Youhei Tsubono, Japan

(20/ 11/6 ) New Summary 2020

Criticize the present physics. (21/8/20 )

*(Fig.1) Quantum mechanics = unreal parallel worlds.*

Quantum mechanics is so crazy and unrealistic that still Nobody understands weird quantum mechanics, though 100 years have passed since its foundation.

People have been **deceived** into believing in the **false** idea that "(fictional) quantum mechanics contributed to today's modern computer technology" by an incredible amount of the **fake** news media and academia repeatedly for a long time.

Actually, the unrealistic quantum mechanics **stops** all applied science such as molecular biology and medicine, which is the main reason why there are still many incurable diseases such as cancers, Alzheimer, HIV, viruses.

Because medical researchers can**not** use or consider realistic atomic interaction in their molecular biological researches on cellular and protein behaviors due to fantasy quantum mechanical atomic theory ( this 12th paragraph ).

Instead of advancing science, the current contradictory mainstream "science" and academia try to **prevent** us from exploring deeper truth at the atomic levels by repeatedly misleading us using the false narratives such as "Einstein relativity and quantum mechanics are the most successful theory ! So you are **Not** allowed to doubt these mainstream science ! (← Due to this false mantra, our basic science has **stopped** progressing for more than 100 years, miserably )."

They force us to believe in many **contradictory** fictional concepts such as virtual particles (= as fake force carriers ) and wavefunctions, and do Not allow us to doubt their (fake) mainstream "science", saying "Shut up and calculate !"

↑ No wonder our "science" has literally stopped progressing forever except for imaginary fraudulent future technology = parallel-world quantum computers which will never be realized.

In this fictional quantum mechanical world, a cat can be dead and alive simultaneously while we are not observing it.

Even a single electron can pass through two slits simultaneously to interfere with itself ( this 3rd paragraph ) using fantasy parallel worlds.

In quantum mechanical atomic wave function, an electron is said to exist in **all** different places at once (= because, probability of finding an electron is not zero in any places ) splitting into an infinite number of parallel universes.

Furthermore, quantum mechanics is said to have "*occult* power" to rewrite the past ? Time machine ? ← Nothing could be more **unrealistic** than quantum mechanics.

It is terrible that this irrational, fantasy quantum mechanics has been our manistream atomic theory for an extremely long time, obstructing real science and education.

*(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 is **wrong**.

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 (= without orbits of the crazy zero angular momentum ) 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, though Bohr's atomic model even 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.3, this p.10 ).

↑ 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 = 1/2mv^{2} < 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 ).

Different from 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 can**not** 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.

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.

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 = a_{0}.

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. ↓*

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

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

So 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.

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. ← 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.2, angular momentum = mvr where a tiny electron's radius r → 0 and velocity v → ∞ ) ! ← Electron spin is **unreal**.

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 can**not** 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**.

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

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

But of course, they could Not see each neutron spin actually spinning (= because spin is Not an actual spin ). They just **imagined** the neutron rotated twice on the **false** *assumption* that each neutron has 1/2 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 angular momentum (= instead of 1/2 ) like Bohr's orbit, this experimental result can be naturally interpreted as the one showing neutron normally returned to its original state
by rotating **once** (= 360^{o} ) instead of unrealistic 720^{o}

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

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.*

In fact, the current humankind technology makes **No** more progress due to **fictional** basic theory called quantum mechanics, contrary to the media repeatedly saying "most successful quantum mechanics and Einstein theory !".

Fantasy quantum mechanics has been completely useless in all fields such as modern computers and medicine. ← Actually No biological or medical researchers use quantum mechanics in their researches on drug development.

Schrödinger equation = the only calculation tool of quantum mechanics has **No** ability to deal with **multi**-electron atoms or molecules.

Schrödinger equation cannot be solved except for the simplest one-electron hydrogen atom. In all other atoms and molecules, all physicists can do is *choose* **fake** solution called trial function or basis set ( this middle ), manipulate free parameters, which illegitimate method cannot predict any physical values, it's "art" rather than science.

Quantum mechanics has to irrationally treat the whole many-electron material as **one** *pseudo*-electron model with **fictitious** (= effective ) mass using unphysical model called "band theory" where some fictitious electrons are said to have unreal negative mass.

Surprisingly, to explain various physical phenomena, quantum mechanics has to fabricate many fictitious particles called **quasiparticles** with **fake** mass and charge.

Condensed matter physics relying on **fictitious** quasiparticles makes **No** more progress due to harmful and useless quantum mechanics.

Under this useless basic physics, physicists had **No** choice but to make up "fake science goal" such as parallel-world quantum computer, fantasy Big Bang, Black hole, extra-dimensions as an illusory unified theory, God particle wasting taxpayers' money in useless colliders.

We already have excellent technology to see and manipulate each single atom using atomic force microscope, hence we should have been already **able** to construct any sophisticated nano-machines by manipulating a single atom one by one for **curing** many diseases such as cancer. But we still can**not**.

Because no matter how precisely we can measure each single atomic behavior, the current fantasy basic theory called quantum mechanics **prevents** us from using real electrons or waves as a realistic useful atomic model to interpret the measured results.

*(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 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.

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 ? ↓*

An excited electron's spin is said to slightly split atomic energy levels into two lines (= called fine structure ) due to one of relativistic effects called spin-orbit interaction.

But this idea of spin-orbit interaction caused by the so-called relativistic effect is physically **impossible**, so wrong.

It is more natural to think this fine energy splitting is caused by other realistic reasons such as different electron's motions or Coulomb interaction between inner electrons and an outer electron.

Normally, a light electron is moving around a **heavy** nucleus at **rest**.

But according to stupid Einstein relativistic effect, we have to think about the **unrealistic** rest frame of an electron where a light **electron** could be magically at **rest**, and instead, a heavy nucleus is moving around the lighter electron, though it is **impossible** ( this p.3 ).

In this unrealistic rest frame of an electron, a circularly-moving heavy nucleus allegedly causes magnetic field at the point of the center electron at rest, and this **fictitious** magnetic field may split an energy level into two, depending on the direction of the electron spin up or down, they claim ( this p.2-3 ).

But thinking commonsensically, it is **impossible** that a *heavier* nucleus is *moving around* a **ligher** electron at rest !

A lighter electron must always be moving around the much heavier nucleus in **any** frames, as long as they obey physical principles, so Einstein relativistic effect **contradicts** other physical principles and electron's motion inside atoms, so **false**.

First of all, if in the normal frame, there is No fictitious magnetic field caused by (unrealistic) moving heavy nucleus, the electron's energy level is Not split by fictitious spin-orbit interaction, which does Not exist in this normal frame.

If they claim relativistic spin-orbit interaction actually occurs, in **any** frames regardless of an electron is moving or at rest, spin-orbit interaction or fictitious magnetic field caused by an allegedly moving heavy nucleus **must** always exist to avoind serious paradoxes of Einstein relativity.

↑ In the normal frame of a nucleus at rest, No spin-orbit interaction occurs. Only in the rest frame of an electron, (fictitious) spin-orbit interaction may occur. ← This is clearly a **paradox**, so false and does Not happen.

If a **heavier** nucleus can be unrealistically moving around a **lighter** *static* electron as crazy Einstein relativity claims, it clearly **violates** the total momentum conservation (= a heavier nucleus with a larger momentum is frequently changing its moving direction or momentum, rotating around a fictitiously-static electron = total momentum is **Not** conserved ! )

So Einstein relativity or spin-orbit effect allegedly caused by a fictitious heavy nucleus rotating around an static lighter electron or its spin is based on wrong and **impossible** assumptions.

This paradoxical spin-orbit interaction is caused by illogical Einstein relativistic world where all motions must be relative with No absolute frame. → The unrealistic electron's rest frame where a heavier nucleus is rotating around a ligher static electron violating momentum conservation must be considered.

This spin orbit relativistic effect is **illusion** due to its fatal paradox (= **only** in the rest frame of an electron, total momentum is **Not** conserved, and the fictitious spin-orbit magnetic interaction occurs, while in the natural rest frame of the center of mass or nucleus, total momentum is conserved and the spin-orbit interaction does Not occur ) ← depending on observers' viewpoints or different frames, the spin-orbit interaction occurs or doesn't occur = **paradox** !

To avoid this fatal paradox, we need to dismiss fantasy Einstein relativistic world and admit the "single **absolute** frame (= rest frame of the center of mass )" where the momentums and velocities of different particles with different masses are correctly defined and measured with respect to the static space medium, so that the total momentum is always **conserved**.

*(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**.

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.

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 (= g_{j} ) 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 (= g_{j}, 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.

*(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 Z^{4} (= 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 n^{3} (= n is valence electron's quantum number ).

So the magnitude of fine structure energy splitting is proportional to Z^{4}/n^{3} ( 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 hyrogen-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.

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 **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 = **+3.54**e ( 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 **diagrees** with experimental results. ( this p.13 )

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

An outer electron, which causes the very wide fine structire energy splitting in sodium, can be considered as 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 Z^{2}/n^{2}.

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**, diagreeing 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 interaction between two electron spins is too **weak** to explain powerful Pauli exclusion force. ← So the electron spin diagrees with facts.

This ( p.2 upper ) says "Since the **magnetic** dipole-dipole interactions (= electron spin-spin magnetic interaction ) .. is two or three orders of magnitude **smaller** than estimated from the
observed value."

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.

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.

The total energy of this fictitious lithium of three 1s electrons becomes much lower = **-230** eV (= -8.4609 Eh, this p.2 ) 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 ).

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 ), and the dubious exchange interaction unrealistically requires each electron to exist in multiple different places at once, violating energy conservation law, so false.

*(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 between electron spins is too **weak** to keep ferromagnetism stable even at room temperature.

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-lower )."

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.

↑ Eelectron spin-spin magnetic 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 is **Not** the origin of keeping ferromagnetism stable.

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

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

Textbooks often say small energy splitting of hydrogen atomic energy levels ( 2p orbital splits into closely spaced 2p3/2 and 2p1/2 energy levels ) called fine structure is an evidence of quantum mechanical spin. ← This is **Not** true, as I said.

Miraculously, Bohr-Sommerfeld model **without** spin could successfully obtain the same fine structure energy formula (= **agreed** with experimental results ) **before** quantum mechanics was born ( this p.2 lower ).

Later, quantum mechanics and Einstein special relavtivity were united into a new **un**physical theory called Dirac equation with *spin*, and it could get exactly the **same** fine structure formula as old Bohr-Sommerfeld model by chance.

Though these two atomic models use completely **different** mechanisms. ← One model (= quantum mechanical Dirac equation ) has spin, another model (= Bohr-Sommerfeld mode ) doesn't have spin, but both happened to give the same energy results ! ← **Impossible**.

This unbelievably "lucky **coincidence**" indicates quantum mechanical Dirac theory "*cheated*" and **copied** old Bohr-Sommerfeld's successful fine structure model which gave excellent results.

Quantum mechanical fine structure artificially stealing the old right model is illegitimate and **false**.

This (p.2) says "Sommerfeld’s 1916 derivation of the fine structure energy levels of hydrogen. Not
only were his predictions **good**, he derived exactly the **same** formula that would later
drop out of Dirac’s 1928 treatment."

This last part also says "When Dirac developed relativistic quantum mechanics, the relativistic Coulomb problem proved to be exactly solvable ...But the resulting formula for the energy levels was truly a **surprise**: The new answer was **precisely** the old *Sommerfeld* formula !"

