a doubtful tiny hyperfine energy splitting (= energy difference between a nuclear or positron's spin up and down ), they used the baseless assumption of different lifetimes between ortho-positronium consisting of positron and electron with up-up triplet spins (= lifetime is allegedly only 142 nsec, eventually emitting high-energy gamma rays ) and para-positronium with up-down singlet spins (= lifetime is said to be only 0.125 nsec, this p.3,15-18 ).
The alleged only way of distinguishing (illusory, unseen) para-positronium and ortho-positronium is seeing the different patterns of detected lights or γ rays (= sharp or broader continuum, this p.5 ) with No more ways of confirming those doubtful particles such as positroniums really exist.
↑ These lifetimes of positroniums based on (unseen) spin directions are just
(Fig.45) Light medium moving "with" the earth can perfectly explain the constant light speed c detected by Michelson-Morley experiment.
Michelson-Morley experiment showed light speed c is always constant on the earth regardless of directions, which is compatible with already-known phenomena such as sound wave traveling at a constant speed through the air medium and the classical Maxwell's electromagnetic wave theory in the medium ( this p.8-10 ).
The speed of sound wave is always constant regardless of the sound wavelength or frequency.
The sound wave "speeds" are affected only by the "medium" through which the sound travels at the same constant speed in all directions.
↑ This actually-observed sound wave traveling at the constant speed through the medium which corresponds to the "air" moving with the earth (= as a result, we cannot feel as unrealistically-strong wind as the earth's fast rotational speed ) is just like the light traveling at the constant speed in the same medium, which was observed by Michelson-Morley experiment.
The point is the famous Michelson-Morley experiment denied only the hypothetical ether which is Not moving or rotating with the earth. ← So if such an unrealistic ether (= moving independently of the earth's motion ) existed, people could have easily felt such a unrealistically-strong "ether wind" long before Michelson-Morley experiment was conducted.
So Michelson-Morley experiment did Not deny the realistic ether or "medium moving with the earth" like the actually-observed "air" moving with the earth ( this 2nd-last paragraph ). ← This realistic light medium is perfectly reasonable with No contradictions to actual obervations, as I explain later.
Actually, the "light speeds change" depending on the "medium", which fact contradicts Einstein relativity denying that the light medium affects the light speed c.
All observed phenomena such as light interference and refraction are compatible with the light wave theory traveling through some medium.
The fact that we usually do Not feel unrealistically-strong winds means the entire atmosphere or all air molecules are dragged by some large medium surrounding the earth, and moving with the earth also in the horizontal direction (= Einstein's gravity in the vertical direction alone is Not enough to explain the static air molecules relative to the earth rotation ).
Einstein falsely rejecting the real medium in space had to create fantasy relativistic theory with Lorentz transformation where the clock time could magically change and even the rigid body could illogically shrink as seen by differently-moving observers for forcibly explaining the constant light speed c seen by any differently-moving observers.
Einstein relativity, the current relativistic quantum field theory and QED need unreal virtual particles with imaginary masses as a new fictional ether which contradicts Einstein's original relativistic mass theory ( this p.3 ) in order to explain forces between particles ( this 7th-paragraph ) after they rejected the real medium. ← So the present manistream theory is self-contradictory and false ( this 10th-paragraph, this p.4-6, this p.9-10 ).
Furthermore, Einstein unrealistic relativity caused fatal paradoxes in time, electromagnetic fields, de Broglie wave, the parallel-world two-slit interference of an imaginary photon, fantasy BigBang, and another new medium called dark matter, all of which can be perfectly fixed by the realistic medium in space.
You might have seen textbooks or websites falsely claiming the stellar aberration is the only reason which could deny the existence of the realistic medium moving with the earth (= or ether dragged by the earth ).
In the stellar aberration, when the earth is moving at the velocity of "v", you need to slightly tilt your telescope to catch the star light, just as you have to tilt your umbrella to keep off wind-driven rain, because the apparent light velocity seen by observers on the moving earth is slightly tilted at the angle of tan θ = sin θ = v/c ( c is the original light speed, v is the earth's velocity, so θ is very small, this 3rd-paragraph ).
Einstein relativity falsely claims that the ether or medium moving with the earth could magically drag the star light with an unrealistic power and suddenly change its direction drastically ( this p.2 ), hence, no aberration may be observed in the ether drag theory ( this p.2, this p.7-lower ).
↑ All these ad-hoc explanations are based on wrong assumptions and non-existent physical mechanisms, hence, the realistic medium moving with the earth has Not been denied by star aberration at all.
When seen from the earth surrounded by the medium (= like "atmosphere" ) static relative to the earth moving at the velocity of "v", the velocity of the light emitted from a distant star appears to be slightly higher (= though, this is almost the same as the original light speed c. because the earth's speed is much slower than the light ), but after all, it is detected as the original light speed c when the star's light enters the "earth medium through which the light travels at the same uniform speed." ← stellar aberration can be observed in this medium moving with the earth with No contradiction.
When the stellar aberration is not observed by the ether dragged by the earth, the star's light velocity after the light enters the earth medium must be unrealistically zero, which is impossible.
According to the light wave refraction based on Huygens principle and Snell's law, the star light entering the earth medium at the angle of sin θ = v/c must keep this almost the same tilting angle (= hence, stellar aberration is observed also in this ether or medium dragged by the earth ), because there is almost No difference between the light speeds outside and inside the earth medium.
↑ Light tilting angles = sin θ almost remains the same in two mediums outside and inside the earth's medium, because the light speeds (= whose light speed ratio equals the tilting angle sinθ according to Huygens and Snell's law ) are almost the same in two mediums outside and inside the earth's medium (= the star-light remains tilting in the same direction as the aberration even after the light enters the earth's medium, which is observed also in medium moving with the earth ).
Hence, the sudden light directional change or the unrealistic refraction does Not happen (= unless the light speed entering the earth medium suddenly becomes zero, which never happens ) accrording to Snell's law of light refraction, when the star light travels from the outside medium into the earth's medium (= stellar aberration is observed ), because the light velocity c1 in the medium outside the earth and the light velocity c2 in the earth's medium are almost the same.
Imagine, when the star light hits and enters the earth medium in the slanting direction (= the medium outside the earth appears to move at v in the opposite direction to the earth's motion or medium ), the horizontal direction of the light momentum or velocity is naturally generated as a ripple in the earth medium in the same direction as aberration by the light hitting the earth's medium, hence, the star aberration (= the star's light appears to be tilted ) can be naturally observed also in the medium moving with the earth.
↑ Physicists' unreasonable criticism turned out to be wrong, because they unrealistically treat the star-light as a fictitious ball, and conveniently replace the originally-soft earth light medium by a very rigid non-medium-like solid which cannot generate any observed light wave ripple (= though the medium can generate the light wave ripple ) even when the star-light hits it.
The light traveling in the water medium (= its light speed decreases to c/n in the water medium, where n is water refractive index ) is known to be partially dragged (= the water light speed c/n slightly changes ) when the water container is moving at some speed v in Fizeau's experiment ( this p.3, this p.2-left ).
Relativists often misleadingly claim that if the ether drag theory is right, the light speed in water must be fully (= instead of partially ) dragged by the moving water (container). ← But the water (molecules) inside the small container and the entire (light) medium dragged by the bigger earth are completely different things in their scales, so this Fizeau's experiment where the light is partially dragged by moving water is compatible with the medium dragged by (= moving with ) the earth.
