Real objects observed in experiments led to useful inventions.

As shown in Edison's light bulb and Wright brothers' airplane, all useful inventions came from experimental observation, trial-and-error approach, Not from the fishy ( unphysical quantum mechanical ) theoretical prediction.

Furthermore, all useful things invented were based on real objects.

Maxwell's realistic electromagnetic wave theory based on experimental observation ( this p.2-2.~p.4 ) led to Marconi's useful invention of the wireless radio communication by trial and error approach ( this-1) ), which was completely irrelevant to the unphysical quantum mechanical equation nor paradoxical Einstein relativity that just obstructs science.

↑ All of these light bulbs, airplanes and electromagnetic wave are real objects, so they could lead to useful inventions.

Unreal (virtual) photon never leads to practical use.

Unlike the realistic light wave, a quantum mechanical photon particle (= which is just a very weak classical light wave ) is so unrealistic that quantum mechanics still cannot even define each photon's shape nor size.

↑ This unrealistic photon is useless, clearly obstructing today's scientific development by imposing deadend fictional quantum computer and useless quantum information on researchers.

The present mainstream quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) unreasonably claims electromagnetic force is mediated by (unreal) virtual photons with imaginary mass (= faster-than-light ? ) that paradoxically disagreed with Einstein relativistic mass equation ( this p.3 ).

QED's calculated results always diverge to meaningless infinities by infinite imaginary virtual photons that much be artificially canceled by other infinite (illusory, adjustable) bare change and mass (= called renormalization,  this p.4-p.5 ) to obtain the negligibly tiny electron's anomalous magnetic moment and Lamb shift values ( this p.3 ).

↑ This QED's math trick of cancelling (unreal) infinities, which was criticized even by many famous physics founders as hocus-pocus ( this 1st-paragraph ), is unable to predict any values, so useless ( this p.3-left-6th-paragraph ).  ← Because infinite virtual photons and bare charge used for getting finite values (= ∞ - ∞ = finite values ?  ← this is wrong math ) are illusory, unobservable (= which means these unobservable infinities can be artificially manipulated without experimental checking ).

↑ It is far better to use experimentally-obtained tiny anomalous magnetic moment and Lamb shift (= useless tiny energy splitting ) values from the beginning than to waste too much time in meaningless useless quantum field theory's equations based on unphysical unseen virtual photon model.

Actually, Nobody uses this unrealistic QED virtual photons in our daily life, which is the typical example showing the quantum mechanical unrealistic concepts such as virtual particles cause No practical application.

Transistors are irrelevant to quantum mechanics.

Unphysical quantum mechanical quasiparticle with fake effective mass in band model obstructs science development, which caused death of Moore's law

Transistors were invented by Bardeen and Shockley by trial-and-error and accidental discovery ( this 4th-paragraph ), Not by the useless quantum mechanical Schrodinger equation that cannot deal with multi-electron atoms ( this p.2~p.3-1st-paragraph ).

This-lower-Trial and Error section says
"the foundations of transistor electronics were created by making errors and following hunches that failed to give what was expected"

This p.16-1st-paragraph says
"there still is No really adequate quantitative theory explaining the working of the point contact transistor"

Later, physicists have tried to explain semiconductors and transistors by unphysical quantum mechanical quasiparticle model with fake effective mass in vain ( this p.14-2nd-paragraph ), which just hampers science, as shown in already-dead Moore's law and today's hopeless quantum computer, quasiparticle research.

Magnetoresistance (= spintronics ? ) used in hard disk disagreed with quantum mechanical prediction.

Hard disk drive or MRAM based on giant magnetoresistance were invented by trial-and-error approach irrelevant to (useless) quantum mechanical spin that just hampers science.

The only practical use of today's (misleading) spintronics is said to be giant magnetoresistance used in hard disk drive and MRAM where electric resistance changes depending on the direction of magnetization (= not spin but electron's orbit ) of two layers of materials.

An electron spin is known to be unreal (= a tiny electron must spin faster than light to cause the observed magnetic moment ), so electron spin's magnetization can be explained or replaced by electron's orbital motion.

Furthermore, the giant magnetoresistance allegedly used for spintronics disagreed with quantum mechanical theory.

This p.3-2nd~3rd-paragraphs say
"The general consensus (= quantum mechanics ) in the 1980s was that it was Not possible to significantly improve on the performance of magnetic sensors based on magnetoresistance"  ← Quantum mechanics could Not predict giant magnetoresistance, spintronics nor hard disk drive.

"Therefore it was a great surprise when in 1988 two research groups independently discovered materials showing a very large magnetoresistance, now known as giant magnetoresistance (GMR)."  ← Giant magnetoresistance for hard disk drive was accidentally discovered by trial-and-error approach irrelevant to quantum mechanics ( this p.1-introduction-1st-paragraph ).

↑ Today's unphysical electron spin model just hampers technology, as shown in deadend quantum computer and stalled MRAM that remains in niche market forever.

Using experimentally-obtained properties is necessary to develop new technology. But the unphysical quantum mechanical model (= fictional quasiparticle with fake effective mass ) refuses to use experimentally-observed values and real atomic shape, which is why today's science is already deadend.

(Fig.S)  Using experimentally-observed values (= real objects' shapes ) is indispensable for developing useful technology, but unphysical quantum mechanics refuses to use experimentally-observed atomic shapes.

Using experimental facts can develop useful technology, but quantum mechanics refuses to use actual atomic shape.  → science is deadend

Using experiemntaly-observed values, properties and real objects is definitely necessary for developing useful technology.

Futhermore, it is far better and more efficient to use experimentally-obtained values and atomic shapes from the beginning than to waste too much time in meaningless useless quantum mechanical (quasiparticle) model and equation that cannot predict anything.

But the unphysical quantum mechanics based on fictional quasiparticle model with fake effective masses unreasonably refuses to use the real physical values and properties (= real atomic shapes, electron mass, electric charge.. ) obtained from the experimental observation.

Misleadingly-colorful atomic pictures are just fake only to deceive laypersons.  Today's mainstream (useless) quantum mechanicam model cannot give real atomic shape.

↑ This quantum mechanics refusing to use really-measured particles' shapes and masses (= due to unphysical Pauli exchange energy lacking exchange force ) is why the current science is a deadend, just making our life inconvenient and preventing curing diseases.

We already have an useful technology of manipulating a single atom by atomic force or scanning tunneling microcsopes, so we should have been able to design and build useful nano-machines to cure cancers, Alzheimer disease by manipulating singles atoms with known shapes (= increasing the number of the microscope's probes is necessary to more freely manipulate the target single atom ), which scientific development is hampered by unphysical quantum mechanical shapeless atomic (quasiparticle) model.

As you know, all macroscopic objects have their tangible shapes, which means each single atom composing those macroscopic objects with shapes should also have its shape that can be actually measured by atomic force microscope as contact (= Pauli repulsive ) force.  ← This fact that each atom has its definite shape is ignored by the unphysical shapeless quantum mechanical (quasiparticle) model.

These quantum mechanical pseudo-models (= fake effective mass, quasipaticles, negative kinetic energy, virtual particle.. ) can never clarify true physical mechanisms, these unphysical quantum models are useless except for protecting academic old vested interests.

This p.3(1), p.4-(3)~p.5 described electrons as nonphysical math symbols ( this p.5-right-Theoretical model ) with fake effective mass ( this p.6-left-2nd-paragraph ), fictional quasiparticle ( this p.6-left-(1) ) and No shape in one-pseudo-electron DFT model.

(Fig.1i)  Quantum mechanics refusing to use experimentally-observed atomic shapes hampers technology.↓

Quantum mechanics refuses to accept experimental facts, which is against development of science.