Compare Bohr-Sommerfeld fine structure formula ( this p.12 ) and quantum mechanical Dirac fine structure formula ( this p.1 ). You will find these two formulas are exactly the **same**, accidentally !

See detailed methods of calculating fine structure energy levels using Bohr-Sommerfeld model and quantum Dirac equation.

Bohr-Sommerfeld model is often said to use so-called "relativistic effect". But this relativistic effect has **nothing** to do with Einstein relativity or quantum Dirac equation.

Dirac equation = relativistic version of quantum mechanics uses unphysical "spin" whose spinning speed must far exceed light speed c to generate the observed magnetic field, hence its relativistic spin **contradicts** Einstein relativity which forbids any faster-than-light motion.

Bohr-Sommerfeld model **without** unreal spin used the effect where an electron moving faster becomes harder to move as if an electron's mass appears to increace, which seems compatible with Einstein relativistic mass increase.

But of course, it's **impossible** to increase the electron's mass **without** adding any other masses or things to the original electron, because it violates mass conservation law (= additional mass pops out of nothing, when an electron moves faster according to Einstein !? )

In this crazy Einstein relativistic world, an object's mass appears to be heavier and lighter depending on "observers", which is clealy a **paradox** disproving Einstein relativity.

We can more naturally think that as an electron moves faster, more **resistance** the faster electron experiences from the *surroundings*, which increasing resistance is detected as if the electron mass appears to increase.

The important point is Einstein's energy-mass relation (= mc^{2} = As an electron's energy increases, its **mass** *increases* ? ) was originally derived by classical Maxwell theory based on electromagnetic **wave** propagating in the *medium*, and Einstein stealed and "**copied**" the original Maxwell mc^{2} in the **wrong** way.

Famous atomic nuclear energy, which allegedly proved Einstein mass relation, is a kind of potential energy, which means "mass-increasing energy" is stored in the medium **surrounding** particles (= potential energy exerting forces at a **distance** is usually stored in the *space* **between** particles )."

Einstein relativity obstinately refusing to accept real medium needs unreal virtual particles with imaginary mass as fictitious force carriers, and parallel worlds for explaining a single electron interference.

Therefore, unphysical mass increase effect seen in a faster electron is caused by more resistance a faster electron feels from the **surrounding** medium, which is compatible with original Maxwell electromagnetic **wave** theory based on light medium, and the fact that the mc^{2} energy is stored as nuclear "**potential** energy between particles."

*(Fig.15) ↓ This was really a lucky coincidence ?*

In fact, quantum mechanical Dirac equation for hydrogen fine structure includes **too many** lucky *dubious* **conincidences**.

In Bohr-Sommerfeld model, fine structure energy splitting is caused by an electron's velocity difference (← a faster electron feeling more resistance from the surroundings is harder to move ) **without** spin.

On the other hand, quantum mechanical Dirac equation claims fine structure energy splitting is caused by unphysical "**spin**."

Historical magic = coincidentally, both these Bohr-Sommerfeld model and quantum Dirac hydrogen gave exactly the **same** energy formula for fine structure energy splitting, like Bohr model and Schrödinger equation gave exactly the same hydrogen energy solution ?

But originally, Dirac hydrogen with electron spin should give a **larger** number of splitting energy levels than experimentally observed energy levels which were precisely predicted by Bohr-Sommerfeld model.

Quantum Dirac hydrogen depends on too many "*lucky* **coincidences**" which cancel out too many originally-existing splitting energy levels to **artificially** match experimental results. ← Too good to be true, and showing quantum Dirac equation is illegitimate.

For example, 2s1/2 and 2p1/2 orbitals with **different** angular momentums (= 2s1/2 has no angular momentum, only 2p1/2 has angular momentum ) must **coincidentally** have the **same** total energy in Dirac hydrogen to artificially agree with experimental results or Bohr-Sommerfeld model, though an electron's motion is completely different in these two energy levels.

So the **unnatural** Dirac's hydrogen model with spin requires that originally-**different** energy levels should have the **same** energy, coincidentally, many, many times !

Quantum Dirac hydrogen needs too many **lucky** *coincidences* of energies of different orbitals like 2s1/2 = 2p1/2, 3s1/2 = 3p1/2, 3p3/2 = 3d3/2, 4s1/2 = 4p1/2 ... ← This too **many** *coincidence* is too **unnatural** to believe.

Also in nist hydrogen energy leveles (= considering quantum Dirac spin model ), too many different electron's orbitals are supposed to unnaturally give the same energy levels ( 2p1/2 = 2s1/2, 3p1/2 a= 3s1/2, 4p1/2 = 4s1/2 .. )

On the other hand, Bohr-Sommerfeld fine structure does **Not** need to rely on too many **unnatural** coincidences, hence, we can safely say quantum mechanical fine structure model is illogical and incorrect.

In quantum mechanical Dirac hydrogen, if two different orbitals have the same total angular momentum j (= the sum of orbital angular momentum l and spin s expressed as j = l + s, this p.11 ), these two different orbitals are supposed to have exactly the same energy level (= lucky coincidence ) **without** showing detailed physical mechanism except nonphysical math.

For example, 2s1/2 (= without orbital angular momentum, l=0 ) and 2p1/2 (= with orbital angular momentum, l=1) have the same energy level, because these two different orbitals have the same total angular momentum j ( j = 1/2 = 0 + 1/2 in 2s1/2, j = 1/2 = 1 - 1/2 in 2p1/2, ← This is just an artificial math trick with No relation to our real world ).

This quantum mechanical spin angular momentum 1/2 is meaningless. As shown in this p.17, Dirac hydrogen's energy levels always use **only** an **integer** angular quantum number (= Dirac's energy includes only the form of "j+1/2 = **integer**" in angular momentum part, because j is half-integer ), which is why Dirac equation gives exactly the **same** energies as Bohr-Sommerfeld model.

In much smaller energy splitting such as Lamb shift, quantum mechanics uses **unrealistic** math trick called renormalization where infinity caused by unreal virtual particles minus infinity gives some finite value (= very tiny Lamb shift energy ? ) ← Two kinds of "infinite values" can be artificially manipulated to give convenient finite values, so this dirty method discredits quantum mechanics.

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 )

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 ).

So there is **No** evidence indicating that quantum mechanical unphysical model is right in regard to atomic energy levels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, each electron is obviously a charged particle with **unbreakable** mass and charge, which can **Not** be divided into multiple smaller charges also in two-slit experiments.

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

The only **realistic** explanation is that a single electron generates *de Broglie* **wave** in the "external **medium**" around it, and the wave naturally **splits** into two waves at two slits, which **interfere** with each other, and affect the electron's motion, causing interference pattern.

But the current mainstream theory = Einstein relativity rejected the concept of the real medium filling space a long time ago. And recently, physicists try to restore such medium filling space under a changed name of "dark matter." ← nonsense.

Quantum mechanics barefacedly says **fantasy** things "a single electron has to **split** to pass through two slits at once using illusory parallel worlds for interfering with itself." ← Impossible !

The real medium is **indispensable** for explaining all observed phenomena such as interference, diffraction, medium-dependent light speed change.

Without space medium, quantum mechanics has to rely on **unreal** virtual particles with imaginary mass as fictitious force carrier ( this p.3 ).

Without the medium, Einstein relativity is haunted by fatal **paradoxes** such as de Broglie wave interference.

*(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. Why ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is 100% freedom in selecting the form of trial wavefunction (= fake solution ). There is **No** limit to the number of parameters of trial wavefunction.

↑ You can freely choose any **arbitrary** fake solution giving any arbitray fake energies, which quantum mechanical methods can**not** predict any true energies, hence it's a kind of "art", Not science.

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.

We can prove it is **impossible** for any multi-electron Schrödinger equation to have exact solution, hence, quantum mechanics is **wrong**.

Quantum mechanics says even a single electron must always exist **everywhere** as a vague electron cloud spreading all over space, which unrealistic property exposes a fatal flaw of Schrödinger wavefunction.

In helium atom, two electrons are supposed to be always everywhere (= because electron probability is Not zero in any positions of Schrödinger wavefunction ) regardless of the other electron's position.

It means three Coulomb energy terms (= Coulomb energy term between each electron 1,2 and a nucleus, and between two electrons ) of Schrödinger equation can be **randomly** and *independently* **changed** in unrealistic quantum mechanical helium atom.

So for the helium to have exact solution (= total energy must be **constant** and conserved in **any** two electrons' **positions** ), three Coulomb energy terms of helium (= independently-changing ) must be **independently** canceled out by three independent kinetic energy terms.

It means a helium true solution (= if it existed ) must split into three *independent* **fictitious** *hydrogen* atomic wavefunctions (= two electron-nucleus hydrogens and one **unreal** electron-electron hydrogen ), which is impossible.

Therefore, Schrödinger equation for multi-electron atoms can **never** find true solution, no matter what forms of fake solutions you choose, and this fact proves quantum mechanics is intrinsically **false**.

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

According to **un**physical quantum mechanics, all electrons **lose** their specific positions, and exist in **every** place simultaneously as if all different electrons are a indistinguishable ghost particle.

For example, when an electron-1 exists in H-atom-a in the position-a, and an electron-2 exists in H-atom-b in the position-b, these two electrons are distinguishable from different positions of two different H atoms. ← This is **normal**, but such a normal state is **Not** allowed in quantum mechanics.

In quantum mechanical hydrogen molecule, an electron-1 must always exist in both two different H atoms in different positions **simultaneously** using fictional parallel worlds. An electron-2 also exists in both H atoms simultaneously, too.

So all electrons exist in **all** different atoms and different places **simultaneously** without any distinction. → Indistinguishable electrons with respect to places, which unrealistic state is required by quantum mechanics.

Why does quantum mechanics make such a **crazy** demand ?

Quantum mechanical electron must always **spread** *symmetrically* around a nucleus like a **cloud**, so the electron cloud, which is Not a moving charged-particle, cannot approach the other nucleus or avoid the other electron to generate powerful Coulomb attraction enough to form molecular bond by lowering Coulomb potential energy between electrons and nuclei.

This is a serious problem, hence, quantum mechanics has to find some other **dirty** tricks to lower total energy for forming **fictitious** molecular bond **without** lowering Coulomb potential energy which is unavailable for quantum electron spreading cloud.

Quantum mechanics can**not** use normal Coulomb force or lower Coulomb potential energy in molecular bonds, so it tries to lower only an electron's kinetic energy **without** changing Coulomb energy, which clearly violates total energy conservation law, and **disproves** quantum mechanical molecular bonds.

Even this dirty trick is Not enough to lower total (= kinetic ) energy for forming fictitious molecular bonds.

So quantum mechanics started to rely on **unrealistic** state where all electrons exist in **all** *different* atoms or places simultaneously in the name of "indistinguishable".

Because in this unrealistic indistinguishable state, integral of chosen (fake) wavefunction includes unphysical exchange integral, which uncanny integral or exchange fictitious force cannot be described by any real things or electric force ( this p.11 ).

This **non**physical exchange integral can further lower electron's kinetic energy in an illegitimate way **violating** total energy conservation law, so false.

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

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

In fact, unphysical quantum mechanics can**not** describe this Pauli exclusion principle or repulsive energy using any real things or forces.

So Pauli exclusion principle by quantum mechanics is based on **wrong** 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. Furthermore, quantum mechanical wavefunction must take an artificial, **un**physical form called antisymmetric.

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.