Einstein's relativity completely contradicts this Fizeau's experimental results where the light speed c is clearly decreased and affected by the water medium (= c/n, n is water refractive index, this p.25, this p.2 ) which should have been denied by Einstein. ← contradiction.
As a result, the realistic medium moving with the earth is perfectly consistent with all observed phenomena including Michelson-Morley experiment, stellar aberration, and Fizeau's experiment.
On the other hand, Einstein relativity proved to be wrong with fatal paradoxes.
Einstein (special) relativity is so unrealistic and self-contradicotry that it claims a moving clock runs slower than a stationary clock.
But in this Einstein fictional relativistic world, there are No absolute frames or things, instead, all things must be relative or a relativistic illusion.
Hence, when a moving clock A runs slower seen by a stationary clock B, the clock B must paradoxically run slower seen by the clock A, because both clocks A and B appear to be moving seen by other clocks.
↑ This contradiction is called "twin paradox" where the relativistic time dilation of moving clocks causes fatal paradox and contradiction (= which cannot be fixed ) about which clock runs slower.
So it is intrinsically impossible to define and measure the realistic clock time (= there is No absolute time in Einstein world ), if this paradoxical Einstein relativity is right.
But it is (falsely) claimed that there were experimental evidences of this paradoxical relativistic time dilation.
For example, in Hafele-Keating experiment in 1971, two planes going around the earth in the opposite directions with different velocities are said to have differently showed the different clock times (= one plane's clock is faster, and the other plane's clock is slower, which alleged time change is negligibly tiny, only nanosecond-change in three-day flight ) due to (fantasy) Einstein relativity.
↑ But this result clearly contradicts the Einstein special relativity where both planes appear to be moving seen by other planes, hence, which plane's clock ticks slower should be uncertain and paradoxical ( this-lower-conclusion, this p.5-conclusion, this p.7-8 ).
In another (false) relativistic experimental example, a very unstable (hypothetical useless) particle muon's life time is said to be slightly longer (= to only 220 μs = still very meaninglessly short-lived ) due to (imaginary) time dilation, when a muon is moving at almost light speed c (= fast-moving muon's clock runs slower ? ) in the cosmic rays.
↑ The point is this (dubious) muon itself cannot be directly observed or isolated from other irrelevant abundant particles such as electrons and protons.
The hypothetical muon particle is artificially defined, when some high-energy particles such as electrons (= a muon is said to almost instantly decay into an electron, and only this final electron can be directly measured ) can penetrate some long distance inside materials and the atmosphere.
↑ So the higher the speed of (hypothetical) muons (= which are actually electrons and protons with higher speed, so imaginary muons are unnecesary ) become, the longer the muons with more kinetic energies can move (= time dilation ? No !, this is just the fact that a particle with higher energy can move longer and appear to survive longer = particle (ex illusory muon ) with higher energy can naturally move longer even without the fantasy time dilation ), which has nothing to do with relativistic time dilation.
If a sourse of light is moving at right angles to the line joining observer to source, the observer sees the slightly-redshifted (= longer-wavelength ) light, which is called "Transverse Doppler effect."
↑ Physicists baselessly claim this transverse Doppler effect showed Einsten (fantasy) time dilation by the moving lgiht sourse.
But actually this transverse Doppler effect can be naturally explained by the ordinary classical Doppler effect (= as seen in sound wave Doppler effect ) caused by a light source moving at almost "transverse" position (= so this transverse Doppler red shift is smaller than the case when the light source is going away from us in the parallel direction on the line connecting the light source and us ), and it does Not need fantasy Einstein relativistic time dilation, the transverse Doppler effect is just a smaller version of the ordinary Doppler effect.
According to Einstein general relativity, the time of clock, which is closer to the mass (= such as the earth ), tends to become slower due to general relativistic or gravitational time dilation.
But GPS satellite clock time errors completely disagree with Einstein relativistic time dilation prediction, so engineers have to constantly correct the GPS clock time errors caused by many other factors such as atmosphere and atomic clock errors by directly comparing the earth's base station's clock and the satellite's clock. ← Einstein relativistic time dilation prediction is wrong.
Basically, both special and general relativistic time dilations are too small (= so non-existing ) compared to other more influential factors such as atmosphere (= so the precise measurement of relativistic time dilation itself is impossible as seen in unpredictable GPS time errors. ).
The refractive index of the atmospheric air is 1.0003, which means the light speed c becomes slower to c/1.0003 in the air medium around the earth, which effect has nothing to do with Einstein relativity rejecting the light medium.
GPS clock time is said to slightly change only by 45 microseconds per day (= one day is 86400 seconds ) due to gravitational time dilation (= No experimental evidence, though ), so this general relativistic time dilation is extremely weak, 45 microseconds/86400 seconds = less than one in 109, which is far smaller than the atmospheric air influence (= air refractive index = 1.0003, hence the air medium influence 0.0003/1.0 is far stronger than the negligibly weak gravitational time dilation's influence = 45 microseconds/86400 seconds (=per day) = 1/109 ).
Only by the atmosphere or air medium in the regions with greater gravity, the light speed is significantly slowed down from c to c/1.0003 (= 1.0003 is the refractive index of air ), so it is No wonder that the light frequency is also slightly modified and lower by the atmospheric medium's influence in the greater-gravity region, and this slightly-lowered light frequency (= only negligibly tiny change = 10-15, which is much much smaller than the the effect of air medium on the light speed = 10-4 or refractive index of 1.0003 ) or red-shifted light (= allegedly emitted from the very distant imaginary black hole ) can be mistaken for (fictional) Einstein gravitational time dilation.
Basically, Einstein dubious general relativistic time dilation deliberately ignores the larger influence of the atmosphere or air medium (on light and atomic oscillation such as atomic clocks ) in the greater-gravity region, as seen in the fact that the in gravitational lens, the light can be significantly bent by the refraction of the atmospheric medium Not by the far smaller fictional general relativistic time dilation.
↑ So all the dubious experimental evidences of negligibly-tiny gravitational time dilation ( this 9th-paragraph ) is illusion caused by other more influential factors such as atmospheric pressure acting on the light frequency (= air medium significantly slows down the light speed c, so it could naturally slow the light frequency a little, too ) and very sensitive atomic clocks instead of Einstein fantasy relativity.
There is No direct evidence that various redshifted lights allegedly emitted from very distant (imaginary) stars might be caused by gravitational time dilation, because these redshifted (= longer wavelength ) lights from incredibly-distant stars and atoms may be caused by the ordinary classical Doppler shift (= atoms moving around naturally cause some Doppler shift or redshift in emitted light wave ) or the light losing its energy and elongating its wavelength by Compton effect during the extremely-long journey.
The current mainstream physics argues that gravitational force is caused by (fictitious) virtual gravitons existing in (fantasy) extra-dimensions of string theory allegedly unifying Einstein general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Instead of using these unphysical virtual gravitons or extra-dimensions, we can naturally think that gravitational force is caused by some density difference (= or the average density fluctuation putting together a large number of positive and negative charges ) in the space medium, which may naturally slightly modify the light wavelength or atomic clock even without the fantasy relativistic time dilation.
As shown here, Einstein relativistic time dilation is self-contradictory with fatal paradox, and too weak (= so unreal ) compared with other more realistic factors (= atmosphere ), hence, there is No evidence of (fantasy) Einstein relativistic time dilation or slower time in moving clocks, contrary to the media and academic hypes.