Real individual atoms and molecules have their shapes that can be actually observed by today's technology such as atomic force microscope (= AFM ) or scanning tunnel microscope (= STM ).

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

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

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

Unlike misleading colorful atomic picture with spherical shapes, quantum mechanical pseudo-atoms or electrons spreading as unphysical plane wave (= chosen basis set ) of one-pseudo-electron DFT model have No clear shapes ( this p.36-50,  this-lower-Fig.5,  this middle ).  ← Just using non-physical math operators or wavefunctions with No concrete particle figures.

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

Macroscopic objects have shapes.  → Atoms composing those objects with shapes must have shapes.  ← This fact is ignored by quantum mechanics.

Macroscopic objects having shapes means atoms composing those tangible objects also have shapes, which fact is ignored by quantum mechanical unphysical atoms.

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

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

But the unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli exchange energy can neither use real (exchange) force ( this p.10 ) nor give actual shapes to individual atoms or molecules, which quantum mechanical fatal defects obstruct today's science.

Quantum mechanics intentionally refuses to treat individual atoms as real objects (= parts ) with shapes, which prevents practical use of atoms.

(Fig.1j)  Using atoms with actual shapes as practical parts enables us to build useful nano-devices like building cars and engines, but quantum mechanical unphysical (quasiparticle) model hampers it. ↓

Parts or atoms with shapes can be used for building practical machines, but quantum mechanical fictional model prevents it.

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

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

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

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

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

Sadly, the current atomic force or scanning tunnel microscopes with only one probe are used just for impractical quantum mechanical researches.

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

The current fake overhyped molecular machines do not utilize manipulation of individual atoms. which is useless.

The present unphysical quantum mechanics forces researchers to use the impractical one-pseudo-electron DFT model lacking individual atomic shapes, even when they try to model multi-electron atoms whose shapes can be actually observed using atomic force (or scanning tunnel ) microscopes.

This p.10(or p.9)-right-theoretical calculations wrongly tried to describe multi-electrons atoms actually observed by microscopes as one-pseudo-electron DFT model.  ← Quantum mechanics firmly refuses to use experimentally-observed atomic shapes.

This (p.6-right-1st-paragraph) used DFT fictional pseudo-potential and empirical DFT-D2 intermolecular exchange energy functional lacking real atomic shapes (to express individual atoms with shapes observed by atomic force microscopes, paradoxically ), which is unable to predict physical values, just obstructing science.

This p.6-calculation method also used one-pseudo-electron DFT's pseudo-potential lacking real atomic shapes for expressing the real (multi-electron) atomic shapes observed by an atomic force microscope (= AFM ).  ← nonsense and paradoxical.

↑ This unphysical mainstream DFT treating the whole multi-electron material as one pseudo-electron model lacking individual atomic shapes (= cannot be used for practical parts ) clearly hinders nano-technology.

There are only three useless options: ① unphysical quantum mechanical DFT, ② impractically-time-consuming MD, ③ ignoring atomic interaction, when researchers explain individual atoms observed by atomic force microscopes.  ← hamper nano-technology

(Fig.M)  Quantum mechanical unphysical density functional theory (= DFT ) and molecular dynamics (= MD ) hamper science.

Quantum mechanical unreal shapeless atoms allow only useless DFT and time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ).

Quantum mechanical unphysical Schrödinger equation and mainstream density functional theory (= DFT ) treating the whole molecules as one-pseudo-electron with ad-hoc pseudo-potential are unable to give shapes to individual atoms, though we already have technology such as atomic force microscopes measuring individual atomic shapes.

↑ This present unphysical quantum mechanical shapeless atoms are useless, hindering technological development, because we can Not use real atomic model with actual shapes to imagine or predict interactions among atoms and molecules

Today's only molecular simulating method called molecular dynamics (= very old MD ) unable to give actual shapes to individual atoms has to rely only on artificially-chosen pseudo-potential called force fields.

This present mainstream MD is unable to predict when two atoms collide, because of its unrealistic shapeless atoms (= we cannot know when two approaching atoms "touch" each other, if they have No shapes nor sizes ).

MD has to update each atomic position and velocity at very short time intervals (= each time interval must be less than only 2 femto-second or 2fs,  this p.3-6 ) by differentiating the ad-hoc pseudo-potential or force fields repeatedly, many, many times ( this p.5-p.29,  this p.1-13 ).

If each time interval or time step is chosen to be longer than 2fs (= taking less time ), it tends to cause errors by increasing the chance that two shapeless atoms unrealistically overlap (= penetrate ) each other, which unreasonably raises Pauli repulsive potential (= due to two atomic collision or overlap ) and causes errors due to violating energy conservation, which is called "energy explosion ( this p.9-lower~p.10,  this p.27-p.28 )" or "blow up ( this 5th-paragraph )"

So each time step has to be very short (= only 2fs ) to avoid the unrealistic atomic collision or overlap, and researchers have to repeat 1000000000 calculations of updating all atomic positions and velocities to simulate just 1 microsecond motion of molecules, which is impractical, too time-consuming to simulate much-longer important biological reactions of seconds ~ hours time scale ( this 3rd~5th-paragraphs,  this p.3-left-2nd-paragraph ).

↑ In realistic objects or atoms with known shapes, we can easily know when two approaching objects (= ex. billiard balls ) or atoms collide (= Not unrealistically overlap like shapeless atoms ), so this impractically-time-consuming molecular dynamical method is unnecessary (→ practical use ).

Quantum mechanical fake shapeless atomic model spoils today's technology of manipulating single atoms.

Today's technology can already observe and manipulate each single atom to design and build useful nano-machines by atomic force microscopes (= AFM ) or scanning tunneling microscopes (= STM = irrelevant to the unreal quantum mechanical negative kinetic energy ).

↑ The current atomic force or scanning tunnel microscopes manipulating single atoms have only one single probe tip, which is useless.
We have to increase the number of microscope's probe tips to more freely manipulate single molecules and build useful nano-machines.

The problem is when researchers use these atomic force microscopes, they are unreasonably forced to use today's impractical quantum mechanical shapeless atomic potential ( this p.3 ), fictitious effective mass ( this p.5-left-3rd-paragraph ), one-pseudo-electron DFT atomic model and impractically-time-consuming molecular dynamical (= MD ) simulating method, which prevents them from building useful molecular devices.

DFT model lacking real atomic picture (= having only fictitious potential or functional ) is unreasonably applied to almost all researches about atomic force microscopes, as shown in this p.3,  this p.8-right~p.9,  this p.2-right.  this p.8-left-lower also used MD force field potential.

Useless DFT → too-time-consuming MD hinders science.

This IBM research tried to express atoms observed by atomic force microscope (= AFM ) by using one-pseudo-electron DFT pseudo-potential ( this p.10(or p.9)-calculations ) and extremely-time-consuming ab-initio MD (= CPMD based on DFT's pseudo-potential and fictitious electron mass lacking real atomic picture,  this p.9(or p.8 ) ) in vain.

Today's only method of simulating or explaining atomic motion observed in atomic force microscopes is the extremely time-consuming MD using only potential lacking real atomic shape ( this p.23(or p.11)~p.30 ), which can simulate only very short-time motion of small molecules ( this p.3-left-only 10ns MD simulation,  this p.6-lower-just-50ps MD simulation,  this p.14-(d) ), which is useless and a main culprit of hindering today's nano-technology.

This p.6-3rd-paragraph says
"due to computational limitations inherent to fully-atomistic methods, MD models explicitly contain only a limited number of atoms from the tip and substrate"  ← MD is too time-consuming to explain molecular motion observed by atomic force microscope ( this p.36(or p.16)-1st-paragraph ).