In two-electron hydrogen (= H2 ) molecule or helium atom, the spin part is antisymmetric (= one electrons spin is up, the other spin is down ), so their Schrödinger equation part takes "symmetric" form where a illegitimately-lowered electron's kinetic energy is used as **fake** molecular bond energy in quantum mechanics.

In antisymmetric wavefunction (= Pauli principle ), 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.

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 quantum mechanics cannot give real 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.

*(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 requiring all atomic wavefunctions should be **non**physical antisymmetric **without** showing any concrete physical mechanism.

If all electrons are *unrealistically* existing **every**where (= indistinguishable electrons ), 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.

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

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

To 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 replacing useless many-electron Schrödinger equation by "one **pseudo**-electron model" ( this p.3 ) with **fictional** effective pseudo-potential.

*(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 potential energy among many electrons by **fictional** non-interacting *pseudo*-potential ( except one pseudo-electron in DFT causes **un**physical self-interaction ) called exchange-correlation functional.

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

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

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

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

So DFT is **useless** with **No** ability to predict **any** physical values ( this p.21 ), though almost all the current condensed matter researches rely on this **un**physical DFT as the only quantum mechanical calculation tool. → 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 a photon 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.

*(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 quantum field theory, each electron can**not** 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.

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 (= light ). → **Unreal** *virtual* photon must be absorbed by an electron in photoelectric effect !

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 ), except that the light hitting an electron slightly loses its energy ( by pushing the target electron a little ) and **elongates** light **wave**length.

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 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 ).

↑ 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 splits 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.

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. *

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

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

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

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

So the **mis**conception that "*accelerating*" electron losing energy does **Not** apply to the 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**.

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

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

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

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

This 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. ← 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 **un**physical abstract lines called Feynman diagrams which tell us **nothing** about detailed mechanisms of how particles actually touch or interact with each other.

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

Why can**not** each electron interact with a real photon (= light ) according to unrealistic quantum mechanics ?

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 ).

Mexwell first discovered **classical** light also has *momentum* (= p ) equal to E/c (= E is light energy, c is light speed ), so the famous photon's momentum and energy relation p = E/c was first introduced by Maxwell (= **Not** Einstein ) using **classical** electromagnetic wave.

Using the original momentum relation ( p = mc, m is mass ) and p = E/c, we can conclude light also has mass expressed by E = mc^{2} (← this is Maxwell's version of **authentic** mc^{2}, Not Einstein's phony mc^{2} ).

This mass of light wave is stored in the medium as oscillating energy which can perfectly explain atomic potential energy (= potential energy is stored in the *medium* surrounding particles ) and apparent (relativistic) mass increase (= as an electron moves faster, its kinetic energy is increasingly stored in the medium as de Broglie oscillating wave energy, increasing resistance and apparent electron's mass ) of a faster electron related to Bohr-Sommerfeld' fine structure energy splitting.

Einstein unreasonably **copied** and modified Maxwell's original light wave energy equation of E = mc^{2} in the wrong way, started to say contradictory things; "Light has **zero** mass, but has momentum !" ← Nonsense.

↑ This Einstein crazy idea that even light with **zero** mass has momentum is self-**contradictory**, hence, wrong, because the momentum is expressed as a particle's mass times velocity (= when the mass is zero, the momentum must be zero according to the original definition of momentum ).

Even if we insert light's zero rest mass ( m =0 ) and constant light speed v = c into Einstein **relativistic** energy and momentum relation, **contradictory** things happen = any light waves with any **different** wavelengths (= which should have different light energies and momentums ) turn out to have the *same* common constant light energy and momentum regardless of light wavelengths or frequencies.

↑ So if Einstein relativistic mass relation is true, various different lights with different wavelengths can**not** have different energies or momentums. ← **All** lights have the common **same** energy ! ← Impossible.

When two electrons interacting with electric force or light (= both of which are unreal virtual photons ), the total energy and momentum must be conserved.

But an electron cannot emit or absorb a photon with different ratios of momentum to energy by conserving both momentum and energy, so a **virtual** photon interacting with a real electron has to have **unreal** imaginary mass to conserve both total momentum and energy.

To avoid unreal virtual photons interacting with electrons, we have to accept the idea that electromagnetic wave's oscillating energy in the transverse (= polarization ) direction is absorbed ( or emitted ) by an electron moving around a nucleus **via** *de Broglie wave*, which is also storing electron's kinetic energy as oscillating energy.

An atomic electron is moving back and forth around a nucleus, so total average momentum of an electron orbiting around a nucleus is almost **zero** (= two momentums in the opposite directions = back and forth cancel out each other to be zero average momentum of an orbiting electron ), which is close to the ratio of light's (almost zero ) momentum to (large) energy.

Hence, using real light wave model whose energy is stored in the medium, an electron can naturally absorb real light wave where both of an orbiting electron and light wave have the almost same ratio of momentum to eneregy inside an atom, without relying on virtual photons.

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

In fact, according to today's mainstream quantum field theory, **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 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.

For example, 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 and far **bigger** W boson which is said to be 80 times **heavier** than the original neutron !

↑ 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 which can **never** be detected like a ghost, so weak force or W boson are scientifically **meaningless**, and Not proved yet.

Imaginary fracional-charge quarks which can **never** be isolated or identified are also said to rely on **unreal** *virtual* gluons and sea quarks for generating nuclear strong force (= this true detailed mechanism remains unknown due to undetectable fractional-charge quarks and unreal virtual gluons ).

Also inside wasteful gigantic particle colliders, collisions of protons (= composed of unseen quarks ) are said to produce **unreal** virtual particles before they quickly change into other particles such as Higgs which is also undetectable, too.

Furthermore, also in condensed matter physics, **fictitious** virtual quasiparticles are said to mediate other electrons and nuclear interactions inside superconductors and semiconductors. ← nonsense.

As shown here, the current mainstream quantum mechanics relies so heavily on **fictional** *virtual* particles in **all** interactions that clarifying underlying true physical mechanism is an **impossible** dream forever, as long as we accept contradictory, useless quantum mechanical virtual concepts.

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

Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics has fatal **flaws**, it can**not** handle any *multi*-electron materials, because it can**not** generate even the most important Coulomb electric force enough to form molecular bonds.

So quantum mechanics has to rely on "**cheating**" even by violating energy conservation law and outrageously assigning each single electron to **all** different atoms inside a material *simultaneously* using fantasy parallel worlds to generate **fake** molecular bond and Pauli repulsive energies through artifically-introduced unphysical concept called "exchange interactioon."

This **fictitious** exchange energy which cannot be described by any real objects or forces such as electromagnetic forces, demands that all electrons should unrealistically exist in any different places (= called superposition ) at once as uncanny **indistinguishable** particles.

So quantum mechanics started to use very rough and inaccurate arpproximation called "band model and DFT calculation", where all different electrons inside material are treated like **one** single **illusory** particle floating in all atoms at once.

This unrealistic quantum linear band model allegedly contains only one *pseudo*-electron with **fake** (= called "effective" ) mass designated by *pseudo*-energy and quasi-momentum, which means the band model can**not** specify each particle's position (= because there is only one fake electron spreading over all atoms inside material ), hence impractical quantum mechanical model.

To explain various physical phenomena of material under various electromagnetic fields and temperatures, useless quantum mechanics, which is unable to handle more than one real electrons, has to **artificially** fabricate unreal quasiparticle model with **fake** mass and charge ( this p.2 ).

So the current mainstream quantum mechanics has had **No** ability to describe physical phenomena using real electrons with real mass for a long time, which pseudo-science dominating the current academia and journals **stops** our real science technology from advancing forever.

*(Fig.33) Observe phenomena → Fake quasi-particles model ?*

The current condensed matter physcs based on quantum mechanics is filled with **fictional** concepts such as quasiparticles with negative mass, fractional-charge, magnetic monopole, massless fermion, charge-orbit separation ..

Quasiparticle is a fictitious **ghost**-like particle which can neither exist nor be isolated from material.

How could physicists conclude that such **illusory** quasiparticles were found ? ← impossible !

In fact, all physicists can measure is just realistic phenomena such as classical electromagnetic fields and light absorption. ← When they try to explain underlying physical mechanicm behind it, the current only atomic theory = quantum mechanics deliberately **mis**interprets such real macroscopically-observed phenomena as ones caused by **unreal** *quasiparticles* or **fictitious** negative ( effective ) mass.

For example, they just **mis**interpreted some measured "electric conductance" as a result of fictitious "fractional-charge quasiparticles."

And by illuminating various materials with classical laser lights and measuring the optical response, physicists jumped to the **wrong** conclusion that they might have found (**unreal**) *negative mass*, charge-orbit separation ( this 4th paragraph ), massless pseudo-particle ( this 8th paragraph ), 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. *

Quantum mechanics needs fictitious quasiparticle model to explain various observed phenomena.

How does quantum mechanics describe each quasiparticle ?

What shape and size is such a **ghost**-like quasiparticle ? Is it called science ?

Quantum mechanics can only describe each many-electron material as **non**physical band model which allegedly contains only one single *pseudo*-electron with **fake** (= effective ) mass, quasi-momentum and energy. ← Hence, quantum mechanical particle has No position.

Such a quantum mechanical band model with energy-momentum space has **No** concept of each particle's position (= where each electron exists is uncertain forever ).

So it's meaningless to think about each particle's position, shape, size or how a particle concretely interacts with other particles in a realistic way in quantum mechanics ! ← Such an impractical quantum mechanical model cannot be utilized in any applied science.

In such an **unphysical** quantum mechanical world, all physicists can to is express each particle such as an electron and a photon (= light ) only as a nonphysical math symbol **without** giving any physical shape, size or position to each particle.

This means all other fictitious quasiparticles such as phonon ( this p.4 ), Cooper pair, Bogoliubov quasiparticle ( this p.9 ) and exciton ( this p.3 ) are also expressed as **non**physical math symbols with **No** physical figure.

Such unreal quasiparticles are supposed to have their illusory (= effective ) mass. Even a photon (= a particle of electromagnetic wave ? ) is also known as one of fictitious quasiparticles with unreal effective mass, which were artificially introduced by irrational quantum mechanics.

So there is **No** realistic picture in any particles or materials depicted by quantum mechanics.

Even now, academia and journals continue to invent new **illusory** *quasiparticles* in vain to explain various physical phenomena which useless quantum mechanics cannot explain using real particles.

*(Fig.35) Multiple computations using parallel worlds ?*

Quantum mechanics is so **un**scientific as to claim a thing can be in **multiple** different places *simultaneously* splitting into fantasy multiple parallel worlds.

This crazy basic physics created a fictional future target called quantum computer which is said to carry out multiple calculations simultaneously using the power of imaginary parallel worlds.

As a result, these illusory quantum computers based on fictional quantum parallel worlds for their **illusory** speed-up will never be realized or faster than ordinary classical computers we use now.

An ordinary computer bit can takes only one state = 0 or 1 at the same time.

But a quantum bit called qubit is said to be in two different states (= 0 and 1 ) at the same time using splitting parallel worlds, like an **illusory** dead and alive cat.

But of course, it is **impossible** to see a single object being in two places or a grotesque dead-alive cat at once. Quantum mechanics makes an excuse that the instant we try to observe such an unrealistic quantum state, it suddenly **changes** into a single realistic state (= a cat is dead **or** alive ) from the original imaginary multiple states (or places ). ← Too good to be true.

As a result, all we can observe is a **single** realistic state or world. ← There is No direct evidence of quantum mechanical parallel worlds or superposition where a thing can be in two different places at once.