(Fig.46) Different clock times in different positions.
Here we present a typical example of fatal paradox in Einstein relativity.
In Einstein relativity, a moving ovserver has an unrealistic power to bend even a rigid rod without touching it , no matter how hard the rod is, as seen in Lorentz contraction.
A rigid rod is moving upward at first and then turn to the left horizontally along the rigid square rail in the upper figure.
External forces are always applied to any positions of the long rod uniformly, in both leftward and upward directions (= at first, the rod cannot move to the left, blocked by the vertical rail on the right side. )
Surprisingly, as seen by a moving observer, this originally-straight rigid rod appears to be bent complexly, as seen in the upper figure right.
According to relativistic Lorentz transformation, events occurring in different positions (= x = 0, 1 ) at the same time (= t ) seen by stationary observer occur at the different times (= t' ) seen by a moving observer !
By inserting two positions x = 0 and 1 (= same time t by stationary observer ) into Lorentz tansformation, we find a moving observer sees the left end of rod turning to the left earlier than the right end of the rod.
Hence, a moving observer tends to see the future event of the left end of the rod and the past of the right end of the rod. which appears to bend the rod like in the upper figure right.
This occult world is Einstein special relativity.
(Fig.47) "Block" changes the rod "future" direction.
So in Einstein fantasy relativistic world, a rigid rod "can" foresee the future !
In Fig.47, the right end of the rod (= still existing in the past ) has Not arrived at the turning point, but the left end of the rod (= existing in the future ) has already turned to the left at the turning point.
If someone suddenly puts a new block onto the turning point, the whole rigid rod (= including left and right ends of the rod ) cannot move leftward (= the whole rigid rod cannot turn to the left ), meaning the left end of the rod already turning leftward suddenly changes its past event and its direction (= as if moving upward from the beginning without turning to the left at the turning point ) without touching the rod !
This is paradoxical and impossible, because the right end of the rod (= past ) has Neither arrived at the turning point nor known whether a block is there or not.
But the left end of the rod can automatically predict the future event (= can know whether a new block is put at the turning point without touching it ), and make a decision whether it will bend (= moving leftward ) or bend back (= moving upward without turning leftward ) !
This is one of fatal paradoxes of Einstein relativity which theory proved to be wrong just by this paradox.
Here we suppose external force is always applied to any points of the rod uniformly, so the moment the rod arrives at the tuning point without a block, the whole rod starts to turn to the left without delay simultaneously.
(Fig.48) A stationary observer K sees the neutral wire (= charge density ρe = 0 ) with electric current Jx generating magnetic field B, which is magically seen as the electrically-charged wire (= whose charge density ρe' is Not zero ! ) generating the electric field Ez' from the viewpoint of a moving observer K' !
In fact, Einstein (special and general) relativity contradicts the experimentally-verified electromagnetic theory.
In the upper figure, the electric current Jx is flowing in the -x direction (= here we assume positive charges are flowing as electric current, and negative charges are fixed at definite positions for simplicity ) inside the electrically-neutral wire, and it generates the magnetic field (= in the y direction above the wire ) around it.
A stationary observer K sees an external positive charge (= + ) at rest above the neutral wire. ← This stationary positive charge outside the wire remains at rest because it feels No Lorentz magnetic force (= because this charge stops, Lorentz magnetic force = evB = 0, where the outside positive charge's velocity v is zero seen by K ) or No electric forces from the neutral wire.
But from the viewpoint of another observer K' who is moving in the x direction at a velocity v, this K' sees the same external positive charge (= stationary seen by the stationary K observer ) moving in the -x direction at a velocity v, because Einstein unphysical relativity adopts No absolute space or No absolute motion (= all motions are supposed to be relative ).
So this external positive charge appearing to be moving experiences Lorentz magnetic force downward ( this p.2 ) seen only by K', which means this external positive charge may be paradoxcically moving downward seen only by K', while the stationary observer K sees this same positive charge stopping (= Not moving downward ) !
↑ To solve this paradox, Einstein relativity unreasonably claims that the neutral wire (= seen by the stationary K ) should magically change into the electrically-positive charged wire as seen by the moving K', and this magically-positively-charged wire generates the (fictitious) electric field (= Ez' ) upward in the z direction, and this (fictitious) electric field upward could cancel the Lorentz magnetic force downward, and after all, both K and K' see the same external positive charge remaining at rest in the z direction.
So in the unrealistic Einstein's relativistic world, the mere observer's motion can magically change the originally-neutral wire with No electric field into the electrically-charged wire generating (fictitious) electric field E !
According to relativistic electromagnetic theory, under Lorentz transformation, the electric (= E ) and magnetic (= B) fields seen by the static K observer in the space time (t,x,y,z) must magically change into the completely different electric (= E' ) and magnetic (= B') fields seen by the moving observer K' in the spacetime (t',x',z',y'). this p.14, this p.14, this p.17
In the same way, under Lorentz transformation, the charge density ( = ρe ) and electric current density (= J ) seen by the stationary observer K must be changed into the completely different charge density (= ρ'e ) and electric current density (= J' ) seen by the moving observer K' like the relativistic spacetime ( this p.2-3, this p.3, this box-13.5, this p.8 ).
↑ So the new (unrealistic) positive or negative charge (density) ρe' can be generated from the originally-neutral wire (= J ) only by being seen from differently-moving observers according to the fictional Einstein relativity.
This ad-hoc relativistic solution relying on fictitiously-generated charges cannot eliminate the true relativistic electromagnetic paradox, after all.
(Fig.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
In fact, Einstein relativistic theory cannot solve its true electromagnetic Lorentz transformation paradox, so the relativity incompatible with the experimentally-verified electromagnetism is completely wrong.
As shown in Fig.48, the neutral wire with electric current seen by the stationary K observer magically appears to be positively-charged seen by the moving observer K.
When there is an external negative charge (= - ) at the left or right side of the horizontal electric wire, this external negative charge not attracted to the neutral wire seen by K paradoxically appears to be attracted to the (unrealistically) positively-charged wire seen by the moving observer K', as shown above.
This is one of true relativistic paradoxes which can never be solved (= so this true paradox is rarely seen in textbooks ).
As shown above, this external negative charge is paradoxically attracted and moved toward (= x direction ) the wire with current flowing in the x direction.
Lorentz magnetic force, which is always perpendicular to the charge's moving direction, cannot cancel this paradoxical electric attraction (= even if the magnetic force is generated, its direction could be in y or z direction, Not in the x-drection of electric attraction ), which means this paradoxical electrical attraction only seen by K' remains unsolved.
This fatal relativistic paradox originates in the intrinsically-flawed relativistic Lorentz transformation of the electromagnetic field E.
According to the relativistic Lorentz transformation of electromagnetic field, the electric field (= Ex or E|| ) in x direction (= K' moving direction ) must remain unchanged or zero (= Ex = Ex' = 0 ) also seen by the moving observer K' ( this p.14, this p.14 ). ← This Lorentz transformation of electric field is clearly wrong.
As shown in Fig.48 and Fig.49, the originally zero electric field (= Ex = 0 ) seen by the stationary observer K clearly changes into the non-zero electric field Ex' due to the newly-appearing positive charges in the electric wire seen by K' (= charge density ρ' seen by K' is Not zero, this p.3 ).