Biological and medical researches are deadend, unable to consider atomic interaction due to useless quantum mechanics, DFT, MD model.

Researchers cannot explain detailed atomic interaction among molecules observed by atomic force microscopes in biological and medical research.

When observing biological samples and proteins by atomic force microscopes, researchers are unable to consider detailed atomic interaction (= so today's medical research unable to clarify detailed atomic interaction among proteins and drugs is deadend ), because all the unphysical quantum mechanical methods and molecular dynamics (= MD ) are useless, too time-consuming to use for medical research or drug development.

Actually, No (useless) quantum mechanical methods such as Schrodinger equation, DFT, and No MD were used in these biological atomic force microscopic (= AFM ) researches ( this p.7-Methods,  this p.2~p.3-material and methods,  this p.2~p.5,  this p.14~p.21-methods ).

Only for explaining small molecules observed by atomic force microscopes, the (useless) quantum mechanical DFT and MD are used.
In larger biological system or medical research, none of these quantum mechanical DFT nor (time-consuming) MD is used.  ← No atomic interaction can be considered in today's medical research that cannot cure cancers.

Today's single or multiple probe tips of atomic force or scanning tunnel microscopes are used only for impractical quantum mechanical research (= fictional quasiparticle, deadend quantum computer ), Not for grabbing or identifying single atoms.

(Fig.T)  Using multiple probe tips for identifying and manipulating real atoms with shapes can build useful nano-machines for curing diseases. ↓

Multiple probes can develop useful nano-technology.

The current atomic force or scanning tunnel microscope for measuring and manipulating single atoms has only one probe tip, which cannot identify the target atoms nor manipulate individual atoms more freely.  ← surprisingly No progress for a long time

We have to use multiple probes (= each probe has a single atomic tip ) to grab and manipulate single atoms more freely for building useful molecular devices.

↑ By using two probe tips, we can identify what the target atom (= put between two probe tips ) is by measuring the atomic size and shape (= you can measure more precisely the size and radius of the target atom, if measuring the target atom at more than one points around the atom by using two probe tips ).

↑ This measurement of each atomic shape or size is Not allowed to consider in the present unphysical quantum mechanical shapeless atomic model consisting of fictional quasiparticles with fake (effective) mass.

Grabbing atoms by multiple probes needs to define individual atomic size and shapes, which is hindered by the unphysical quantum mechanical shapeless atomic model.

↑ So quantum mechanical unphysical atomic model with No shape has prevented researchers from developing multi-probe atomic force microscopes grabbing individual atoms like robot's hands.

It is surprising that even now the mainstream atomic force or scanning tunnel microscope has only one single probe tip instead of multiple probe tips.  ← No progress from 1989 when manipulating single atoms was already possible.

Today's excellent atomic microscope technology is spoiled by unrealistic quantum mechanical (quasiparticle) model lacking real atomic shapes.

Today's technology can already realize multi-probe microscopes (= multi-probe atomic force microscopes can measure individual atomic forces or shapes by detecting slight electric conductivity change of piezoelectric material touching atoms or tunnel current system connected with atomic force microscope's tips or detectors ).

But today's single or multiple probe tips in atomic force or scanning tunnel microscopes were used only for measuring electric conductance or impractical quantum mechanical research such as fictional quasiparticle and deadend parallel-world quantum computers, instead of using multiple probes for manipulating single molecules.

Automation system is also needed to speed up the atomic manipulation = these excellent technologies already exist now, but they don't try to use them due to wasting time and money only on impractical quantum mechanical research prohibiting real atomic shapes.

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

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

Quantum mechanical fictional (quasiparticle) model with No actual atomic shapes hinders science, and researchers are wasting their time in publishing papers on impractical pseudo-science in journals that spread overhyped news to hide today's deadend science.

(Fig.S)  Summary of today's unrealistic mainstream science ↓

See useless unphysical quantum mechanical models hamper all the science.
We should use experimentally-observed realistic atomic model, which will make academia and journals lose their old privilege of skyrocketing tuition.

Useless quantum mechanics needs fictional scientific targets such as BigBang, ( deadend overhyped ) quantum computers, information, spintronics, useless molecular machine, AI, Alphafold, .. and overhyped fake news to make today's stalled science appear to be progressing.

Black holes, BigBang, extradimensions, illusory unstable particles in gigantic colliders are just useless pseudo-science wasting taxpayers' money.

(Fig.1k)  The present useless physics just wastes money and time in fictional concepts that are harmful to not only us but also researchers ruining their careers. ↓

The present mainstream science pursues only useless illusory concepts.

The present cosmology is just wasting time in illusory concepts such as black holes (= a door to another world ? ), worm holes (= time travel ? ), BigBang, which is a completely useless meaningless pseudo-science, and they are too far away to confirm as real.

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

Particle collider detectors' ( quantum ) efficiency of measuring energies is too low (= far less than 100% ) to detect precise energies ( this p.10(or p.9), p.18(or p.17 )-lower ), so they deliberately picked up only convenient data ( this p.17-2nd-paragraph )

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

So particle physics is completely useless, just wasting money (= as seen in still-useless Higgs boson and fractional-charge quarks ).
If we think short-lived muons are just high-energy electrons or protons that can move a little longer, we do Not need such unstable useless muons.

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

Einstein relativistic theory is proven to be wrong, so all relativity-related theories such as particle physics, QED, black holes are wrong, too.

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

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

Quantum computers are already proven to be hopeless, zero chance of practical use.  But quantum computer's overhyped news is worst in all the quantum mechanical pseudo-science.

(Fig.1l)  Quantum computers, information, AI are overhyped useless pseudo-technology. ↓

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

The number of qubits (= quantum bits ) of the present standard quantum computers is only less than 100 (= each qubit can take only 0 or 1 values ), which is far from millions of qubits which are said to be necessary for practical quantum computers or achieving quantum advantage ( this summary ).

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

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

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

Because photons or weak lights are easily lost, which is too error-prone to send over long distance.
The alleged unhackable quantum cryptography can be explained by classical weak light, and quantum mechanics is unnecessary.

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

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

Electron spin is unrealistic, needing superluminal spinning to explain the observed magnetic field.

(Fig.1m)  Electron spin is unrealistic, just hampering technology. ↓

Electron is Not spinning, which can be explained by orbital motion.

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

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

Giant magnetoresistance (= GMR ), hard-disk drive, MRAM disagree with quantum mechanical spin, which pseudo-spin model just stalls spintronics.

See Spintronics is irrelevant to spin,  Spin-torque-MRAM is deadend

See Spin wave is useless.

See Topological insulator is an useless overhyped material with No evidence of lossless energy.

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

See this.

See this.

Time crystal (= a crystal just randomly oscillates under external stimulus with No practical use ), quantum battery (= far from practical battery, this-lower Discussion ) and "wonder graphene" are also overhyped useless science.

Quantum dot (= QD ) is a very tiny semiconductor material.
Each quantum dot is called "artificial atom" consisting of many (~10000) atoms.

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

Quantum mechanics just tries to explain the quantum dot by using fictional exciton quasiparticle model with fake effective mass in the band ( this p.2~6,  this p.1,3 ), which can Not clarify the true mechanism (= So there is No evidence of quantum mechanics related to quantum dots ).

Quantum dot spin qubit is also useless, irrelevant to (unphysical) electron spin.

Unphysical quantum mechanics unable to describe atoms realistically prevents developing effective drugs and cure for cancers.

(Fig.A) Biological and medical researches use tools obtained from natural organisms, Not developed by the (useless) quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanical unphysical models have been completely useless for biological and medical researches.

Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations are completely useless, unsolvable for any multi-electron atoms and molecules.