Things used as quantum bits (= qubit ) include a photon (= just classical light wave, for example, horizontally polarized light is denoted as "0", vertically polarized light is denoted as "1" ), atomic (= or ion's ) two energy states (= ground state is "0", excited state is "1" ), superconducting two-directional currents (= for example, clockwise current = 0, counterclockwise current = 1 )..

*(Fig.36) ↓ No evidence of faster quantum computer *

Quantum computer is still useless, Not faster than ordinary classical computers despite an enormous amount of world's taxpayers' money **wasted** in this fictional quantum computer research for a long time.

The point is the current so-called quantum computer is **Not** a calculator or computer at all. They are doing completely different things **irrelevant** to computation.

D-Wave quantum computer turned out to be useless and slower than ordinary computers, contrary to the media-hype.

D-Wave machine is Not a real quantum computer, it's called "adiabatic computer" where physicists just set the system's lowest energy state as solution in advance, and then, gradually let the machine settle down to the lowest-energy state, which primitive process they call "finding solution".

↑ They did **Nothing** of computation in this D-Wave machine, except they got the machine's state into the most stable (= lowest energy ) state gradually and slowly **without** any computing.

Google quantum computer allegedly achieving "supremacy" is also useless, **not** faster, because all they did was just "output random disorderly numbers" (= **Not** computing any meaningful numbers, hence Not a calculator or computer at all ).

The 3rd last paragraph of this news says "Quantum computers are not ‘supreme’ against classical computers because of a laboratory experiment designed to essentially … implement one very specific quantum sampling procedure with **no** practical applications."

So they just "output **random** meaningless numbers" **without** calculation. ← No quantum computer supremacy in these recent researches.

Just "outputting random numbers" is **easy** like in these researches.

But calculating and predicting precise "probabilities" of getting those random numbers are extremely difficult and take a great deal of time.

Because there are many factors and different patterns leading to those random numbers. And they claim if ordinary computers try to calculate all probabilites and all patterns resulting in the output random meaningless numbers, it would take an enormous amount of time ( this 4-5th paragraphs ).

↑ This is an **unfair** comparison, hence they did Not prove quantum computer supremacy at all, because they try to make quantum and ordinary computers do completely **different** things.

They made the so-called quantum computer do much **easier** task (= just output meaningless **random** numbers, which is Not calculation at all ), and made ordinary computers do far more **difficult** calculation of all *probabilities* of outputting random meaningless numbers.

So one is just output random numbers, another is calculating the probabilities of outputting random numbers. ← These are completely **different** tasks which would take different amounts of times.

It's a very unfair comparison. The recent Chinese quantum computer research treating classical light as fictitious photons to claim supremacy is also just outputting random meaningless numbers **without** calculation. ← these so-called quantum computers are **useless** and Not faster than ordinary computers at all.

If we make quantum computer do the **same** calculation (= though still quantum computer can**not** do such a practical calculation ) as ordinary computers, and compare their speeds, ordinary computers would surely do calculation much **faster** and more accurately than fictional quantum computer.

The original goal in quantum computer was to **factorize** some numbers by calculating mutiple equations **simultaneously** using imaginary parallel worlds and Shor's algorithm.

But so far, the largest number factored by the so-called quantum computer is just 15 = 3 × 5 or 21 at most (= too small numbers, and No quantum speed-up, this p.2 ).

Furthermore, even this simplest factoring did Not use the original idea of parallel-worlds speeding up quantum computing. So Not faster at all.

Instead, they just **classically** "recycled" and reset each qubit, doing only one calculation at a time, **giving up** the original high goal = carrying out many calculations simultaneously using quantum mechanical parallel worlds. ← Hence, it cannot be called "quantum computer".

Other factoring of seemingly large numbers did not calculate Shor's algorithm at all, instead, like D-Wave adiabatic machine (= not faster ), they just set the system's lowest-energy state as fictitious ( already-known ) solutions of factoring in advance ( this p.2 ), and gradually changed the system into the afore-set lowest-energy state ( which destination they call "solution" ) without any computation ( this 6th paragraph ).

In conclusion, the current so-called quantum computer is useless, Not a calculator or computer at all, their research is deadend, making **No** progress except for the media's fake news misleading people into believing (**fictional**) quantum computer may be realized in near future, like quantum internet or communication.

*(Fig.37) ↓ Electron, photon are just meaningless math symbols. *

Quantum mechanics **failed** to describe actual physical phenomena using real particles or objects.

So quantum mechanics insanely **forbids** all particles such as an electron, a photon (= light ) and even fictitious quasiparticles from having concrete physical shape. ← Faceless meaningless particles.

Each electron and a photon is described just as a **non**physical meaningless math
symbol with **No** physical figure ( an electron or photon is expressed just as a^{†}, b^{†}, c^{†} .. with fake effective mass, this p.3 ), which too abstract quantum mechanical model tells us **nothing** about detailed mechanims of atomic behavior.

But quantum mechanics, which obstinately refuses to give concrete shape or size to each electron or a photon (= concrete mechaism of how particles are touching and interacting with each other is **unknown** forever ! ), is the largest **obstacle** to development of our science technology now.

*(Fig.38) ↓ Anticommutation = Pauli exclusion principle ?*

Relativistic quantum mechanics or quantum field theory allegedly combining quantum mechanics and Einstein special relativity becomes more **unrealistic** and unphysical.

Quantum mechanics **refuses** to give concrete physical mechanism of Pauli explusion principle, except for just saying Pauli principle was expressed just as **non**physical antisymmetric wavefunction.

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.2, this p.2 upper )

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.

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) Quantum field theory or electrodynamics (= QED )*

In 1920s~, quantum mechanics and Einstein special relativity were united into ( relativistic ) quantum field theory or quantum electrodynamics (= QED ).

In this quantum field theory, all interactions and forces are expressed using abstract Feynman diagrams where **unreal** virtual particles with imaginary mass are supposed to mediate fictitious forces, which unphysical quantum model can give **No** more detailed physical mechanism ( this p.7 ).

Quantum field theory depends on **non**physical Dirac equation to describe all fermions such as electrons, unseen quarks, antimatters and neutrino.., ← Each particle is given **No** concrete physical picture by Dirac equation.

The point is the current mainstream quantum theory has **No** ability to describe each particle as a real particle with concrete physical shape or size, so true underlying mechanism of relativistic quantum particles remains **unknown**.

Quantum field theoy exresses each electron ( this p.6 ) and a photon ( this p.21 ) just as **non**physical math *symbols* (= a^{†}, b^{†}, c^{†} .. = electron or photon ? ) with **No** physical shape or size.

Using this nonphysical meaningless description of electrons, Pauli principle is also expressed just as **non**physical relation called anticommutation, which abstract mathematical relation tells us **nothing** about detailed mechaism of how Pauli repulstive force acts on electrons, except for saying exchanging two electrons flips the sign = Pauli repulsion ? ( this p.5-6 ).

This unrealistic quantum field theory leads to the current fantasy extra-dimensional unified theory, a.k.a. "theory of everything" and fictional cosmology, which is useless forever, obstructing our science development, hence preventing curing disease.

*(Fig.40) ↓ Unrealistic picture of quantum field theory*

The current unphysical quantum field theory describes particles such as electrons and photons just as **non**phycial simple math symbols with No physical figures except abstract Feynman diagram ( this p.7 ), so **useless**.

So 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) Fractional-charge quark, Higgs field cannot be detected !*

Current standard physics claims there are an **unnaturally** large number of elementary particles. Most of them are unnecessary illusory particles which do **Not** even exist, except in particle physicists' heads or the media.

Real elementary particles **necessary** for our daily life are **only** electrons and protons ( neutron = proton + electron ). Just these **two** particles are enough to explain almost **all** physical phenomena in the universe.

Light wave and neutrino, which always travel at light speed c **without** slowing down, different from a particle ( as long as traveling in the same medium ), can be considered as "**waves**" like de Broglie wave produced in the medium around a moving electron, these are Not particles but **waves**.

All other doubtful particles such as Higgs, quarks, weak bosons, supersymmetric particles, antimatter, muons .. are just **illusion**. ← Actually, **Nobody** uses these dubious particles in our daily life. ← Unnecessary particles means **unreal** particles.

Physicists can **never** isolate those doubtful particles from particle colliders
on the pretext that these particles are too unstable, short-lived to isolate. ← nonsense.

Fractional-charge quarks can neither be isolated nor observed.

Physicists falsely and baselessly claim just by colliding electrons or protons with nuclei, they could "conjecture" the existence of illusory fractional-charge quarks.

Particle collision experiment is generally too **chaotic**, changeable and unstable to jump to a hasty conclusion that new dubious unstable particle might have been found. Today's physics artificially fabricated many unreal particles such as virtual sea quarks to explain complicated observed results of nuclear collision experiments ( this p.4 ).

New heavy top quark is said to appear only once in several **billion** collisions, and soon decay (= lifetime is too short = 10^{-24} s to confirm directly ). ← too unstable, short-lived to believe, hence it is unreasonable and unscientific to claim new particle was found only from these unrealiable and **chaotic** particle collision experiments including many **irrelevant** particles.

When a neutron decays into a proton and an electron in beta decay, very heavier weak (= W ) boson is said to pop out for an extremely short time (= W boson is unseen ).

This weak boson clearly **violated** mass conservation law, because it is impossible for a lighter neutron to emit far **heavier** weak boson (= 80 times heavier than a neutron or proton ! ).

So **contradictory** weak boson, which allegedly appears in neutron beta decay, is just an **unreal** virtual particle which is **irrelevant** to very massive weak boson which is said to be indirectly detected inside particle colliders. ← so particle collider experiment irrelevant to actual beta decay is meaningless.

God particle Higgs boson allegedly discovered in LHC is said to give "mass" to other particles. But correctly, Higgs boson has **nothing** to do with mass, so LHC research is meaningless, again.

The 3rd paragraph of this news says "The Higgs boson does **not** technically give other particles mass. More precisely, the particle is a quantized manifestation of a field (the Higgs **field**) that generates mass ( this 5-6th paragraphs )."

↑ So Higgs boson, which was too short-lived to detect directly without giving mass, is meaningless. "Higgs field" around us is supposed to be invisible and undetectable whatever instruments are used. ← Higgs field is also meaningless.

Therefore, all experiments in the present and future gigantic particle colliders are useless and just a **waste** of huge taxpayers' money, pursuing illusory particles.

Physicists started to pursue new **fictional** things such as dark photon and fifth force just by looking at irrelevant nuclear reaction in vain.

Unnecessary elementary particles such as muons are said to be very **unstable**, short-lived, easily **decaying **into other real particles (or wave ) such as electrons and neutrinos.

The only difference between an electron and a very **unstable** muon is said to be their masses. But knowing an accurate mass of a *fictional* rare muon is **impossible**.

To know the exact mass of each new particle such as (illusory) muon, pion.., physicists had to isolate each new particle from other irrelevant particles and measure the momentum and velocity of each alleged new particle, which precise measurement is **impossible** except for the most abundant electrons and protons (or nuclei ) due to Coulomb scattering among many irrelevant particles.

↑ Hence, an elusive and highly-unstable muon is **Not** an elementary particle but just a transient composite particle (= of other particles ).

Or other abundant particles such as high-energy electrons or protons were **mistaken** for rare, unstable particles such as (illusory) muons, pions and antiparticles, because high-energy experiments such as muons usually generate many high-energy electrons protons, lights which are easily scattered (or collide with electrons of the wall of instrument and excite those other electrons in mutiple directions ) by other particles and give false masses in measurement due to the multi-particle Coulomb scattering effect like fake effective masses.