These electromagnetic paradoxes are caused by the Einstein relativity rejecting some absolute frame or space, where all the motions must be relative, illusion.
As shown on this page, the Mansuripur's relativity contradicting electromagnetic Lorentz force law is one of true unsolvable paradoxes, all their alleged solutions rely on unscientific "hidden momentum" and hidden angular momentum, which are Not legitimate solutions at all.
All these electromagnetic paradox can be easily solved, if we admit some realistic medium where the Lorentz magnetic force is generated only when an charged particle such as an electron is moving relative to some "medium" generating de Broglie wave, regardless of which observer, stationary or moving, is seeing it.
(Fig.50) ↓ Mass (= energy ) change is "relative", NOT absolute value where the moving particle with kinetic energy radiating light energy appears to stop with No kinetic energy seen by other observers, but this stationary particle still radiates and loses light energy despite No additional energy to lose except rest mass = unsolvable paradox of Einstein relativity.
Einstein relativity claims the mass of an object moving appears to be larger than its original mass at rest relative to a observer. ← this causes a serious paradox.
In Einstein relativistic world, there is No such thing as an absolute value, hence everything is relative and appears to be affected and changed by observer's motion ! ← Though the observer does Not even touch an object.
Think about the case when an object A (= or particle A ) is moving relative to another stationary object B (= or particle B ). The rest (= original ) masses of these two objects are the same.
As seen by a observer at rest relative to B, this object A appears to be moving (= A has kinetic energy ) and heavier than the object B according to Einstein ( A > B ).
But as seen by another observer moving with the object A, the object A appears to be at rest (= A has No kinetic energy to lose ), and instead, the object B appears to be moving and heavier than the object A ( B > A ).
So depending on observer's motion, one object appears heavier or lighter than another object. ← This is clearly a paradox ( this p.48-49 ), hence Einstein mc2 is false.
↑ If the object's energy is magically changed as seen by differently-moving observers, we cannot utilize such an unrealistically-changeable, indefinite energy value in actual useful energy source.
When an charged particle is moving and losing its kinetic energy by radiating light wave (or a photon ) seen by one observer K, this moving particle appears to stop and has No kinetic energy to lose, as seen by another observer K' moving at the same speed as the charged particle, hence, this charged particle radiating energy seen by K appears to be stationary with No kinetic energy and unable to radiate or lose light wave energy as seen by K'. ← paradox !
↑ This is clearly one of fatal paradoxes showing Einstein relativistic energy is wrong.
Because one observer K sees the charged particle moving and losing its kinetic energy by emitting light wave energy (= and this emitted light can be detected by the detector ), but another observer K' sees the same charged particle at rest (= with No kinetic energy ) which cannot lose its kinetic energy by emitting light wave (= the emitted light wave is Not detected by the detector ) ! ← Which is true, the detector can detect the emitted light or not, is paradoxical.
Such an unrealistically-changeable Einstein mass energy mc2 was said to be involved in massive nuclear energy as seen in atomic bombs.
But this nuclear energy is a kind of "potential (= Not kinetic ) energy" like Coulomb potential energy which has nothing to do with an object's motion or velocity associated with Einstein relativistic (= kinetic ) energy affected by observer's motion.
Because whether two charged particles are moving or stationary, when the distance between those two charges is the same, Coulomb potential energy is the same, regardless of particles' motion or velocity. ← So the potential energies such as nuclear energy or Coulomb energy have No relation to Einstein relativity or Lorentz transformation.
For example, when two protons at rest are separated by the distance r, these two stationary protons have only their rest mass energy (= 2×m0c2 ) with No additonal kinetic energy or relativistic energies.
But Coulomb repulstive energy (= e2/4πε r ) is working between these two stationary protons, hence, the total relativistic mass or energy must be greater than two rest mass energies of protons, which means this additional energy caused by Coulomb repulsion must be stored in the space (or medium ) between two protons, which contradicts Einstein relativity rejecting any medium in space.
Einstein relativistic energy mc2, mass, momentum relation causes serious unsolvable paradoxes in Lorentz transformation of forces and the unphysical right-angle lever which could be rotated or not depending on observers seeing it.
Einstein unreasonably rejected space medium, so to explain electromagnetic force, it neads unreal virtual photons with imaginary mass, which disobey Einstein relativistic mass. ← self-contradiction
Einstein paradoxical relativistic mass mc2 just copied Maxwell true mc2 with no paradox.
(Fig.51) ↓ Electron's de Broglie wave vanishes !?
The important point is that Einstein relativity contradicts an electron's de Broglie wave theory.
An electron's de Broglie wavelength was confirmed in many experiments.
So if Einstein relativity is incompatible with de Broglie wave theory, Einsten relativity is surely wrong.
An electron moving at a speed of v generates de Broglie wave with the wavelength λ equal to h/mv ( v = electron's velocity, m is electron's mass, h is Planck constant ), which causes interference in two-slit experiments.
But as seen by an observer moving at the same speed as a moving electron, the originally-moving electron appears to stop, hence, generates neither de Broglie wave nor interference patterns.
This is also a paradox, because depending on an observer's motion, interference fringes of an electron's de Broglie wave appear or disappear on the screen !
This serious de Broglie wave paradox can be solved by accepting the existence of the medium.
If an electron is moving relative to the space medium, it generates de Broglie wave and the same interference pattern, regardless of any obsevers moving at different speeds.
(Fig.52) Which satellite clock ticks more slowly ? = paradox.
In fact, Einstein's relativity has never been useful for any modern technology such as GPS navigation system.
GPS clock time is said to be the only example utilizing ( useless ) Einstein relativistic time dilation. But in fact, GPS does Not rely on the prediction by Einstein relativity at all. Because even without fictional Einstein relativity, GPS navigation system is working.
The popular science websites often insist GPS satellites are moving faster than the earth's stationary observers, so the satellite's atomic clock ticks slower by special relativistic time dilation (= allegedly only -7 microseconds per day ), and GPS satellite is moving at higher position with lower gravity, hence its satellite clock ticks faster (= 45 microseconds per day ) by general relativistic gravitational time dilation which depends only on the distance between the earth's center and satellite ( this middle ).
As a result, GPS satellite clock would gain 38 microseconds per day (= 45-7 ) relative to the clocks on the ground, so the offset of this fixed relativistic time change is given to GPS satellite.
Fist of all, this GPS satellite's alleged relativistic clock time, which may be slightly faster than the earth's clock, is meaningless.
Because the receiver clock time on the earth is originally Not precise (= often different from the true earth's clock time ), and they usually use four satellites which can fix the arbitrary time difference between satellite and the receiver's clocks even without relying on the (suspicious) Einstein relativistic time prediction ( this p.6-7 ).
Furthermore, there are many other uncertain GPS time errors which cannot be predicted or fixed by Einstein relativity. GPS needs almost realtime correction of clock time errors by frequently comparing the ground stations' precise atomic clocks and the satellite's clock time which constantly causes unpredictable errors ( this p.5 ).
The actual GPS satellite clock time constantly causes various unpredictable errors related to clock bias, drift and clock age ( this p.2, this p.4 ) which clock time errors are different in different atomic clocks ( this p.3-left-lower ), and disagreeing with Einstein relativistic time change ( this p.2 ).