All the quantum mechanical methods such as Schrödinger equation and its mainstream approximation density functional theory treating the whole material as one-pseudo-electron quasiparticle model are unable to give real individual atomic shapes, contrary to misleadingly colorful atomic pictures of hyped news.

This is why all the applied science such as biology and medicine use tools and methods irrelevant to the (impractical) quantum mechanics.

Medical researchers just repeat failed clinical trials wasting too much time and money without understanding detailed atomic interaction of deadly diseases due to useless quantum mechanics.

Developing effective drugs and cures for cancers, Alzheimer, HIV is impossible in today's deadend medical research that cannot utilize real atomic interaction due to the useless quantum mechanics.

For example, recent medical researches such as this p.14~15 methods and this p.9~10 methods do Not use any quantum mechanical methods such as Schrodinger equations and density functional theory (= DFT ).  ← And these biological researches do Not consider actual individual atomic interaction, either.

As a result, medical researchers just repeat the old-fashioned macroscopic biological experimental methods that do Not look into microscopic atomic interaction, and many clinical trials (= without understanding diseases' atomic mechanism ) of drugs failed, just wasting too much time and money.

The so-called quantum biology is just an useless pseudo-science irrelevant to the actual biology or medicine.

The overhyped immunotherapy using antibodies obtained by immunizing natural animals (= Not by being designed through the useless quantum mechanics ) still can Not cure various cancers due to lack of understanding of the detailed atomic mechanism in diseases and drugs.

All biological tools such as PCR, DNA, plasmids were obtained from natural organisms, Not designed nor created by (useless) quantum mechanics.

(Fig.M)  Today's medical research does Not use (useless) quantum mechanics nor detailed atomic interaction ↓

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

So humans cannot design or manufacture truly-artificial proteins from scratch for new drugs or medical treatment.

When trying to create 'new' proteins, all researchers can do is just modify or fuse natural proteins by deleting some genes of natural proteins (= called mutagenesis ) or fusing multiple natural proteins into one new recombinant protein by using enzymes and biological tools such as PCR enzymes obtained from natural organisms.

Medical researchers can only modify or fuse natural proteins into 'new' proteins which can Not be artificially created from scratch due to useless quantum mechanics.

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

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

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

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

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

Antibodies obtained from immunizing natural animals are the only tool to investigate proteins in today's deadend medical research that cannot directly consider atomic interactions between proteins due to useless quantum mechanics.

(Fig.A)  Today's medical research does Not use (useless) quantum mechanics nor detailed atomic interaction

In the current biological and medical researches, the only way for researchers to guess the functions of proteins is ( unreliable ) antibodies obtained from immunizing natural animals.  ← Natural immune system is used to produce antibodies that cannot be designed by (useless) quantum mechanics.

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

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

It is impossible to know where in the target protein the antibodies stick to or how proteins change their functions or conformations after interacting with antibodies, because today's biology does Not consider detailed atomic interaction due to useless quantum mechanics.  ← effective drug development is impossible.

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

Unphysical quantum mechanical density functional theory (= DFT ) and extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ) stop all the applied science.

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

The current medical research without considering detailed atomic interaction is useless, unable to cure deadly diseases.

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

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

This is why cancers, Alzheimer are still incurable despite longtime medical researches.
The current only hope or (hyped) immunotherapy using antibodies cannot cure deadly cancers, either.

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

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

Quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron DFT and extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ) are the main culprit of stopping science.

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

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

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

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

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

All the quantum mechanical methods are useless, unable to predict anything. No Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms are solvable.

Quantum mechanical unphysical equations are time-consuming, unable to know any physical values, until compared to experimental results, then it is far better to use the experimental results (= such as real atomic shapes ) from the beginning for developing practical technology.

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

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

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

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

Quantum mechanical unphysical models (= Schrödinger equations, DFT, MD ) is not only useless, time-consuming but also hampering all the applied science.

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

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

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

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

It is far better to use experimental values from the beginning instead of wasting too much time in the meaningless time-consuming quantum mechanical equations.

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

See Transistor doesn't use quantum mechanics.

See Spintronics is irrelevant to spin.

Schrödinger equations are unsolvable and unable to predict atomic energies, so quantum mechanics was useless for developing modern technologies.

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

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

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

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

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

Quantum mechanical DFT treating molecules, solids as one-pseudo-electron with fake mass and artificial pseudo-potential is useless.

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

Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms are unsolvable, useless, just wasting too much time in meaningless fake solutions that cannot predict anything.

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

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

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

Quantum mechanics has to rely on unphysical approximation called DFT treating multi-electron material as one-pseudo-electron model, which is the present only mainstream method of describing solids, metals semiconductors, molecules.

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

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

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

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

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

DFT artificially choosing unknown exchange-correlation functional (= fake exchange energy ) is a fake ab-initio theory that cannot predict anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

DFT has to artificially choose empirical parameters fitted to experiment without predicting van der Waals energy potential as shown in DFT-D2, D3 empirical functionals.

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

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

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

Density functional theory (= DFT ) unable to predict any physical values just chooses fake pseudo-potentials and DFT+U (= another fake potential ) fitting parameters.

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

The most-widely-used DFT has to rely on fake pseudo-potential

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

So the useless quantum mechanics has to rely on density functional theory (= DFT or Kohn-Sham theory ) unscientifically treating any multi-electron materials as one-pseudo-electron approximate model (= one pseudo-electron often spreading as fictitious plane wave, this p.11-12,  this-lower-Fig.5 ) with artificially-chosen exchange-correlation functionals (= fake exchange energy for one-pseudo-electron version ).

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

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

DFT based on artificially-chosen pseudo-potential is uable to predict anything, so useless.

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

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

This p.3-1.3 ( and p.4 ) about how to create artificial pseudo-potentials says
"one checks whether the resulting PP (= pseudo-potential ) is actually working. If not, one tries again in a different way"
"The second and third steps are closer to cooking than to science. There is a large arbitrariness in the preceding step"
"choose the generation parameters"  ← Not ab-initio method at all

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

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

DFT failed in metals where empirical parameter U (= another fake potential ) must be chosen.

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

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

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

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

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

All-electron full potential (= non-pseudo-potential ) quantum mechanical methods also have to rely on artificially-chosen parameters such as band energies, atomic radius without predicting any physical values.

(Fig.A)  All-electron full-potential (= non-pseudo-potential ) DFT method (= FP-LAPW) just choosing artificial energy parameters E is also useless, unable to predict any physical values ↓

Even all-electron full-potential (= non-pseudo-potential ) DFT method is useless, unable to predict any physical values.

All-electron full-potential DFT must artificially choose energy parameters E and atomic radius called Muffin-tin radius (= R_MT ) that cannot predict anything.

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

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

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

So this all-electron full-potential method also has to artificially choose different radii of (fictional) atomic core (= called Muffin-tin or MT radius ) in different atoms, which is one of freely-fitting parameters ( this p.23, p.27-32 ).

Besides this atomic core radius, the all-electron full-potential method has to artificially choose energy parameters (= E_l ) in different orbitals (= core, semi-core, local-orbitals, valence electrons' orbitals ), instead of finding these energy parameters by ordinary variational methods ( this-p.10-11,p.23-24,  this p.6-12,  this p.6-left,  this p.44,  this p.8,p.28-32,  this p.29(or p.9)-(2.4),  this p.20-lower ).

This-p.31(or p.29)-4.5.2 says
"In order to minimize the linearization error, the energy parameters should be chosen as close to the band energies as possible. However, the band energies ε(k) depend on k whereas the energy parameters E_l are constants. In addition, the radial functions contribute to the eigenfunctions of different band with different energies. Therefore, deviations between ε(k) and E_l have to be accepted.