It is **impossible** to **isolate** such a very short-lived elusive (fake) elementary particle such as a muon, which is said to appear extremely **rarely** for just a very short time, from other irrelevant more abundant and stable particles such as electrons, protons, ions.

A doubtful muon was allegedly discovered inside a photo of high-energy cosmic rays in the cloud chamber under *magnetic* field where many other irrelevant high-energy electrons and protons (= more abundant than rare, short-lived muons ) are flying and **mixed**. ← A muon can **Neither** be separated from other **irrelevant** particles nor confirmed as an independent particle
in such a chaotic environment of cloud chambers.

This means each particle is always **scattered** by other ions, electrons and protons by Coulomb electric force inside a cloud chamber which can**not** separate or identify a rare muon only by magnetic field.

Furthermore, even if a muon could be isolated from other irrelevant abundant particles (= though, it's **impossible** ), the motion (= bending curve of particle's trail ) of the muon under *magnetic* field gives **only** information about the particle's momentum (= Neither particle's energy nor mass is known only from cloud chambers. this p.3-upper ).

↑ Cloud chambers can Not give us crucial information about each particle's mass, energy or velocity, hence, we cannot identify a muon as a new elementary particle with a mass different from an electron or proton only from the particle's motion or trail under the magnetic field left inside cloud chambers.

Physicists tried to **uncertainly** "guess" each particle's mass (= or kinetic energy ) just by seeing vague length of each particle's path or trail left in cloud chamber's photo.

Because they (falsely and baselessly) believed the particle's path length (= left in cloud chamber's photos ) might indicate the particle's kinetic energy (loss), though this relation between particle's energy and its path (or trail ) length is just an ungrounded theory ( this p.3, this p.15-lower, this p.3 ).

↑ So their measurement of new (illusory) particles such as muons, pions, antiparticles .. using primitive cloud chamber instruments can Not determine each particle's mass (or energy, velocity ), and the existence of muons, pions, antiparticles.. is Not proved at all.

When producing such a **doubtful** muon, physicists just collide high-energy protons with target nuclei (= such as graphite and beryllium ), try to isolate muons **only** under some **magnetic** field, and claim they might find muons, though they actually do **nothing** about separating muons from other irrelevant abundant particles ( this p.4, 5 ).

↑ As I said, many irrelevant high-energy abundant particles such as electrons, protons, lights (= always flying at high speeds in different directions ) can easily collide with other particles (= inclusing electrons of the walls of devices ), change their directions by Coulomb scattering and give false masses of (illusory) muons under magnetic fields.

As a result, there is **No** conclusive evidence that such unnecessary, very short-lived particles as muons were isolated or confimed ( except inside particle physicists' heads ).

If we really want to confirm the accurate mass of a (fictional) muon, we need to conduct different experiments such as Millikan's oil drop, which experiments are possible only in the most abundant stable electrons, and **impossible** in very unstable and "rarely-appearing" muons.

So it's safe to say **only** stable particles and wave such as electrons, protons, light and neutrino are real, all other doubtful unstable elementary particles such as quarks, Higgs, antiparticles, muons, supersymmetric particles .. are **unreal** and *unnecessary* for our daily life (= there will be No trouble even if we forget those unneeded particles ).

Quantum chromodynamics (= QCD ) is also an useless, meaningless science just manipulating artificial mass *parameters* of fictitious quarks, pions, mesons, baryons and nuclei in vain.

*(Fig.42) "Symmetry" has NO physical meaning, Higgs is unreal.*

Quantum field theory is **unrealistic** and its Dirac equation is so abstract as to describe all particles such as electron, Higgs, weak boson as **non**physical math symbols with No physical shape.

In order to develop theory in this too **un**physical and *abstract* quantum field equation, physicists had no choice but to increase many illusory elementary particles like quasi-particles in condensed matter.

Another way to develop theory is to artificially set **fake** *targets*.

This fake target for useless particle physics is the so-called "symmetry."

According to this **artificial** *rule* = **symmetry** which has **nothing** to do with real world's phenomena, if under some transformation such as **non**physical phase transformation, the equation is unchanged, they call it "symmetry. ( this p.11 )" ← Just playing with meaningless concepts "symmetry".

There are three kinds of this artificial "phase transformation symmetry" based on different forms of **matrix**; U1 symmetry (= representing photon, electric force ), SU2 symmetry (= 2×2 **matrix** representing weak force, this p.12 ), and SU3 symmetry (= 3 × 3 **matrix** representing quark strong force, this p.9 ).

And if this symmetry is broken by adding unphysical **mass** term, it is called Higgs boson ( this p.4 ). ← This is just artificially-introduced rule, with **No** connection with our real world phenomena.

One of artificially-introduced transformations to change particles into **imaginary** shadow particles called supersymmetric particles (= SUSY ) is supersymmetic transformation with many freely-adjustable parameters ( this p.10 ), which cannot predict any physical values.

Using this artificial supersymmetry or shadow particles, the current only unified theory = 26-dimensional string theory was changed into 10-dimensional superstring, though it still lacks reality.

↑ In this way, the current particle physics just increases
**fictional** particles just by setting "**fake** *targets*" called "symmetry" with **No** relation to actual physical phenomena.

*(Fig.43) QED infinite virtual particles and bare (= real ? ) charge.*

"QED (= quantum electrodynamics ) is the most successful theory to predict unbelievably accurate physical values." is a big **lie**.

All calculations of QED always **diverge** to meaningless infinity by infinite number of **unreal** virtual particles with **infinite** energy or momentum surrounding electrons ( this p.3 ).

To remove the **unrealistic** *infinite* calculation results, QED started to say unrealistic things; "unmeasurable **bare** (= real ? ) charge and mass of an electron may be also **infinite** ( this p.4 ), and these infinite bare charge and mass can artificially cancel out another infinite values caused by virtual particles (= self-evergy ) to get observed **finite** values ( this last, this p.2 upper )."

This **artificial** trick of cancellation of infinity from another infinity to get desirable finite values (= anomalous magnetic moment or Lamb shift .. ) is called "*renormalization*", which **illegitimate** trick like "sweeping infinity under rug" is criticized even by QED founders.

↑ This means QED just **artificially** *chooses*
some **infinite** values as fictitious (directly-unmeasurable) bare charge and mass of an electron and subtracts this chosen infinity from the QED calculated infinite values to get desirable finite values ( ∞ - ∞ = finite values, this p.2 ).

But in normal math, infinity minus infinity should be **zero** ( ∞ = ∞ = 0, because there is No upper limit in any infinite values ) or infinity (= when one of infinite values increases much faster than the other infinite value ).

Subtracting infinity from another infinity to get freely-**adjustable** finite values is an illegitimate **wrong** math.

There is **No** legitimate rule or math validity in this unreasonable choice of arbitrary **infinite** values of bare charge and mass of an electron ( this, this ), and this fatal flaw is still unresolved even now.

For example, in calculating anomalous magnetic moment or electron's g-factor, QED uses illegitimate "change of variables (= changing infinite upper limit of virtual particle's energy into another infinite upper limit by an artificial finite value → affecting the finite results after cancellation )."

This dirty trick is what QED relies on, hence, QED is just a **wrong** math, Not successful theory at all.

In the two-loop virtual particle's **infinite** correction, QED artificially **chooses** another **different** kind of infinity or sets new illegitimate rule to cancel out original infinite values (= caused by infinite virtual particles of two-loop Feynman diagram ) for getting desirable electron's g-factor values. ← nonsense.

Extremely tiny energy splitting called Lamb shift value calculated by QED is said to be influenced by proton's radius, because quantum mechanics unrealistically insists s-orbital electron can penetrate a proton or nucleus.

But this QED calculation of Lamb shift turned out to be **wrong** ( this 4th last paragraph ).

Latest experiments showed a new actual proton's radius (= 0.84 fm ) is significantly smaller than the previous value (= QED value = 0.88 fm ).

In fact, even mathematically, relativistic QED calculation of Lamb shift was known to be **invalid** and false ( this p.5 upper, this p.4 ).

As a result, QED based on artificial illegitimate trick of subtracting infinity from infinity to obtain "desirable finite values (= anomalous magnetic moment or Lamb shift )" showed the current quantum field theory is undoubtedly **false**, cannot be trusted.

*(Fig.44) ↓ Positron (= antiparticle ) emission is impossible.*

Antimatter or antiparticle is also a **ghost**-like particle which can neither be isolated from virtual circumstances of particle colliders nor confirmed directly.

Positron (= antiparticle of an electron ) was said to be discovered inside cloud chamber where positron was strangely moving upward (= the opposite direction of cosmic rays that contain high-energy particles ).

There were many **other** irrelevant particles or ions (= excited by cosmic rays ) than a very **rare** antiparticle inside cloud chamber, so one of more abundant electrons (= going down ) could be deflected by other ions' electric field and misunderstood as a (illusory) positron which was said to be strangely going upward.

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 antiparticles are impossible.

Under this condition, it's **impossible** to isolate or confirm a single rare antiparticle directly. **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, "mimicking" an illusory rare positron's trajectory.

Anyway, as long as we cannot isolate such rare elementary particles as antiparticles from other more abundant electrons or protons, thinking about such dubious antiparticles is **meaningless**.

The only practical application of antiparticle is said to be positron-emission tomography (= PET ).

In fact, the illusory antiparticle = positron emission 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.

On the other hand, positron emission needs an **unrealistic** reaction where a **ligher** proton has to emit a heavier neutron and a positron. ← This is impossible.

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, 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.

Neutral anti-neutrino cannot be distinguished from ordinary neutrino.

So we can conclude all these **doubtful** particles, which are too **short**-lived to isolate from colliders, are unreal and unnecessary for us, forever.

*(Fig.45) Light medium moving "with" the earth is OK ↓*

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 *medium* (= air ).

But Einstein jumped to the **wrong** conclusion that space contains nothing.

And he tried to explain the constant light speed c by introducing a new ad-hoc, unscientific theory called special relativity where every observer moving in any directions should always see the same light speed c by **magically**-*distorted* space-time.

This Einstein crazy relativistic transformation caused by **supernatural** power of observer's movement created serious paradoxes such as slower time of moving clocks.

As you see, what Einstein or Michelson-Morley experiment rejected
was "aether" Not moving with the earth. They did Not deny the "*medium*" **moving** with the earth.

Actually, all things including floating "air" are moving **with** the earth's rotation naturally, which horizontally same-speed motion of all objects can**not** be explained only by gravity vertical to the surface of the earch.

As shown in light refraction, light speed c, which was originally derived by classical Maxwell's **wave** equation, **changes** depending on the different medium which fact **disagrees** with Einstein relativity which demands the constant light speed c should be constant **irrelevant** to the medium.

All phnenomena such as light wave interference proved the existence of "*medium*" through which light travels at a **constant** speed like sound wave.

**Without** space medium, all forces have to be explained by **unreal** virtual particles which **contradict** Einstein mass-energy relation.

Furthermore, without medium, it causes serious paradoxes in electron's de Broglie wave interference and electromagnetic force.

If there is only gravitational force **towards** the center of stars, galaxy rotation with dark matter, which allegedly interacts only with gravity, also became like solar-system Keplerian motion, which is not the case in galaxy rotation.