If Einstein relativity could perfectly "predict" GPS clock time, engineers would Not need to constantly correct GPS clock time errors by comparing them to the ground stations' clocks. ← Hence, Einstein relativity cannot predict GPS time errors at all.
↑ The actual GPS satellite clock time's error unpredictably changes in more complicated way (= engineers often use complicated polynomial equations of the time t containing artificially-changed and fit coefficients, this p.3 ) than Einstein's simple relativistic time prediction (= fixed time offset, this p.21-22 or p.33-34 ).
So Einstein relativity is not only useless but also disagreeing with the actual GPS clock's more complicated time change. ← "Einstein relativity is inherently an unsuccessful theory with No power to predict anything.
The media's tired cliche "without Einstein, GPS would not be usable !" turned out to be a big lie.
Einstein relativity, which unreasonably rejected realistic medium, had to introduce the nonphysical imaginary rule called Lorentz transformation where the moving clock's time (= K' ) magically ticks slower than the stationary clock (= K ). ← K > K'
But in this Einstein occult relativistic world, all things including time and masses are illusory relative things magically changed seen by differently-moving observers, these relative illusory time cannot be determined as definite absolute values, so we should Not be able to utilize these magically-changing time and energies seen by different observers as useful tools like GPS.
From the perspective of the moving clock (= K' ), the stationary clock (= K ) appears to be moving in the opposite direction, hence, the clock K must tick slower than the clock K' in the opposite way. ← K < K'
↑ Hence, both these clocks' times must tick slower than the other (= which clock K or K' runs slower is paradoxical ), this relativistic time dilation paradox called "twin paradox" is clearly one of true paradoxes (= which can Never be fixed ) disproving Einstein relativity.
Almost all textbooks and websites try to fix this inherently-irreparable twin time paradox using the same worn-out example where one twin A jumps on a high-quality rocket and flies away from the earth at high speed, and after a while, makes a U-turn (= decelerate + accelerate ) back to the earth, while the other twin B remains on the earth quietly.
↑ The twin A's clock in the fast-moving rocket could run slower than the stationary twin B's clock on the earth (= so the twin A may remain younger than the twin B on the earth ! ).
But from the perspective of the moving twin A, the opposite thing may happen = the twin B's clock on the earth appears to be moving in the opposite direction, hence, the twin B's clock may run slower. ← paradox !
This rocket-earth twin paradox case clearly exposes a true time paradox underlying Einstein unrealistic relativity, if we consider only the original simple special relativity.
Physicists tried to use another artificially-created ad-hoc general relativity to fix this twin time paradox in vain.
The twin A flying away on the rocket and turning around back to the earth experiences strong deceleration and acceleration when doing U-turn.
According to unphysical Einstein general relativity, this strong acceleration mimics (fictitious) gravitational-force-like acceleration which may cause time dilation, as a result, the twin A clock on the moving rocket may run slower than the earth's twin B clock ( this 4th-paragraph, this 3rd-last paragraph ).
But in fact, even if we use Einstein ad-hoc general relativity, we can Not fix this fatal twin time paradox like in the upper figure case where two satellites moving at constant speeds (= No sudden deceleration or acceleration ) in the same circular orbit.
The satellite A's clock appears to be moving at the constant speed "2v", hence, run slower than the satellite B's clock from the perspective of the satellite B.
But the satellite B's clock also appears to be moving at the constant speed "2v" in the opposite direction, hence, run slower than the satellite A's clock from the perspective the satellite A.
↑ The satellite A's clock is slower than the satellite B's clock. But at the same time, the satellite B's clock is slower than the satellite A's clock ? ← This is clearly irreparable paradox which could be witnessed, when satellites A and B compare and see each other's paradoxical clock times after going around the earth in the clockwise and counter-clockwise directions. ← This case cannot be fixed by general relativity.
So Einstein relativity contains the true inevitable twin paradox based on its unrealistic time dilation in moving objects, so false.
↑ Both these satellites moving at the same speeds in the same circular orbit (= the same distance r from the earth's center ) experience the same gravity and No acceleration, hence, this case cannot rely on general relativity to seemingly fix the twin time paradox, because the general relativistic time dilation depends only on the distance between satellites and the earth's center r both in the gravitational and centrifugal force potential ( this p.4-footnote ), which is the same (= No general relativistic time difference ) in both satellites, as I explain later.
As a result, the case of two satellites moving in the same circular orbit around the earth causes the irreparable special relativistic time dilation or paradox where one satellite's clock runs slower seen by the other (= which satellite's clock A or B runs slower is paradoxical and undetermined ).
Actually, the (seeming) solutions of twin paradox which you may often see in textbooks or websites (= always use the same one special case of one twin flying away in the rocket, and the other twin remains on the earth at rest to artificially use general relativistic time dilation canceling special relativistic time paradox ) never try to use the much simpler cases where twins are just moving around the earth at some constant speeds to meet each other again (= both twins on the earth experience the same gravity and No acceleration, hence, general relativity cannot be used. → Special relativistic time paradox remains ).
Next we explain how general relativistic time dilation is used in these cases in detail, and why this ad-hoc general relativistic time dilation is unable to fix the fatal special relativistic time dilation paradox after all. → Einstein relativity is false and useless contrary to the media-hype.
Einstein general relativity makes an unrealistic claim that the acceleration and gravitational force are intrinsically indistinguishable (= called "equivalence principle" ), hence the acceleration can be treated as new fictitious gravitational force, which could also influence clock time like the original gravitational time dilation.
So according to Einstein general relativity, the stationary object experiencing the downward gravitational acceleration (= 9.8 m/s2) on the earth may be equivalent to the object on the rocket accelerating upward at 9.8 m/s2 (= hence, the object inside this rocket moving upward experiences the downward fictitious acceleration like gravity ).
When a person or clock is falling freely downward pulled by the earth's gravitational force (= like riding in a freely-falling elevator with broken cables ), they experience the fictitious upward acceleration and weightlessness as if it cancels gravitational force like in the falling elevator ( this p.7, this middle ).
So Einstein claims these freely-falling objects and clocks pulled by the natural gravity are like ones in the non-gravity state (= called inertial frame ), hence the simple special relativity (= forgetting general relativity ) can be applied in this free-falling frame, elevators and their clocks ( this p.2, this 3rd-last paragraph ).
As a result, from the viewpoints of two satellites (= rotational frame ) and their clocks moving around the earth pulled by gravity in the upper figure, they are experiencing this free-falling-elevator-like state with No gravity by centrifugal fictitious acceleration canceling gravity.
↑ Hence, from the viewpoints of these two satellites moving in the same orbit at the same speed in the opposite direction, we can consider only special relativity where the other satellite's clock always appears to be moving and run slower which causes irreparable twin time dilation paradox. ← Einstein relativity proves to be undeniably false.
Einstein general relativity claims the only effective potential (= energy ) such as gravitational potential and centrifugal (= rotational ) potential energies affect the clock time dilation ( this p.4-last-margin, this p.10-last, this p.3 ).
In the upper case of two satellites in the same circular orbit, these satellites are always moving at the "same constant speeds" as seen by the other satellite, meaning these two satellites always experience the same unchangeable effective potential energies, (= No gravity or centrifugal potential energies change = No speed change of satellites. If these effective potential energies change, satellites' speeds would change, too ) from the viewpoints of the other satellite. → Only special relativity can be considered, and twin time paradox immanent in special relativity or Lorentz transformation cannot be fixed.