This p.1-right-last~p.2-left says
"However, approaching the complete basis limit using the FLAPW (= full-potential ) method still requires expert knowledge, e.g., of the atomic electronic structure in order to define the local orbital basis at appropriate energies, choosing parameters such as the MT radius and angular momentum cut offs, and controlling the linearization error."

Choice of energy parameters (even in all-electron, full-potential method ) influences results, which is Not quantum mechanical prediction.

This p.4-right-2nd-last-paragraph says
"A clever choice of energy parameters E_tℓ is essential for accurate results, and WIEN2k has several automatic ways to make an optimal choice in most cases
The energy parameters of all other valence states are set to 0.2 Ry below E_F. "

This p.92(or p.89)-2nd-paragraph says
"In the calculations the energy parameter is varied between −0.29 and 0.08 Htr (≈ between −7.9 and 2.2 eV) relative to the Fermi energy. Within this interval we observe that the conventional LAPW basis (= all electron, full-potential ) yields a strong dependence of the total energy on the choice of the energy parameter"

This p.4-2nd-paragaph says
" Unlike the APW case, the KS secular equation in the LAPW basis (= all electron ) is of the ordinary linear variational form. The only user-dependent choices are the reference energies and muffin-tin radii"

This p.4-left-2nd-paragaph says
"The basis functions, defined in Eq. (16), can represent only those wave functions accurately whose energies are sufficiently close to the energy parameters..
For semicore states, which are nearly dispersionless, the energy parameter is fixed at the semicore energy level."

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

All-electron full-potential DFT method relies on artificially-chosen energy parameters inside core region, and the weight parameter (= occupancy ), cut-off energy in the valence band electrons, which is unable to predict anything.

This website says ↓

p.39(or p.36)-last-paragraph says "Assuming the spherical approximation, one can construct energy dependent basis functions ul(r,E ) within the muffin-tin spheres (= core region ) by solving the corresponding radial Schrodinger equation for an energy parameter Ek.

p.51(p.48)-3.1.3 Determination of the energy parameters-(3.15) mentions the occupation or the state of weight ω_k which can artificially determine the probabilities of valance-electron band's (plane) wavefunctions with momentum (= or kinetic energy ) k influencing density ρ and total energy parameter E in p.52-(3.17).

p.52(or p.49)-4th-paragraph mentions "atomic energy parameters (= AFP)" which can artificially determine eigenenergies (= energy parameters ) of the states of an artificial (= fake ) atomic problem, which consists of the spherical part of the effective (= approximate ) potential in the MT (= muffin-tin or core ) sphere.

Energy parameters, weight, Fermi energy have to be artificially chosen with No quantum mechanical prediction.

This other website also says ↓

p.16(p.14) says "All-electron methods have to cope with the singularity. Since this singularity cannot be dealt with variationally, one typically works here with basis functions, which are the numerical solution of (-Δ + V_eff-E_l)φ = 0 of the effective (spherical) potential (= fictitious potential ) containing the singularity, computed in a sphere around the atom at a given energy parameter"

p.22(or p.20)-2nd-paragraph says "the standard FLAPW (= full-potential LAPW ) functions u_l and dot-u plus a further radial function u_lo. This new radial function is constructed in the same way as u_l, but with a different energy parameter"

p.29(or p.27)-4.3 artificially choose Fermi energy (= E_F which is about valence electron's energy, which is different in different atoms ) and weight parameter ω (= different in different wavenumber or momentum k ).  ← No quantum mechanical prediction

p.30(or p.28)-(87) uses this artificially-chosen weight parameter ω to determine electron density in different k or momentum states.

p.32(or p.30)-(99) artificially determines energy parameters E_l by using this artificially-chosen weight parameter ω (= occupation number f, this p.7 )

↑ As a result, not only in fictional pseudo-potential but also in all-electron full-potential methods, quantum mechanics and its mainstream one-pseudo-electron DFT have to artificially choose various ad-hoc parameters such as energy parameters, weight, muffin-tin core radius, local energy.. which is Not a quantum mechanical prediction.

Random phase approximation has to rely on artificially-chosen atomic energies, so it cannot predict Coulomb, Hubbard interaction energy parameter U.

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Alphafold cannot discover drugs

Molecular dynamics (= MD ) based on pseudo-potentials called force fields is impractical, too time-consuming to explain actual molecular or biological reactions.

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

Impractical, time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ) is the only method of simulating dynamical molecular or protein's motions.

All protein docking predicting tools and Alphafold (= just guessing static protein conformation ) are useless, unable to explain protein's dynamical conformational change or drug interaction.

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

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

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

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

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

Useless Schrödinger equation → one-pseudo-electron DFT or quasiparticle model with pseudo-potential lacking real atomic shapes is the current mainstream method. → time-consuming impractical MD with pseudo-potential called force field.

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

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

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

MD unable to give actual shapes to individual atoms has to rely on (useless) pseudo-potentials or force fields.

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

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

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

This p.2-left-3rd-paragraph says
"use of ab initio results by themselves is Not sufficient"  ← Quantum mechanics is useless for molecular dynamical simulation.

↑ Precise adjustment of MD's pseudo-potential parameters needs the precise experimental results of protein conformational change, which is impossible to obtain in today's experiments (= X-ray crystallography ) just looking at static protein structures.

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

Unphysical quantum mechanics prohibits MD from giving shapes to individual atoms.  → MD has to move each atom based on pseudo-potential or force fields little by little, very slowly, which takes too much time.

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

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

Instead, MD updates each atomic position by differentiating pseudo-potential or force field (= V or U ) and giving the fictitious force (= F = ΔV or ΔU ) at short time intervals repeatedly, many, many times ( this or this p.5-29,  this p.1-14,  this p.2-4 ).

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

Each time interval or step must be less than 2 femtoseconds (= 2fs = 2 × 10^-15 s ), so simulation of the 1-μs (= 1 × 10^-6 s ) motion of a molecule or a protein needs as many as 10⁹ time steps of calculating and updating each atomic position, which unrealistically takes too much time.

Time-consuming MD needs 3 years to simulate only millisecond molecular motion, which is completely impractical.

This 3~5th-paragaraphs say
"To obtain accurate predictions, molecular dynamics uses a stepping scheme, in which the system is approximated not in one whole step, but over thousands of smaller “time steps”. This requires that each step must be small, and our current capabilities allow for steps that are about a femtosecond ( 10^-15s = fs ) long."

"However, many biomolecular events occur in the range of milliseconds and seconds. The time scale difference between the integration time step and the time of biological events implies that about 10¹² integration (= calculation ) steps must be completed to reach a millisecond-scale event."

"Models of biological systems are large and frequently include hundreds of thousands of particles. Therefore, even the calculation of a single integration step is expensive. On advanced super computers, computation speeds are measured in microsecond biological time (10^-6s) per day of calculation (= the time-consuming MD needs one day to simulate only the microsecond molecular motion ). A calculation of a single millisecond trajectory requires 10³ days, or about three years."

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

Molecular dynamics (= MD ) can simulate only very short molecular or protein change (< 1μs ), which is useless for simulating actual proteins or drug discovery.

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

The present only simulating method or molecular dynamics (= MD ) takes too much time, obstructing all the applied science, medicine.

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

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

Even just microsecond molecular dynamical simulation needs days ~ months, which is too time-consuming and impractical.

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

This p.3-right-1st-paragraph says ↓

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

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

Simulating protein's or enzymatic reaction by such an extremely time-consuming MD is impossible.

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

This-abstract-upper says
"However, enabling MD simulations to access biologically relevant timescales (e.g., beyond milliseconds) still remains challenging"

This-p.3-left-2nd-paragraph says
"atomistic MD calculations using empirical force fields typically use time steps of the order of femtoseconds (i.e. 10^-15 seconds), being able to compute few nanoseconds with a personal computer, but far from the millisecond to second timescales of domain motions and allosteric transitions occurring in some enzymes."