The fact that the whole galaxy is rotating at almost the uniform speed (= as if **dragged** by the same uniform medium ) like all things including air molecules moving **together** with the earth means dark matter is surely a kind of "medium" filling space **contradicting** the original Einstein relativity.

So realistic explanation of the constant light speed depending on "medium", which is moving with the earth, **fits** all realistic phenomena without any contraditions, therefore, Einstein relativity with serious *paradoxes* is **false**.

*(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 an 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) Neutral current → "Positive" by observer's movement !*

In fact, Einstein relativity includes serious paradoxes contradicting electromagnetic force, so, Einstein special relativity is **wrong**.

Even now, Einstein paradox **incompatible** with electromagnetic theory remains unresolved.
All physicists who claim this paradox may be solved depend on some unrealistic assumption, which is Not a true solution.

The neutral electric current is flowing in the leftward direction generating magnetic field around the current.

An external positive charge (= + ) stops outside of the electric wire. This external stationary positive charge experiences No Lorentz magnetic force, because it is not moving.

But from the viewpoint of an observer moving rightward ( upper figure right ), the external positive charge appears to be moving leftward, hence, experiences downward Lorentz magnetic force, and starts to move downward ?

This is a pradox, because as seen by a stationary observer, an external positive charge experiences No magnetic force, hence keeps stationary, but as seen by a moving ovserver, the **same** external charge experiences Lorentz magnetic force and moves downward !

To solve this paradox, Einstein relativity requires the originally-neutral wire to change into a positvely-charged wire which causes fictitious upward electric force to cancel out downward Lorentz magnetic force, therefore, an external positive charge does not move downward also as seen by a moving observer.

So to solve Lorentz magnetic force paradox, the neutral wire seen by a stationary observer appears to be positively-charged seen by a moving observer. ← This insane world is what Einstein relativity claims.

*(Fig.49) ↓ Einstein relativity exposes "fatal" paradox !*

But in a case when there is an external negative charge (= - ) on the **left** side of electric wire through which electric current is flowing **leftward** like in Fig.49, this causes a serious *paradox* which can**not** be fixed.

As seen by a stationary observer, this external negative charge also stops and experiences No magnetic (or electric ) forces from the neutral wire.

But as seen by a moving observer, the originally-*neutral* wire turns **positively**-charged, hence **attracts** the external negative charge by fictitious electric force.

This fictitious elecric force attracting an external negative charge toward the horizontal wire can**not** be canceled out by Lorentz magnetic force, because the external charge moving **left**ward seen by a moving obsever does **Not** experience **left**ward Lorentz magnetic force.

This is clearly a fatal **paradox** of Einstein relativity, which is incompatible with Lorentz magnetic force.

To solve this paradox (= caused by generating fictitious electromagnetic forces seen by different observers ), we need the "medium."

When an electric charge is moving, it causes magnetic field around the moving charge. But in weird Einstein relativistic world, whether an electric charge is moving or not depends on the motion of **observers** watching a charge. → paradox happens.

So if the space is filled with medium, whether an electric charge is "moving" or not (= whether magnetic field is generated or not around the moving charge ) depends on whether a charge is moving **relative** to *medium* or not. ← Observers' motion has **nothing** to do with an observed charge's motion or magnetic field generation. → No paradox.

So when an external positive charge is **at rest** *with respect to* **medium**, even if a moving observer sees the external charge seemingly moving in the opposite direction (= like Fig.48 right ), the external charge is Not actually moving with respect to medium. → No Lorentz magnetic force caused by observer's movement. → No paradox.

*(Fig.50) ↓ Mass (= energy ) change is "relative", NOT absolute value.*

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 is moving relative to another stationary object 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 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, 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**, hence Einstein mc^{2} is **false**.

Einstein mass energy relation mc^{2} was said to be involved in massive nuclear energy as seen in atomic bombs.

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 all potential energies such as nuclear energy has No relation to Einstein relativity or Lorentz transformation.

It means this kind of **potential** energy such as nuclear or Coulomb energies is **stored** in the "medium" surrounding particles, **regardless** of particles' motions.

Originally, Maxwell derived the relation of energy equal to mc^{2} using classical light wave ( this p.6 ). Later, Einstein **copied** Maxwell's mc^{2} in the **wrong** way.

So the potential energy equal to mc^{2} is stored in the medium through which classical light wave travels with the same amount of energy as mc^{2} in the form of "medium-oscillating energy" which exerts force in interference.

Also when an particle such as an electron is moving, it generates de Broglie wave around an electron in the common medium of light and de Broglie waves with the energy equal to mc^{2} (= electron's kinetic energy is stored in the form of de Broglie wave oscillating energy which affects the electron's motion in two-slit interference experiments ).

So as an electron moves faster, it generates de Broglie wave whose energy is increasing with the electron's speed, hence, the electron's mass appears to **increase** as a result of increasing energy stored in the medium as de Broglie oscillating energy which was felt as resistance (= mass appears heavier ) when accelerating the electron.

Einstein without the medium needs **fantasy** parallel worlds for explaining a single electron's interference, and relies on **unreal** *virtual* particles with imaginary mass as fictitious force carriers which completely contradits Einstein mass mc^{2} relation.

Einstein relativistic mc^{2} causes a serious paradox also in force transformation as seen by observers moving at different speeds, hence wrong.

*(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.*

According to Einstein, a moving clock appears to tick slower relative to a stationary clock.

But in Einstein relativistic world, everything is "relative" = **Not** absolute.

So when two GPS satellites A,B are moving at the same speed in the **opposite** directions in the **same** orbit around the earth, as seen by
the satellite A, satellite B is moving, hence the clock of satellite B appears to tick slower than the clock of satellite A.

But as seen by satellite B, the satellite A appears to be moving, hence the clock of satellite A appears to tick slower than satellite B. This is clearly a paradox, so Einstein relativity is **false**.

There are several other factors such as gravitational potential and fictitious centrifugal force potential influencing the clock time according to general relativity.

Both these gravitational and centrifugal potential time dilations depend **only** on the distance r between each satellite and the earth center ( this p.19 ), which is the **same** in two satellites moving in the **same** orbit.

Hence, there is No clock time difference between these two satellites by general relativistic effect of gravitational and centrifugal potentials, so we focus only on special relativistic time dilation by satellite's motion.

Only the **relative** velocity of a satellite influences time dilation, which causes twin paradox (= one satellite clock is slower than another satellite clock depending on seen from which satellite's viewpoint ).

Textbook's seeming solution to this twin's clock-time paradox always uses the **special** case where one of twin is left on the earth and the other twin flies out into the space **against** the earth's **gravity** in the direction **parallel** to gravitational force and after a while, makes a **U-turn**, returns to the earth.

↑ This case is No twin paradox, because Einstein general relativity was made to **fix** special relativistic time dilation (= caused by moving clock ) paradox using gravitational potential time dilation, hence, as long as one of twin is moving back and forth in the direction **parallel** to gravity, it causes no twin paradox.

But in the case of two satellites moving in the same orbit (= both satellites experience the **same** constant gravity ) in the direction **perpendicular** to the earth's gravity, it cannot use gravitational time dilation canceling out moving clock's time dilation, so twin paradox **appears**. → Einstein relativity is

GPS is said to be the **only** practical application of Einstein relativity, but in fact, GPS does not depend on Einstein relativity at all (= because of a serious time paradox of relativity and many other factors affecting GPS time error ).

There are many **other** bigger factors ( such as atmosphere ) influencing GPS clock time errors which must be **corrected** almost real-time compared with ground station's clock time on the earth. ← So Einstein relativity is **meaningless** in GPS time correction.

*(Fig.53) Time stopping on black hole prevents its formation. *

Despite extremely long time research, black hole is still **useless**, cannot be confirmed directly, because imaginary black holes are too far away from the earth to reach.

It is safe to say black hole does **Not** exist.

We have **No** trouble even if we forget about **fictional** black hole which is unneeded except for the fake academic research to get research funds, the media's advertisement or selling sci-fi books for authors to make money.

First, black hole cannot be formed. A clock time is said to **slow** down and stop by gravity at points close to black hole surface called event horizon, as seen by outside observers on the earth.

Furthermore, Einstein general relativistic time dilation by gravity causes serious paradox where things can far **exceed** light speed c with no energy.

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 can**not** be seen hidden by very thick and dense clouds of dusts and gases.

So the recent black hole picture is fake, because No visible light can be detected near black hole due to very thick dusts.

**Invisible** stars' doubtful motion (= allegedly orbiting around a black hole ) inferred from other longer-wavelength lights than visible light has too many contradictions, so can**not** be believed.

To guess invisible black hole, we need to prove black hole is very small for its massive body. But there is **No** way to estimate black hole size except that they **falsely** claim "rapid X-rays brightness fluctuation" may indicate black hole is very small. ← Baseless and unscientific claim.

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.

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, 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. ← 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 amd 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 **mis**interpreted 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.

*(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 ! ← 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 is why they call gravitational wave "pseudo-tensor (= Not real tensor of Einstein relativity )" which **contradicts** Einstein theory ( this p.13-14 ).

So there is **No** gravitational wave defined by Einstein relativity.

*(Fig.55) ↓ Weak light is destroyed = eavesdropping is detected ?*

The so-called quantum internet, information and communication are all **useless** and Not faster than ordinary internet.

The only practical use of fictional quantum internet is said to be "unhackable internet", which is also **Not** useful enough to replace ordinary internet.

The 2nd paragprah of this site says "The **only** commercial application of quantum information currently is quantum key distribution (QKD).. measurements can’t be made *without* **disturbing** the system being measured.. we can **detect** *eavesdropping* attempts using this simple principle of quantum physics ?"

Quantum information or internet uses a photon, which is just a very **weak** classical light,
as means of transmission of information.

So if some **eavesdroppers** try to steal information from this very **fragile**, *weak* **light** (= photon ), this light information (= stored as classical light polarization ) is easily **disturbed** and destroyed, hence we can find the existence of eavesdroppers by detecting those **broken** lights ( this p.4, this 13th paragraph ).

This destroyed weak light (= information ? ) is Not a quantum mechanical phenomenon at all. And the use of very fragile weak light (= photon ) for transmitting messages means this quantum communication technology is very **unstable** and *impractical*, which can**not** replace the current ordinary stable internet.

As a result, contrary to the media-hype, the so-called quantum internet and quantum information technology are **useless** forever.

*(Fig.56) ↓ Entanglement is nonsense, Not science ! *

Quantum entanglement or spooky action is said to be faster than light.

But this is **untrue**, and quantum entanglement or spooky action can **never** have practical application.

Because quantum entanglement cannot send any real informations, much less send faster-than-light information.

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 light polarization or horizontal-horizonal polarization is unknown ).

When we **measure** one of light and confirm this light is vertically-polarized, it **instantly** (= faster-than-light entanglement ? ) determines that another light is also vertically-polarized.

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.

Quantum entanglement or spooky action, which can **neither** send real information nor do any work, is a completely useless and **meaningless** concept.

Its research is just a **waste** of money, except for publishing them in politicially-motivated journals.

Quantum teleportation, Bell inequality violation, and delayed choice quantum eraser use the same **meaningless** trick intentionally **mis**interpreting classical light as a fictitious photon.

So all (pseudo-)science researches, which claim spooky quantum entanglement effect was exploited, are just **useless** and impractical forever.

*(Fig.57) Two de Broglie waves cross perpendicularly = stable Helium orbits. *

Bohr's atomic model successfully explained energy levels of all hydrogen-like atoms and ions, but it could not explain two-electron Helium atom. Why ?