From the viewpoint of the satellite moving in the circular orbit around the earth, we should consider the effective potential energies summing gravitational and centrifugal potential ( this 24th paragraph ).
↑ Both these gravitational and fictitious centrifugal potential energies (= distance r × centrifugal force in the radial direction ) depend only on the "distance r" between the earth's center and satellite ( this p.19, this p.20, this (22)-(29), this p.14-15 ), which radius r and effective potential are the same in both satellites.
↑ No general relativistic potential difference causing time dilation between these two satellites occurs. → Special relativistic twin time paradox remains. → Einstein is false.
After all, twin time dilation paradox caused by the moving objects in special relativity remains as a true paradox which can Not be fixed by general relativity, hence Einstein relativity turned out to be wrong.
According to the paradoxical Einstein relativity, the length of any moving rigid object appears to be magically contracted in the direction parallel to the object's moving direction, as seen by the stationary observer.
This infamous Lorentz length contraction of Einstein relativity causes serious unfixable paradox called "Ehrenfest paradox" in a rotating rigid disc.
When a rigid disc is rotating at a constant speed, the circumference of the disc must be magically contracted and shortened according to Einstein relativity where all moving objects must magically contract their lengths (= even if the objects are very rigid ) with respect to the stationary observers.
But the radius R (= radial direction ) of the rotating disc is Not contracted or shortened, because the rotating disc is Not moving in the radial (= outward or inward ) direction.
Hence, the circumference of the rotating disc must remain the same = 2π× R (= disc radius which remains the same without being contracted ! ), which contradicts Einstein relativistic prediction of the moving circumference contracted and shortened.
↑ It is uncertain and paradoxical whether the circumference of the rotating disc will be shortened (= by Lorentz contraction ) or Not shortened (= circumference should be always equal to 2π × R where the disc radius R remains the same without contraction )
This Lorentz contraction paradox of rotating disc is an unsolvable true paradox like satellites' clocks rotating around the earth causing twin time paradox.
Many physicists have suggested many different incomplete and unrealistic solutions of this unsolvable Ehrenfest length-contraction paradox by refuting former solutions of other physicists in vain for the past 100 years ( this p.8-9 ). ← This means it's impossible to solve this true relativistic paradox.
One example of these incomplete solutions suggests the possibility that the materials in the circumference of the rigid rotating disc may be broken, separated and shortened by Lorentz contraction ( this middle ). ← But in this seeming solution, the length between separated broken materials becomes longer which disagrees with relativistic Lorentz contraction where any length in the moving frame must be shortened, whether it contains materials or vacuum. ← Paradox remains unsolved.
This Ehrenfest rotating disc paradox cannot rely on Einstein general relativity (= as seen in some wrong solutions ), because the stationary observer at the center hole of the rotating disc is Not accelerated (= Neither effective potential nor general relativistic time change is experienced by this center stationary observer = inertial frame, this p.45 ), hence, only special relativity can be used and this paradox caused by Lorentz contraction remains like the upper two GPS satellites' case.
As a result, Einstein relativity is intrinsically filled with many incurable paradoxes, hence wrong.
(Fig.53) Time stopping on black hole prevents its formation, and exposes the fatal paradox of Einstein relativity.
Despite extremely long time research, black hole is still useless except for selling books repeating the same old episodes with just different titles and authors, because imaginary black holes are too far away from the earth to reach and confirm directly.
First, black hole cannot be formed. A clock time is said to magically slow down and stop by strong gravity at points close to black hole's surface called event horizon, as seen by outside distant observers ( this p.21 ) on the earth ( this-lower, this p.15-16 ).
The current mainstream theory claims that black holes were formed by a massive star collapsing and becoming compressed by its own gravity into black hole.
↑ But as the star becomes denser and closer to black hole, its clock time becomes significantly slower, and it would take almost infinite time to form black hole on which the time must completely stop seen from the outside observers (= hence, many researches misleadingly claiming black holes were detected or photoed from the outside earth's telescopes are false ).
Stopping time means the collision of two black holes allegedly generating gravitational wave is also impossible, too.
Because if we suppose some long stick (or rod ) existing between two black holes which are coming closer being attracted to each other for collision, this stick must pass the event horizon at infinite speed far exceeding the light speed c contradicting Einstein relativity prohibiting any superluminal objects, because the clock time stops on the event horizon (= the stick can move some distance despite the stopping time, seen by the outside earth, which means the stick appears to move at infinite speed seen from the event horizon where the time stops. ).
The current mainstream "theory of everything" called string theory allegedly unifying Einstein relativity and quantum mechanics claims that (virtual) gravitons mediate gravitational forces.
But if so, these gravitons emitted from the black hole must pass through the event horizon where the time stops, which means gravitons also must stop at the surface (= event horizon ) of the black hole, and cannot escape into the outside of the black hole, hence, black hole cannot exert gravitational force on any outside objects. ← this means all the current researches trying to measure the strong black hole's gravity from the outside earth's telescopes are meaningless.
To avoid this relativistic contradiction, some people say that gravitions may not exist, instead, the gravity is just the consequence of the curved space time or field. ← But this explanation tries to unreasonably separate the outside gravitational force from the black hole inside the event horizon, because any information about the gravitational force cannot pass through the event horizon, which means the gravitational force or field are completely independent from the black hole, and can freely separate and fly away from the black hole !
Other people say the gravitons are Not real particles but just virtual particles which can unrealistically move faster than light contradicting Einstein.
↑ As a result, the black hole is self-contradictory and unreal, as Einstein himself theoretically rejected the existence of black hole.
Black hole, which absorbs everything, cannot be seen directly. Though the current physics claims the existence of black hole can be proved by watching the motion of stars allegedly orbiting around unseen black holes, it is untrue.
Because even stars around black holes in the galactic center cannot be seen hidden by very thick and dense clouds of dusts and gases ( this 4th paragraph ).
So the recent ( dubious ) black hole picture is fake or artificially-created, because No visible light can be detected near black hole due to very thick dusts. ← Not a real photo of unseen black hole.
This 4th-paragraph says
"These “photos” do Not, of course, directly show a black hole,.. They actually record portions of the flat pancake of hot plasma swirling around the black hole at high speeds.. its accelerating particles emit radio waves." ← Then why didn't this hot plasma surround only the front of black hole's photo accidentally ? ← this is strange.
This original paper says (p.5, p.8-right-lower)
"Every imaging algorithm has a variety of free parameters
that can significantly affect the final image. We adopted a twostage imaging approach to control and evaluate biases in the
reconstructions from our choices of these parameters (= black hole photo is an artificial image based on freely-chosen parameters and algorithm for constructing artificial images )."
"it is more difficult to rule out alternatives to black holes in GR, because a shadow can be produced by any compact object with a spacetime characterized by unstable circular photon orbits. ← It means there are possibilities that other irrelevant objects just blocking the light (= so seen "black" ) were mistaken for (fictional) black hole's shadow."
To discover a black hole, we have to know both the mass and size of a black hole, which must be an extremely dense star.
For example, the radius of such a dense black hole with the same mass as the Sun or Earth must be extremely small = 3.0 km, or only 9mm.
The present astronomy relies on the ungrounded assumption that the rapid brightness fluctuation of X ray allegedly emitted from black hoke may tell us how small the black hole is ( this 3rd-paragraph, this 3rd paragraph ).