Ab-initio molecular dynamics (= AIMD ) is more time-consuming and impractical than classical MD.

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

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

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

Molecular dynamics (= MD ) moving each atom little by little is too time-consuming → Treating multiple atoms as one big pseudo-atom sacrificing accuracy is coarse-grained MD, which is useless, too.

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

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

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

this p.2-1st-paragraph says
"some of the fine (and perhaps critically important) details of atomic interactions are lost during coarse-grain simulations."

This-introduction-3rd-paragraph says
"the coarse-grained models lack the atomic details of the interactions, yet the interaction parameters were fitted by all-atom simulations or experimental results."

this p.2-introduction says
"However, owing to the loss of information, capturing atomistic properties through CGMD (= coarse-grained molecular dynamics ) or simply CG simulations is a challenge"

This 2nd-paragraph says
"many CG methods suffer from an inability to correctly predict more than one or two material properties"

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

Monte-Carlo method just randomly moving atoms is also time-consuming, incorrect, impractical

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

This p.1-left-2nd-last-paragraph says
"MC (= Monte Calro ) simulations apply random moves to sample the phase space, subject to transition probabilities that lead to the equilibrium distribution. Therefore, MC moves do Not need to have any physical meaning"

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

Quantum mechanics unable to give shapes and boundaries to individual atoms led to impractical, time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ) based on pseudo-potential or force field.

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

Quantum mechanics forbidding individual atoms from having concrete shapes needs unrealistically-time-consuming MD based on pseudo-potential.

Molecular dynamics (= MD ) has to move atoms lacking clear boundaries and shapes little by little based on pseudo-potential or force field, taking too much time.

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

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

Quantum mechanics or MD with shapeless atoms, which cannot know when two atoms collide, needs to move atoms little by little repeatedly at extremely-short time steps, taking too much time.

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

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

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

As a result, molecular dynamics has to update each atomic position at extremely-short-time intervals (= each time interval or step must be less than 2 fs or 2 × 10^-15 ) repeatedly, many, many times by differentiating pseudo-potentials or force-fields in each time step, which takes an enormous amount of time ( this or this p.5-29,  this-what is an MD-4th-paragraph ).

Choosing a longer time step (= each atom can move a longer distance at one step ) in MD causes more errors by two atoms more likely to unrealistically overlap each other.  → So MD has to choose shorter time step (< 2fs ), and repeat many step calculations, taking too much time.

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

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

Each time step longer than 2fs is likely to cause energy explosion or wrong results by MD atoms unrealistically colliding and overlapping.

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

This p.10-1st-paragraph says
"Too large a time step (> 2fs ) can cause a molecular dynamics simulation to become unstable, with the total energy rapidly increasing with time. This behavior is often colloquially termed exploding and it is caused by devastating atomic collisions that occur when a large time step propagates the positions of two atoms to be nearly overlapping; the repulsive interactions then create a strong force that propels these atoms apart."

This p.1-lower~p.2 says
"If too large a time step τ is used, the motion of particles becomes unstable...
This behavior is often called exploding and caused by devastating atomic collisions that occur when a large time step propagates the positions of two atoms to be nearly overlapping, the interaction creates a strong repulsive force repelling these atoms far apart."

Giving actual shapes to individual atoms by forgetting impractical MD (or quantum mechanics pseudo-atoms ) solves the problem.

All macroscopic touchable objects have shapes, so microscopic atoms also have their shapes, which contradict quantum mechanical shapeless pseudo-atoms or one-pseudo-electron DFT.

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

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

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

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

We already have technology of manipulating individual atoms, so using realistic atomic models with actual shapes can lead to technological innovation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

See this page

See this.

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

QED needs unreal virtual particles and an illegitimate trick called renormalization artificially canceling virtual photons' infinity by another infinite parameters, which cannot predict any physical values such as anomalous magnetic moment.

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

The present maninstream quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) needs unrealistic virtual particles to explain physical phenomena, so QED is an unphysical theory.

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

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

Einstein relativity unreasonably rejected the existence of real medium in space, so it needs ad-hoc dark matter and unreal virtual photons with non-existent longitudinal polarization and imaginary mass (= mass squared of virtual particle is unrealistically negative ) that contradicts the relativistic mc² relation in order to explain electromagnetic force ( this p.9-10,  this p.3,  this p.15 ).

QED's calculation values always diverge to meaningless infinities that cannot predict any physical values.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quantum mechanical Pauli principle based on fictional spin and exchange energy is unreal, paradoxical and obstructing science.

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

Unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli exchange energy requires a single electron to always exist in all different atoms, which atoms become shapeless, borderless and unable to exert real force.

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

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

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

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

Real objects have shapes and exert contact force, which cannot be explained by the unphysical quantum mechanics.

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

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

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

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

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

Antisymmetric wavefunction causes the unphysical Pauli exchange energy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quantum mechanical Pauli principle caused by electron's kinetic energy increase (= by antisymmetric exchange wavefunction ) contradicts the real repulsion that should decelerate or decrease kinetic energy of approaching atoms or electrons !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See this page

Particle physics, standard model lack reality, just wasting money in fictional useless particles.

See Particle physics is unreal.

Quantum chromodynamics (= QCD ) fails to describe real nuclei.

See QCD is unreal.

Black holes, BigBang, wormholes, neutron stars, gravitational wave are all useless fiction Not worth spending time and money on. Einstein relativistic theory proved to be wrong.

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

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

The theory of everything = extra-dimensions !

[ 10-dimensional string theory is the only unified theory. ]

(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.

Quantum mechanical atom is unreal.

[ Quantum mehanics has unreal zero angular momentum. ]

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

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

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

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

Reason why Schrödinger's hydrogen is wrong.

Impossible negative kinetic energy and contradictory probability wavefunction show quantum mechanics is false.

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

Hydrogen wavefunction includes the impossible negative kinetic energy region.

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

For example, in hydrogen's 2p wavefunction with orbital angular momentum L = 1, in the regions closer to the nucleus, kinetic energy in the direction of angular momentum increases to infinity ( = L(L+1)/r² → ∞  r → 0,  this p.3-lower,  this p.2-lower ), which must be canceled by the impossible negative kinetic energy in the radial direction.

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

Quantum mechanical probability wavefunctions change their shapes in a contradictory way where wavefunctions eventually fly away to infinity.

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

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

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

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

This contradictory probability wavefunction shows quantum mechanics is wrong.

A tiny electron has to spin much faster than light to generate the observed magnetic field (= Bohr magneton ), so the electron spin is unphysical, unreal.

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

An electron is Not really spinning.

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

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

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

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

Electron spin has the same Bohr magneton as Bohr's electron's orbit.

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

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

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

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

A tiny electron must be spinning much faster than light to generate the observed magnetic moment (= Bohr magneton ) that can be naturally explained by electron's orbit.

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

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

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

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

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

Electron spin is Not a real spinning.

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 principle, ferromagnet, fine structure, anomalous Zeeman effect are irrelevant to spin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stern-Gerlach experiment showed a silver atom has a electron's orbit with Bohr magneton instead of the unrealistic electron spin.

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

Stern-Gerlach experiment proved an atomic magnetic field comes from the real electron's orbit with Bohr magneton ( Not spin ).

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

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

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

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

Electron spin is unrealistic.

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.

An unrealistic electron spin is said to need to rotate twice (= 720^o rotation instead of 360^o ! ) to return to the original state.

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

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

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

Experiments also showed a neutron returned by 360^o rotation instead of 720^o, so No evidence of spin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quantum mechanics is harmful.