Hydrogen and Helium atoms are the smallest atoms which are known to have up to two **1** × de Broglie wavelength orbits ( which correspond to Schrödinger equation **1**s orbital giving the same energies as Bohr model, this p.5 ).

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.

Different from 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.

*(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 ) which is lower than true Helium energy (= -79.004 eV ).

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.

The Bohr model hydrogen which has only one orbit, *can not* wrap the direction of the magnetic moment 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 ).

Helium is said to contain up and down spins to cancel magnetic field.

But in fact, Helium atom is known to produce small magnetic field (= Helium is diamagnetic )

So Helium has 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 like 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 all values of all initial x-coordinates are calculated, so, the only chosen input value is "Helium total energy" ).

Then, two electrons keep moving until they move one quarter of an orbit (= until an electron reaches y-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, hence, we can consider this input total energy (= giving 1/4 de Broglie wavelength in 1/4 orbit ) as the Helium ground state energy.

↑ If the Helium energy value we input first gives just one times de Broglie wavelength equal to circumference of one orbit, and 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, 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.

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 r1 value as the legitimate initial x-coordinate of the electron-1.

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 right r1 (= when electron-1 crosses y-axis perpendicularly ) in them.

In this computer program, after we input two values; the initial x-coordinate (= r1 ) of electron-1 and total energy of helium, two electrons start to move, interacting with the other electron and a nucleus through Coulomb force, which Coulomb acceleration is computed at extremely short time intervals to gradually change electron's velocity and position until the electron moves one quarter of an orbit.

We prepared three types of computer programs to do the same caculation of Helium orbits; JAVA ( version 1.5.0 ), simple C languages and Python ( 2.7 ), as shown in the link below.

Sample JAVA program

C language program

Python program.

As shown in Fig.60 and Fig.61, the helium nucleus is at the origin.

The electron 1 initially at ( r1, 0, 0 ) moves **one quarter** of its orbit and arrives at y-axis, while the electron 2 initially at ( -r1, 0, 0 ) moves until it arrives at z-axis.

As meter and second are rather large units for measurement of these electron's motion, so we use **new** convenient units

*(Fig.62) New units of time and length.*

From Fig.62, convert the old acceleration unit to new acceleration unit (= m/s^{2} → MM/SS^{2} ) like

*(Fig.63)*

If you **copy** and **paste** the above program source code into a *text* editor, you can easily compile and run this.

When you run this program ( for example, JAVA ) in command prompt, the following sentences are displayed on the screen.

*(Fig.64)*

First we input the *initial* x-coordinate r1 = **r** (in MM) of electron 1 (see Fig.64 ), and press "enter" key.

For example, in Fig.64, we input "**3060**", which means the **initial x** coordinate of **electron 1** is 3060 MM = 3060 × 10^{-14} meter. The initial x coordinate of electron 2 becomes -3060 MM, automatically (= because, two electrons are symmetrical around the helium nucleus ).

Next we input the **absolute** value of the total energy |E| (in eV) of helium.

In Fig.64, when we input "**79.0**", and press enter key, it means total energy of this helium is **-79.0 eV** (= close to actual helium ground state energy = -79.005 eV ).

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 gets electron's initial velocity "v" from input values.*

Total kinetic energy of two electrons is given by total energy (ex. -79.0 eV ) minus potential energy (= V ).

So from input values of Fig.64, we can get the initial kinetic energy and velocity of each electron.

The initial velocity of electron 1 ( 2 ) is in y ( z ) direction.

*(Fig.68) Change unit of velocity.*

Using the new unit of Fig.62, this program changes "m/s" into "MM/SS" in the initial velocity.

Because it is **convenient** when calculating each acceleration and de Broglie wave at intervals of very short **1 SS** (= 10^{-23} seconds ) instead of very long 1 second.

*(Fig.69) Positions of two electrons (= perpendicular and symmetric )*

At intervals of **1 SS** (= 10^{-23} seconds ), we compute the **Coulomb** force among the two electrons and the nucleus based on their positional relashionship.

When the electron 1 is at ( x, y, 0 ), the electron 2 is at ( -x, 0, y ) due to their **symmetric** positions ( see Fig.60 ).

So the x component of the acceleration ( m/sec^{2} ) of the electron 1 by Coulomb force between electrons and nucleus is,

*(Fig.70) x component of electron-1's acceleration by Coulomb force.*

where the first term is the Coulomb force between the *nucleus and the electron 1*, and the second term is the force between the *two electrons*.

(rm) is an electron's reduced mass.

*(Fig.71) Distances among two electrons and nucleus.*

Due to **symmetric** positions of two electrons, when electron 1 is at ( x, y, 0 ), the electrons 2 is at ( -x, 0, z ), in which **z = y**.

As a result, the **distance** between electron 1 and nucleus is given by the first relation of Fig.71.

The second relation is the distance between two electrons.

Considering the finite helium nuclear mass (= *alpha particle*), we use here the **reduced mass** (= rm ) except when the center of mass is at the origin.

*(Fig.72) Reduced mass (= rm ) of one electron.*

where m_{e} is electron's original mass = 9.10938 × 10^{-31} kg

See also reduced mass of three-body helium.

In the same way, the y component of electron-1's acceleration (m/sec^{2}) by Coulomb force between nucleus and electrons is,

*(Fig.73) y component of the acceleration by Coulomb.*

The 1st term of Fig.73 is Coulomb attraction between electron-1 and nucleus, the 2nd term is Coulomb repulsion between two electrons at each position.

Based on calculation of Coulomb force in each position, we slightly *change* the electron's velocity vector and position at intervals of **1 SS** (= 10^{-23} seconds ) until the electron moves one quarter of its orbit.

We suppose electron 1 moves only on the XY-plane (= for avoiding destructive interference of two electrons' de Broglie waves ), so the z component of the acceleration of the electron 1 is not considered.

*(Fig.74) de Broglie waves in each short segment of an orbit.*

We also calculate de Broglie wavelength (= λ = h/mv ) of the electron from electron's velocity (= v ), mass (= m ) and Planck constant (= h ).

An electron's velocity is gradually changing in its different positions, as the electron is moving in its orbit, so the electron's de Broglie wavelength is also changing in different positions. ← This gradually changing velocity and de Broglie wavelength could Not be calculated in 1920s without computers.

Therefore, we need to divide the electron's orbit into many smaller segments where each short segment equals the distance an electron moves for extremely a short time 1 SS (= 10^{-23} seconds ).

Then, we compute the acceleration by Coulomb force, change the electron's velocity, obtain de Broglie wavelength and what de Broglie wavelength equals each short segment at intervals of 1 SS.

The number (= w_{seg} ) of electron's de Broglie waves contained in each short segment (= each short segment is w_{seg} × de Broglie wavelength ) is,

*(Fig.75) Number of de Broglie wavelength in the short segment.*

where (VX, VY) are x and y components of electron-1's velocity ( unit 1 MM/SS = 10^{9} meter/sec ), the numerator of the right side of above equation Fig.75 means the moving distance (in meter) for 1 SS. the denominator is electron's de Broglie's wavelength (= h/mv, in meter ).

In the numerator, we change length unit from MM into meter using the relation 1 MM = 10^{-14} meter.

Here, the estimated electron's orbit is divided into more than **one million** short segments (= each short segment is moving distance for 1SS ) for this calculation.

When the electron 1 has moved one quarter of its orbit and reached y-axis, this program displays electron-1's last velocity (= VX, VY ) at the last point

*(Fig.76) Computing results, when we input 79.0 eV, r1 = 3060 MM.*

After moving **a quarter** of the orbit, the program displays the above values on the screen. The initial r1 automatically increases per each calculation of 1/4 orbit.

VX and VY are x and y components of the last velocity of electron 1 ( unit: MM/SS ).

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 (= which means electron-1 crosses y-axis at right angles = symmetrical orbit around the nucleus ).

(mid)**WN** means 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.

*(Fig.77) When helium total energy is just -79.0 eV, 1/4 electron's orbit is 0.250006 × de Broglie wavelength.*

Each time an electron has moved 1/4 orbit and calculated 1/4 de Broglie wavelength, 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 inputted value (ex. 3060 ) 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, 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. ( ← **NOT** 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 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 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** inputted 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.

E (eV) | r1 (MM) | WN | WN x 4 |
---|---|---|---|

-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 value is **-79.0037** eV.

The **experimental** value of helium ground state energy is **-79.005147 eV** (= 1st + 2nd ionization energies, Nist, CRC ).

So we can safely say this new Helium model with two electrons' perpendicular orbits gives 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 by this Helium-like model with two **perpendicular** orbits, proving this new helium atomic model is **real**.

What is the very small difference between them ( -79.005147 - 79.0037 = **-0.001447 eV** ) ?

This tiny, tiny energy difference is said to be caused by "relativistic effect" of seemingly increasing electron's mass when the electron moves faster.

↑ But this name of "relativistic effect" is **wrong**.

Because the effect of electron's mass increase (= though it's impossible ) by increasing kinetic energy was first proposed by classical Maxwell theory ( energy = mc^{2} was first proposed by Maxwell, Not Einstein ). Einstein just copied this seeming mass increase effect in the wrong way called "relativistic".

Instead of accepting Einstein ridiculous idea that electron's mass can increase without absorbing anything (= violate mass conservation ), 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 gotten from usual Bohr model or Schrodinger equation 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 gotten 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 **-13.59844 eV** (Nist).

So pseudo-relativistic correction to the energy in hydrogen atom is -13.59844-(-13.5983) = **-0.00014 eV**.

This new Bohr model Helium can explain 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 -0.00014 eV*.

The above calculation value of **-0.001447 eV** is just between them !

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 same as upper Helium program, except you should input another information = atomic number (= Z ) after run this program.

Computing results of all two electron atoms and ions agree with experimental ground state energies !

See detailed computing method.

Atoms | r1 (MM) | WN x 4 | Computed 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 | -198.093 | -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 |

Table 4 shows three-electron atoms and ions such as lithium, Be+, B2+, C3+, N4+ ..

See detailed computing method.

Atoms | r1 (MM) | WN x 4 | Computed 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 are perpendicular.*

Pauli exclusion principle claims that the lowest 1s energy state can contain only two orbitals. The 3rd electron of lithium is kicked out from inner 1s states to outer 2s state orbit, which exclusion of an electron needs strong **repulsive** force.

Quantum mechanical spin is unrealistic and its spin magnetic force can**not** generate strong repulsive force enough to cause Pauli repulsive force for excluding 3rd electron of lithium to outer 2s orbit against strong Coulomb attraction towards the nucleus ( this p.7 ).

Furthermore, Pauli exclusion repulsion (= which must be powerful enough to kick out electron ) is Not admitted to be a real force by uncanny quantum mechanics which shows **No** detailed physical mechanism of mysterious Pauli exclusion force ( this p.6 ).

The important point is the current unrealistic quantum mechanics can **Not** describe Pauli exclusion principle using real force or things, hence, this unphysical quantum description of Pauli repulsion prevents our science or technology from advancing forever.

Quantum mechanics made up an ad-hoc, **artificial** rule, saying Pauli principle is the result of **un**physical antisymmetric wavefunction (= exchanging two electrons changes the sign of the entire wavefunction ) or unphysical "exchange interaction" which lacks real force carrier. ← so, unrealistic

This unphysical antisymmetric wavefunction tells us **nothing** about detailed mechanism of Pauli principle, and it contains self-contradiction, so, **false**.