This 3rd-last paragraph claims
"To make rapidly varying X-rays, the unseen companion must be small ! The fluctuation timescale gives us the maximum possible diameter of the object. Since the speed of light is finite, it takes a given amount of time for light to travel across the object... The quicker the fluctuations are, the smaller the object (= black hole ) must be."
↑ But the rapid fluctuation of the brightness of X rays can occur due to rapid fluctuation of materials or hot gas around the black hole like the solar flares, which is completely irrelevant to the unknown black hole size. ← There is No legitimate way to know the size of a very distant unseen black hole, which means No evidence of black hole.
Sagittarius A at a galactic center of the Milky way is said to be a supermassive black hole whose mass is about 4 million times bigger than the Sun.
↑ If there is a massive star whose radius is about 160 times longer than Sun's radius, and with the same density as the Sun, this bigger star can have the mass of 4 million times the Sun (= 1603 = 4 million times the size of Sun ), and mimic the Sagittarius A's black hole, though it is not a black hole. ← It means the black hole, which can be replaced by an ordinary big star, is unnecessary.
The star allegedly closest to this black hole is called S4714 whose pericenter distance from the black hole is 12.6 AU (= 12.6 times the distance between Sun and Earth = 1.8 × 109 km ).
↑ Inside this closest star S4714 orbit (= whose orbital radius is 1.8 × 109 km ), there is a space enough for the massive star, whose radius is 160 × Sun's radius = 105 km, mimicking the Sagittarius A black hole to safely enter as a fake black hole.
Basically the galactic centers are covered by very thick dusts and debris, so we cannot observe any stars' motion around the black hole, because No visible lights can penetrate these thick dusts (= so photos of unseen black holes are impossible ).
Astronomers try to "imagine" (fictitious) star's motion based on infrared rays with longer wavelength, which are emitted from everywhere not only stars (= hence, distinguishing stars orbiting around the black hole using this infrared rays is impossible ), in order to estimate the black hole's mass.
↑ Furthermore these (imaginary) stars' motions allegedly around the unseen black hole are often unnatural and unrealistically irregular, which means all these (unseen) orbits of stars around black holes are fake and unreliable.
From these doubtful unseen star's motion allegedly around the (imaginary) black hole, physicists try to estimate Einstein relativistic effects such as tiny gravitational redshift (= about 200km/s = far smaller than the classical redshift by normal Doppler effect as seen in ordinary sound wave, this last-paragraph, this 2nd-paragraph ), which dubious tiny gravitational redshift is often indistinguishable from the far-larger (= nonrelativistic ) Doppler effect's redshift influenced by star's velocity = 7650 km/s or redshifts by light's energy loss, by fitting various parameters (= so Not agreeing with Einstein relativistic prediction, this p.3 ), though these stars' motions with unrealistically irregular velocities are unreliable.
↑ It is impossible to confirm Einstein tiny, tiny gravitational time dilation or red-shift even around the distant (imaginary) black hole surrounded by a thick layer of dusts which block all visible lights. ← So astronomers tried to guess Einstein (imaginary) gravitational time dilation by seeing the unspecific and unreliable infrared light or K-band (instead of some specific atomic lines, this p.2 observations ). ← Knowing the original infrared light's (unspecific) wavelengths for estimating gravitational time dilation or red-shift is impossible.
Pulsars or the radio waves allegedly emitted from the imaginary distant neutron stars are often used for dubious tests of negligibly weak Einstein general relativistic or gravitational time dilation effects.
The point is there is No direct evidence that these (imaginary) neutron stars really exist in the very distant space, because the neutron stars and black holes are too far away from the earth to directly observe or confirm.
The mechanism of how these imaginary neutron stars emit radio-wave pulses is still unknown despite long-time researches ( this introduction, this p.7 ).
This neutron star is very unrealistic (= I don't say it's impossible, but it's a very unnatural and unlikely object ).
For example, the pulsar PSR-B1913+16 is said to consist of very compact and dense neutron stars of 1.4 solar mass within only 20 km radius, which are allegedly spinning 17 times per second emitting radio pulses (and unseen gravitational wave ) at the distance from 21000 light years away from the Earth.
It is more natural to think that the sources of these pulsars = regular light wave such as radio waves are just the space dusts or rotating (or oscillating ) floating objects regularly reflecting or passing the lights emitted from other distant stars toward the Earth mixed with the interstellar medium's oscillation, rather than the unrealistically-spinning dense neutron stars.
In order to test the dubiously-tiny Einstein relativistic effects, physicists have to measure the precise period (= allegedly representing the neutron star's orbital period ) and the light wave's frequency shift or the pulsar's period's frequency shift (= representing the neutron's star's velocity change through Doppler effect ) of the detected radio wave pulses.
To know the precise masses and the unseen orbital inclination of the neutron stars and black hole's companion stars, physicists have to rely on very uncertain freely-adjustable (post-Keplerian) parameters such as the tiny,tiny general relativistic gravitational time-dilation red-shift or advance of periastron ( this p.1-2 ).
But the precise measurement of pulses or the dubiously-tiny relativistic effect based on extremaly-distant (imaginary) neutron stars or black holes is impossible, so all the alleged Einstein tests are unreliable, and cannot prove the (paradoxical) Einstein relativity.
Because the weak pulses or low-energy radio waves (= telescopes on the Earth can detect only radio waves with long wavelength ) allegedy emitted from neutron stars are known to be significantly modified by various materials in the space, and hidden in many indistinguishable noises ( this p.4 ).
Radio pulses or light waves traveling a extremely long distance in the space are known to be changed, scattered, and slowed down depending on their wavelengths through the unknown interstellar mediums, which various unknown medium noise influence is strong enough to change the periods and shapes of the original pulses, which makes the precise tests of Einstein tiny relativistic effects impossible.
So astronomers have to artificially manipulate various unknown parameters called dispersion measure (= DM, this p.4, this p.1-2 ) and choose some artificial models ( this p.2-lower, this p.4, this p.3 ) allegedly representing the unknown ( changeable ) interstellar mediums, dusts ( this p.13 ) and light scattering ( this p.7 ) in each different pulsar ( this p.3-4 ) to compare their artificially-manipulable models with Einstein relativity.
The 4th paragraph of this site says
" the high precision of the timing measurements required that the researchers take into account many astrophysical contaminations. For example, free electrons in the interstellar medium cause a time-varying, dispersive effect that must be subtracted from the pulsar timing."
Contrary to the media-hype like saying "neutron stars emit radio pulses at extremely regular interval (← ? )", the actually-observed radio pulses are extremely-chaotic irregular and just randomly-oscillating meaningless noises, far from regular beautiful pulses ( this p.11 ).
Astronomer have to artificially create (fictionally) regular pulses through picking up pulses suitable for their (relativistic) models, deliberately removing a lot of unneeded noise pulses. ← It means they artificially change the original pulse shapes consisting of many chaotic meaningless noises by choosing various free parameters such as dispersion measure representing unknown interstellar mediums randomly scattering radio pulses, which manipulation is called "de-dispersion ( this 6.2, this p.6, this 3rd-paragraph )"
Furthermore, the unknown interstellar mediums are Not static but always fluctuating and changing, which are constantly influencing and changing the shape of pulses from the imaginary distant pulsars, by scattering the radio waves ( this p.2-left, this p.23-34 ), hence the precise reliable tests of Einstein's dubiously-tiny gravitational time dilation using extremely-distant imaginary objects are intrinsically impossible without artificially manipulating free parameters or ad-hoc models of unknown interstellar mediums.