[ Unreal quantum mechanics stops all applied science from advancing. ]

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

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

Relativistic spin-orbit effect is unrealistic.

(F) Einstein relativistic effect causes serious paradox

Relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction is paradoxical and unreal.

[ Atomic energy level splitting under magnetic field (= Zeeman ) does Not need electron's spin. ]

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

Hydrogen, cadmium, mercury showed Normal Zeeman effect, which disproves spin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Anomalous Zeeman effect is due to "inner electrons", not by unphysical electron spin. ]

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

Sodium D-line anomalous Zeeman energy splitting is Not by paradoxical spin-orbit interaction but by inner electrons.

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

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

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

Sodium D-line or fine structure is said to be caused by relativistic spin-orbit (effective) magnetic interaction.
But this relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction is paradoxical and too weak to explain sodium or alkaline large D-line energy splitting.

Anomalous Zeeman effect disagrees with quantum mechanical spin by Lande g-factor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction is too weak to explain sodium (= Na ) D-lines or fine structure energy splitting.

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

Sodium (= Na ) D-line energy splitting is too big for relativistic spin-orbit magnetic energy, so there is No electron spin.

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

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

Relativistic spin-orbit magnetic energy splitting or fine structure formula is proportional to Z⁴/n³ where Z is central charge that must be close to 1 (= Z is the sum of nuclear positive charge and all inner electrons except for one outmost valence electron ), and "n" is principal quantum number ( this p.3,  this p.9,  this p.7,  this p.14 ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sodium (= Na ) large D-line or fine structure splitting needs unreaistically-large +3.54 Na+ charge which disagrees with actual Na+ charge of +1.84.  → Spin is unreal.

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

Ionization energy shows the Na outmost electron feels Z =+1.84e core charge that disagrees with spin-orbit interaction theory that gives unrealistically-big Z = 3.54

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

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

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

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

Both hydrogen and sodium atoms have the similar structure with only one valence (= outer ) electron, so we can use the common ionization energy formula where the total energy is proportional to Z²/n² where n is principal quantum number, Z is effective central charge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spin magnetic energy is too small to cause Pauli exclusion force.
Pauli exchange energy is unreal, lacking real exchange force.

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

Quantum mechanical spin cannot explain Pauli exclusion principle.

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

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

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

But a electron spin is Not a real spinning.
And the electron spin-spin magnetic energy is known to be too weak to explain strong Pauli repulsive energy ( this p.5 ).

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

Electron spin-spin magnetic energy is too weak to explain Pauli exclusion principle.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quantum mechanical Pauli principle needs unphysical exchange energy lacking real exchange force that hampers science progress.

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

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

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

Quantum mechanical Pauli exchange energy contradicts real physical mechanism.

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

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

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

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

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

Electron spin magnetic moment is too weak to explain ferromagnetism that must be explained by the realistic electron's orbits meshing with each other by stronger electric force.

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

Quantum electron spin is unrealistic and unable to explain stable ferromagnetism such as irons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ferromagnetism is caused by realistic electron's orbit, Not by the unphysical spin.

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

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

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

Quantum mechanical unreal spin model has No power to explain ferromagnetism or anti-ferromagnetism.

See No evidence that quantum mechanical spin causes (anti-)ferromagnet.

Fine structure agreed with Bohr-Sommerfeld model.

[ Bohr-Sommerfeld model agreed with any experimental energy states including fine structure. ]

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

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

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

Tiny energy-splitting Lamb shift is due to just thermal fluctuation or fine structure between 3d3/2 and 3d5/2 states irrelevant to unrealistic QED virtual photons.

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

Quantum mechanical Dirac hydrogen's fine structure is self-contradictory, so Bohr-Sommerfeld's fine structure without spin is right.

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

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

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

Negligibly-tiny Lamb shift can be explained by ordinary fine structure without spin and thermal fluctuation

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

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

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

Quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) relying on contradictory virtual particles cannot predict Lamb shift.

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

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

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

This p.3-left-6th-paragaph says
"As you can see, Bethe’s fantastic calculation is based on data that was calculated later, so Bethe could not have known it on his train journey. His calculation included this value that we suspect that was entered ad hoc to match the theoretical value with the experimental value.. fudge factor"

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

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

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

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

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

Electron de Broglie wave was experimentally confirmed.

[ de Broglie relation was confirmed in various experiments. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A single electron interference = fantasy parallel worlds ?

[ Quantum mechanics and Einstein relativity need unreal parallel worlds to explain interference of an electron. ]

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

[ Quantum mechanics promotes the ridiculous theory where even a single electron could pass through two slits simultaneously using fantasy superposition or parallel worlds. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Giving up fantasy quantum mechanics and separating a real particle from real wave is the only realistic solution. ]

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

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

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

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

Schrödinger equation uses de Broglie wave.

[ Schrödinger hydrogen also obeys an integer times de Broglie wave rule like Bohr atomic model. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a hidden trick of the only solvable Schrödinger's solution = hydrogen atom, which results just agree with Bohr's hydrogen.
But only Schrödinger wave functions include unphysical orbitals, so false.

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

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

Schrödinger "distorts" de Broglie relation.

[ Quantum theory uses de Broglie relation, but "distorts" it ! ]

(Fig.19)  Quantum mechanical wavefunction is unreal.

Quantum mechanics is false in hydrogen's wave function.

Because the square of momentum p of Schrödinger's electron is Not equal to p², so, the equation of p² = p² is Not satisfied in quantum mechanics ?  ← Why does such an irrational thing happen ?

Schrodinger equation adopted de Broglie relation as "derivative" form.
The first derivative of momentum operator acting on wavefunction gets the momentum p, and the second derivative of wavefunction gets the square p².

Of course, when momentum p is zero, its square p² must be zero, too.
But only when a wavefunction has basic " cos" or "sin" form, it holds true.

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

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

On these boundaries (= two positions where electron's kinetic energy is zero ), the second derivative is zero ( p² = 0 ), but first derivative (= p ) is not zero (= the slope of wave function is not zero, which means the momentum p is not zero ) !  This is ridiculous.

It's quite natural that when p is zero, its square p² is zero, too !
So quantum mechanics distorts original de Broglie relation with wrong math.

Quantum mechanics just chooses fake trial wavefunctions for unsolvable multi-electron Schrödinger equations.

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

Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations cannot predict any multi-electron atoms.

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

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

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

Quantum mechanics just chooses fake trial wavefunctions for unsolvable Schrödinger equations, which is useless.

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

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

There is No limit to the number of parameters of trial wavefunction.
Variational methods normally try to find the (fake) trial function giving the lowest (= ground-state ) energy, but there are infinite choices of trial wavefunctions, so it's impossible to know the lowest energy based on this dubious variational method.

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

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

It is far better to use experimental energy values than to waste too much time in meaningless time-consuming quantum mechanical equations that cannot predict anything.

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

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

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

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

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

Schrödinger equations rely on the one-electron hydrogen atomic wavefunctions whose energies agree with Bohr's realistic atoms.

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

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

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

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

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

An electron is "everywhere" in fantasy quantum mechanics.

[ A single electron exists in multiple different atoms simultaneously using parallel worlds in quantum mechanics ? ]

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

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

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

Quantum mechanical Pauli exchange energy is based on unphysical kinetic energy change by demanding each single electron exist in all different atoms in antisymmetric wavefunctions.

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

Pauli exchange energy is caused by unphysical antisymmetric wavefunction where every single electron must exist in all atoms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unphysical exchange energy is due to pseudo-kinetic energy change instead of real force.

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

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

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

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

Unphysical Pauli exchange energy is a culprit of hampering science progress.