We need to explain this uncanny Pauli exclusion repulsive force as "**real** force" with real force carrier instead of unrealistic quantum mechanical ad-hoc rule stubbornly avoiding clarifying concrete physical mechanism.

The only realistic repulsive force causing Pauli exclusion principle is the force caused by destructive interference of electron's de Broglie wave which is powerful enough to modify Coulomb force as seen in double slit interference experiments (= de Broglie wave interference **changes** the direction in which an electron is scattered by Coulomb force in slit atoms ).

Helium has two **1** × de Broglie wavelength orbits.

Each orbit can contain only **one** electron because of *1 × wavelength*.

1 × wavelength orbit consists of electron's phase (= thin line ) and its **opposite** phase (= **thick** line ) in the upper figure.

Due to Coulomb repulsion between two electrons, each electron tends to avoid another electron and move around the opposite phase of another electron.

To avoid destructive interference between two electrons' de Broglie waves, these two orbits (= opposite de Broglie wave phases to each other ) have to cross each other **perpendicular**ly.

*(Fig.80) ↓ Midpoint of de Broglie wave doesn't expel another electron.*

As I said, each electron has to pass through another electron's de Broglie wave (= opposite phase ) perpendicularly to avoid destructive interference of two de Broglie waves.

An electron 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, it has to avoid destructive interference from another electron's de Broglie wave.

In this Helium model, electrons do a **U-turn** when another de Broglie wave is **midpoint** between electron's same and opposite phases (= midpoint is just between wave crest and trough ), as shown in lower orbits in Fig.80.

This midpoint is *neutral* phase, so it does **not** affect or destroy another electron's de Broglie wave.

So electrons can do a U-turn **smoothly** and safely ( at midpoint ), Not affected or destroyed by another de Broglie wave in this Helium model.

*(Fig.81) ↓ When there are four 1 × wavelength orbits in the same atom, an electron is expelled by destructive interference of de Broglie waves. *

Here we explain why the **maximum** number of *1 × de Broglie* wavelength orbits contained in an atom is **two** (= due to Pauli exclusion principle ).

When the total number of orbits is odd number ( ex. three = Not equilateral triangle ), it's unstable due to unbalanced, unsymmetric charge's distribution, and destructive interference of de Broglie waves, so we think about **four** orbits.

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 real helium atom, an electron is **never** surrounded by two opposite-phase de Broglie waves of other two electrons like Fig.81 lower figure.

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 (= cannot do U-turn at safe midpoint in this 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 )

So the 3rd electron of lithium and the 3rd, 4th electrons of beryllium are **unable** to enter 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 ).

We can explain Pauli exclusion principle using de Broglie wave destructive interference mechanism without unreal spin.

*(Fig.82) ↓ Electrons cross the opposite phases of another electron's orbit perpendicularly like Helium without destructive interference.*

Like Helium, Neon 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 line which corresponds to **2** × de Broglie wavelength orbits in energy levels ( There are clear energy gaps between atoms of different lines in periodic table, showing they belong to different de Broglie wavelength orbits ).

Neon has eight valence electrons.

And one orbit of 2 × de Broglie wavelength 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 × 2 electrons = 8 electrons, which agrees with the fact.

As shown above figure, **all** electrons cross the opposite de Broglie wave phase of other electrons **perpendicularly** at vertices of hexahedron.

So Neon's electrons can **avoid** destructive interference of 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 do a U-turn at midpoints without being kicked out.*

When Helium contains **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 other electrons' 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 it contains four orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength, electrons are **expelled** , surrounded by other **opposite** wave phases, which is a realistic mechanism of Pauli exclusion principle.

In case of **2 × de Broglie** wavelength (= more pairs of crest and trough of wave ), it can contain **four** orbits **without** destructive interference from ohter 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 cause destructive interference, as seen in Fig.83 lower.

This is why 2 × de Broglie wavelength allows four orbits (= total electron number is up to eight, in comparison to just two orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength. ) where electrons can make a safe U-turn at other electrons' neutral midpoint ( Not surrounded by opposite phases ) without destructive interference.

*(Fig.84) ↓ An orbit of 2 × de Broglie wavelength can contain up to two electrons = two pairs of crest (= a part containing an electon) and trough*

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.

*(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 × 2 = **8** electrons )

*(Fig.86) Maximum orbits = midpoint lines + 2 (= two perpendicular orbits )*

In fact, all atoms use the same principle as Helium where two de Broglie waves cross perpendicularly.

As the number of de Broglie wavelength is higher, more orbits an atom can contain.

For example, an atom can contain up to two orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength, as seen Helium, and can contain up to four orbits of 2 × de Broglie wavelength, as seen 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 valece electrons, 18 is a multiple of **6**.

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 Pauli exclusion principle based on realistic de Broglie wave interference, without relying on unreal spin or unphysical exchange interaction.

*(Fig.87) The opposite wave phases cross perpendicularly.*

Electrons spin is unrealistic and **cannot** explain the maximum valence electrons' number.

Using **de Broglie** wavelength, we can naturally explain Pauli principle and valence electrons' number without unreal spin.

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 of 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 containg 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 becomes 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 point is a wave crest of one electron's orbit needs to cross the opposite phase (= trough ) of another electron's orbit, one to one.

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 each other near electrons.

After all, these two trough orbits (= opposite phase in two different directions destroying other electron crest phase ) kicks out another electron due to destructive interference between de Broglie wave oppsite phases, crest and trough.

So to avoid destrucive interference of de Broglie waves, each electron (= crest part ) has to cross another 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 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 ) ?

Unfortunately, in this case, Coulomb repulsion among electrons is asymmetric (= Not uniform ) and stronger only in some parts, 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.

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 elecrons 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.

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**.

For example, in neon atom of Fig.89, e1 electron crosses the opposite phase of e3 de Broglie wave, e3 electron crosses the opposite phase of e2 de Broglie wave ..

When an electron (= electron phase, crest ) crosses the opposite phase (= trough ) of another electron perpendicularly, this pair of crest and trough de Broglie waves becomes "**neutral** phase" which can**not** affect other electrons any longer by destructive interference. So all electrons' motions become **stable** and OK.

But if an atom contains **more** than the maximum number of orbits, this symmetrical "neutral phase" is broken, and **destructive** interference of de Broglie waves occurs, and electrons' motions become unstable.

In case of more orbits than the maximum number contained in an atom, some intersection points contain the **abnormal** same electron-electron (= crest-crest ) phase (ex. e1 and e3 in Fig.89 right lower ), and other intersection points contain the abnormal same opposite (= trough-trough ) phase (ex. e2 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 e3-same (= crest ) phase wave, perpendicularly and abnormally. ← "Perpendicular crossing" means these e1 and e3 same-phase (= crest-crest ) orbits do not affect each other (= so, originally, e1 electron should cross the opposite phase of e3 electron perpendicularly ).

But other e3 and e2 opposite phase waves (= trough-trough, in Fig.89 right upper ) affect and **destroy** e1-electron wave (= destructive interference ) from **two** different *directions*.

Because neither e3 nor e2 opposite phase waves is perpendicular to e1 orbit (= it's impossible for e1 orbit to cross two different-directional opposite-phase orbits perpendicularly at the same time ).

→ e1 electron is **excluded** by e3 and e2 opposite-phase de Broglie waves from **two** different directions by **destructive** interference.

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.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.

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.

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.

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 false.

Due to the circular motion of an electron inside an atom, the influence of de Broglie wave or Pauli repulsion is limited.

*(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 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 fit and bind to each other ).

This realistic de Broglie wave interference effect modifying Coulomb force a little needs to be determined by various experiments.

But 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 in impractical quantum mechanics.

*(Fig.92) ↓ This realistic H2 molecule proves to be true by computation.*

Due to complicated unclosed orbits, computing hydrogen molecule (= H2 ) is difficult ( not only computing ordinary Coulomb force but also de Broglie wave interference effect must be considered, which must be experimentally determined ).

So we use approximate method of estimating real H2 molecular orbits using the following computing program.

Two orbits of H2 molecule are **perpendicular** to each other.
Here we suppose electron-a moves in the orbit parallel to x-z plane, and electron-b moved in x-y orbit, as shown in Fig.92.

Sample JAVA program to compute H2 molecule.

When you run this program, you need to imput the initial x-coordinate of electron-a (= ea ) and electron-b (= eb = distance between nucleus-b and electron-b ).

Then, you are asked to input 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 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 example, we input ea (= "**3370**" MM = 0.3371 Å, here this unit is used, so input "3370" ) and eb (= "**4938.5**" MM ), binding energy (= "**4.746**" eV = experimental value ) and distance between two nuclei (= "**7414**" MM = experimental value ).

In this case, one orbit is **0.985097** × de Broglie wavelength, which is almost "**1**" × de Broglie wavelength orbit, so good result proving H2 molecule model with two perpendicular orbits is right.

And in this case, average forces acting on nucleus-a is **0.000085** ( here, the force between electron and proton which are Bohr radius apart is supposed to be "1" ) which is almost 0, meaning nucleus-a of this H2 molecule is almost **stationary** and at the stable position.

In the same way, the force acting on nucleus-b is also almost 0 (= -0.000464, The sign = "plus+" force is in the direction of the other nucleus ), meaning nucleus-b is also stationary and stable.

So this realistic hydrogen molecule model with two perpendicular orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength just agrees with experimental values of H2 binding energy (= 4.746 eV ) and internuclear distance (= 0.7414 Å ).

The output value of "electron-1-attraction toward nucleus-a" is the force attracting electron-a at the initial position towards nucleus-a ( we suppose the magnitude of force between electron and proton which are Bohr radius apart is "1". In this case, we get attraction "1.100154" which is a little bigger than "1", meaning the electron's orbit shrinks in H2 molecule than independent hydrogen atomic orbit ).

Forces acting on two hydogen nuclei are almost zero, so two nuclei
are **stationary**, stable and internuclear distance keeps constant.

In this program, we use a rough approximate method of calculating average values of forces acting on electron-a and electron-b, and suppose both electrons always feel the same average force and move at the same average speed approximately.

This rough approximation is the reason why we cannot reach "1" × de Broglie wavelength (= here, we get 0.985097 instead of 1 ). But this result is very good for a rough approximation.

On the other hand, quantum mechanical electron cloud cannot get experimental binding energy based on real Coulomb force at all.

Instead, quantum mechanics has to rely on illegitimate method of unphysical "exchange energy (= lowering kinetic energy instead of using real Coulomb force )" violating total energy conservation law.

So quantum mechanics is **wrong**.

*(Fig.93) ↓ Quantum mechanics uses unreal quasi-particle without force.*

We already have excellent technology of measuring and **manipulating** a single atom one by one using atomic force microscope.

But quantum mechanics makes these great technologies **useless**.

Because all quantum mechanics can do is use unreal obsolete quasiparticle model with fake (= effective ) mass.

Unphysical electron cloud and exchange intereaction forbid us from using real Coulomb force and Pauli repulsive force, instead, quantum mechanics forces useless model of treating the whole material as one pseudo-electron model called DFT.

Different from this useless unrealistic quantum mechanics, our new atomic model using real moving electrons, real forces (= Coulomb and Pauli repulsion ) can be easily used in all other **applied** science such as medicine.

Just two basic principles govern all atomic and molecular interactions. One is Coulomb force. The other one is de Broglie wave which determines electron's orbital radius and causes Pauli repulsive force by destructive interference.

♦ 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.