These unknown interstellar mediums or dispersion mesure (= DM ) elongating the light waves traveling an extremely long distance can explain the redshift or tired light ( this p.2, this p.2 ) even without relying on fantasy expanding universe.
Measurement of the slight pulse change of (imaginary) pulsars = PSR1913+16 is said to give indirect evidence of Einstein relativistic gravitational wave, but this is completely untrue.
First of all, the extremely-weak gravitational wave has nothing to do with Einstein relativistic prediction, because Einsten general relativity is unable to conserve or carry the energy as a form of (gravitational) wave, hence, the gravitational wave must be expressed as the unrealistic "pseudo-tensor (= gravitational wave pseudo-tensors magically vanish seen from different coordinates or observers ! this p.2 )" contradicting Einstein original relativistic tensors, and physicists can artificially create and choose many different forms of gravitational wave's pseudo-tensors ( this p.2-lower, this p.8 ).
↑ Choosing an artificial gravitational wave's pseudo-tensor out of infinite choices means it has No power to predict or test Einstein relativity.
And the measurement of this pulsar for the artificially-chosen gravitational wave's pseudo-tensors irrelevant to Enstein relativity also had to deliberately maipulate the unknown interstellar parameters = dispersion measure ( this p.434-right-lower ) and pick up some artificial models, which means the pseudo-gravitational waves can Not be used for verifying or testing Einstein relativity at all, contrary to the media-hype such as "Einstein relativity has passed all the tests !"
Einstein general relativity claims light is slightly bent by fantasy gravitational time dilation by massive stars or Sun. But this bent light is much more easily and naturally explained by light refraction by dusts and molecules around stars.
↑ Einstein general relativity often deliberately ignores the far more influential atmosphere or air (= gas ) medium around the earth or massive stars which can more easily modify the light speed, wavelength, frequency and atomic motions.
The refractive index of the air (= 1.0003 ) means the light speed c is significantly slower by the air medium to c/1.0003, which atmospheric influence (= 0.0003 ) is far more influential than the tiny relativistic gravitational effect or time dilation (= allegedly only 45 microseconds/per day (= 24×3600 = 86400 sec/day ), so relativistic effect is far smaller = 45×10-6/86400 = only 5 × 10-10 and more negligible than the air medium's influence of 0.0003 )
The perihelion for Mercury is said to move only 0.012 degrees for 100 years due to doubtful Einstein relativity which effect is too tiny to believe (= there are many other factors irrelevant to Einstein relativity such as many-body complicated forces working among various shaped planets to cause such a negligibly-tiny orbital change for 100 years ), and we don't need too small Einstein relativistic effect for our daily life at all.
GPS, which is said to be the only application of Einstein relativity, does Not need Einstein, which is just useless and wrong.
(Fig.54) Driving force to expand universe is dark energy ← NOT diluted ? Unreal negative pressure ?
Big Bang and expanding universe are just fantasy.
There is No evidence indicating our universe is expanding so rapidly, as seen in the fact that our solar system is Not expanding at all.
The current cosmology claims the entire universe is expanding by fictional dark energy with unreal negative pressure, which is said to be Not diluted even by the space expansion ( this 2nd-paragraph ). ← Dark energy is Not a real thing !
They baselessly conjecture that universe is expanding only from the fact that light emitted from more distant stars is redshifted (= longer wavelength ), which can be more naturally explained by lights from more distant stars tend to lose their energies, elongate their wavelength by being scattered by more dusts and or by oscillating other molecules while light is traveling an extremely long distance.
The most conclusive evidence of fantasy Big Bang is said to be an uniform cosmic microwave background (= CMB ) which is unrealistically misinterpreted as a remnant of the beginning of our universe.
But it's impossible for each microwave to keep an intact state of very ancient light wave from the early universe for as long time as 13.8 billion years !
So it is more natural to think that the uniform cosmic microwave filling all space is an evidence of uniform light "medium (= slightly oscillating at 3 K )" filling space.
The current astronomy focuses only on fictional science saying this cosmic microwave may indicate fantasy parallel universes. ← nonsense.
Astronomers often cite "Olber's paradox (= why night sky is dark )" as a reason for the (fictional) expanding universe or BigBang, but this Olber's paradox does Not justify the expanding universe at all.
According to Olber's paradox, if the universe is static, infinite filled with luminous objects (= stars ), every sight line from the Earth will eventually intersect a bright object, it means the night sky will be bright, hence, the universe should be finite and expanding (= BigBang ) to solve this paradox and make the night sky dark.
And they misleadingly claim that even if dusts or debris in the space could absorb the light, they heat up and eventually reradiate the same light towards the Earth (← this is wrong ), hence the existence of dusts doesn't solve this Olber's paradox ( this resolution ).
↑ But this logic of expanding universe intentionally avoids the case where many dusts and objects in the space block and reflect the light back to the stars, as seen in the solar eclipse ( this 5th-paragraph ).
In conclusion, Olber's paradox is caused by forgetting the case of light reflection, and the expanding universe and BigBang are false.
(Fig.54') ↓ Black hole, gravitational wave are illuson.
Gravitational wave is also unreal, too weak, so useless and meaningless forever.
Furthermore, gravitational wave itself contradicts Einstein relativity, so wrong.
Gravitational wave is too weak. They say too weak and dubious gravitational wave could slightly change 4-km arm only by 1000-times smaller than a proton = only one atom displacement in Sun-earth distance ( this last paragraph ) ! ← Too small change to detect correctly.
The wavelength of laser light to detect gravitational wave is far longer than arm's change. Longer light cannot detect smaller change ( this p.16, this p.3 ) !
Einstein general relativity has basic defects, it cannot conserve energy or carry wave ( this p.2 ).
This is why physicists had to artificially introduce unphysical concepts called "pseudo-tensor (= Not real tensor of Einstein relativity, this 4-6th paragraphs, this p.1-right-middle )" as doubtful gravitational wave which contradicts Einstein theory ( this p.13-14, this p.1 ).
"Unsuccessful" Einstein general relativity has No ability to predict contradictory ad-hoc gravitational wave pseudo-tensors, because physicists can freely choose arbitrary forms of gravitational wave pseudo-tensors ( this p.8 ) among many candidates
The idea of predicting the existence of (doubtful) gravitational wave just by measuring light pulse (= there is No evidence these light pulses called pulsars are emitted from unseen distant neutron stars, these pulsars probably originate from simple vibrating dusts or debris reflecting light waves emitted from other stars somewhere else ) is baseless, because it's impossible to know the precise orbital motion (of imaginary neutron stars ) only from light pulses due to uncertain inclinations or precession of the (unseen) distant star's orbits.
As a result, there is No evidence of gravitational waves, and even if gravitational wave existed, it contradicts Einstein relativity which cannot carry real energy and momentum.
(Fig.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 misinterpreting 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 1s 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/s2 → MM/SS2 ) 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/sec2 ) 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 me 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/sec2) 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 (= wseg ) of electron's de Broglie waves contained in each short segment (= each short segment is wseg × 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 = 109 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 = mc2 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 cannot 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 cannot 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, cannot 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 cannot 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 2n2, 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 2n2 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 (= Zeff ) 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 Zeff 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 cannot 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 cannot 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.
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