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

[ Quantum mechanical DFT treats the whole material as unreal one pseudo-electron model, which is useless. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quantum mechanical DFT has No ability to predict physical values, just "choosing" fake potential energy.

[ Fake potential energy called "exchange-correlation functional" is just artificially "chosen" in DFT.  ← cannot predict any values or describe reality. ]

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

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

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

In DFT, we need to artificially choose fake potential energy, 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 cannot be solved ).

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

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

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

Nobody can tell the size and shape of a (fictional) single photon that cannot explain light wave interference.

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

Quantum mechanical idea that light can be both a particle and wave is impossible.  Light is definitely wave.

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

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

Quantum mechanics still cannot tell the size and shape of the (fictional) photon particle, which means a photon does Not exist.

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

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

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

Quantum mechanics needs unrealistic parallel worlds or superposition to explain interference of a single photon.

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

This p.2-2nd-last-paragraph says
"the (single) photon passes through both slits simultaneously and when the single photon emerges through both slits, it interferes with itself (= impossible )"

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

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

Photodetectors just detect electrons excited by light wave, Not a photon.

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

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

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

Quantum field theory or QED can only show fictitious photons as nonphysical math symbols with No shapes nor size.

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

As a result, there is No such thing as a photon particle.
All observed phenomena show Light is just wave traveling through the medium.

An electron can emit or absorb only an unreal virtual photon with imaginary mass in (fictional quantum mechanical) photoelectric effect.

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

Photoelectric effect can be perfectly explained by light wave (= Not a photon particle )

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

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

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

A quantum mechanical electron can interact only with unreal virtual photon in photoelectric effect.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compton scattering changing light wavelength proved that light is wave, Not a photon particle.

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

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

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

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

A single photon detector can Not detect a (fictional) photon.

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

When incident weak light's power surpasses some detection threshold, it was detected as a fictional photon.

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

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

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

Increasing bias voltage increases the chance of the photodetector detecting weak light as a fictional photon.

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

This p.8(or p.6)-1st-paragarph says
"for the light counts we see increasing counts as the (reverse) bias voltage is raised. Once again, we expect this, because a greater bias voltage creates a greater avalanche effect (= more fictional photons are detected as electronic current,  this p.3-APD )"

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

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

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

Bohr model electron does Not radiate energy just by orbiting around a nucleus.

[ A 'single' moving electron does Not lose or radiate energy. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bohr's electron does NOT radiate energy.

[ When an electron is a fictitious spherical conductor consisting of "many smaller charges", it loses energy. ]

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

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

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

The theory of an accelerated charge radiating energy uses "electric energy density field" (= energy = 1/2εE² ) stored in vacuum around spherical conductor packing many smaller repulsive charges ( this p.4,  this p.2 ).

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

So if a single accelerated electron really radiates and loses energy while it orbits around a nucleus, this single electron must be like a fictitious spherical conductor which collects and packs many smaller negative charges into a single electron's tiny body (= whose electric energy density around a fictitious electron consisting of many smaller charges becomes 1/2εE² ).  ← It's imossible and inconsistent with the fact that a single electron is very stable and unbreakable.

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

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

Quantum mechanics and paradoxical Einstein relativity need unreal virtual photons to explain electromagnetic force and photons emitted by electrons.

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

Quantum field theory allows only unreal virtual photons to interact with electrons.

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

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

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

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

So if Einstein relativity is right (= if there is no space "medium" mediating forces ), the physics needs unreal virtual particles or virtual photons interacting with real electrons with unreal imaginary masses (= if total energy and momentum are conserved between a electron and an emitted photon ) which violate Einstein's mc² mass-energy relation ( this p.6, this p.4-last-paragraph, this p.3 ) or violate energy conservation law ( this p.10,  this p.3 ) against the fact that all real particles must always conserve total energies and momentums ( this 5th-paragraph,  this 5th-paragraph ) !

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

Quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) giving only meaningless infinities due to fictional virtual photons has No ability to predict any physical values.

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

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

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

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

↑ The present relativistic quantum field theory and QED requiring unreal virtual particles for explaining physical forces are self-contradictory (= virtual particles contradict Einstein famous relativistic mc² mass-energy relation,  this p.10-11,  this p.4-2nd-last-paragraph,  this p.4 ), hence wrong theories.

The present physics heavily relies on fictitious particles.

[ Particle physics relies on "unreal" virtual particles in all interactions. ]

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

See this page in detail.

Quantum mechanics is useless in solid physics.

[ Many-electron material must be described as "one fake quasiparticle with unreal mass" ?  ← quantum mechanical model is useless ! ]

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

All the current physics researches rely on unrealistic models such as quasiparticles and DFT.

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

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

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

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

An indivisible electron 'splits' into multiple (fictional) quasiparticles ?

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

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

↑ Of course, these unrealistic quasiparticles with fictional fractional charges, the separate spin-charge are directly unobservable.
Physicists just "imagine" these fictional quasiparticles when they (mis)interpret the observed electric conductance and magnetic properties ( this p.5-11,  this p.7 ).

Quantum mechanics can only describe superconductor by fictitious unphysical quasiparticle model.

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

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

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

Fictional quansiparticles such as magnetic monopole contradict reality.

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

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

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

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

Quantum mechanics unable to deal with multi-electron phenomena needs unphysical quasiparticle approximation.

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

Even in the recent researches, physicists try to explain some magnetic properties or fictitious spintronics using new fictitious quasiparticle model called Hopfion ( this p.1-right-2nd-paragraph ) related to quasiparticle skyrmion, giving up using real particle model.

↑ This is why our scientific progress has stopped for more than 100 years, as long as quantum mechanical pseudo-model is used as (fictitious) underlying atomic model, and physicists never try to replace these pseudo-quasiparticle model by real particles such as electrons, because the contradictory quantum mechanics is unable to deal with any multi-electron atomic phenomena.

Most ordinary people may Not have heard about the terrible fact that even the latest physics actually makes No progress, stuck in unrealistic quantum mechanical quasiparticle pseudo-model, because the media is flooded with a lot of misleading science news desperately trying to hide this important fact.

If you see some original scientific papers, you can easily find most of the present researches rely on these fictitious quasiparticle model with fake effective mass (= these fictitious masses are freely adjustable parameters, hence No ability to predict any physical values ) where each particles are just expressed as nonphysical math symbols which abstract meaningless expressions tell us nothing about detailed underlying physical mechanisms ( this p.2,  this p.6,  this p.7 ).

The present unphysical mainstream condensed matter physics tries to describe the whole many-electron material as fictitious band containing only one pseudo-electron with fake effective mass and quasi-momentum expressed as one-pseudo-electron DFT approximation.  ← No progress in atomic phyiscs.

Today's physics relies on unreal quasiparticles.

[ Quasiparticle has fake mass and charge, so meaningless. ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And by illuminating various materials with classical laser lights and measuring the optical response, physicists jumped to the wrong conclusion that they might have found (unreal) negative mass, charge-orbit separation ( this 4th paragraph ), massless pseudo-particle ( this p.2-right ), and solar cells driven by illusory quasiparticles..

So all quantum mechanical researchers are doing now is just measure classical electromagnetic properties such as electric conductance, resistance and absorption of light, and intentionally try to associate those actually-observed physical phenomena with fictitious quantum mechanical model such as quasiparticles with unreal mass or charge.  ← nonsense.

Because quantum mechanics has No ability to describe microscopic underlying mechanism using real electrons with real fixed mass and charge from the beginning.  → Quantum mechanics had No choice but to rely on "illegitimate cheating", as seen in unphysical exchange energy or virtual particles.

Quasiparticle has No physical shape.

[ Quantum mechanical particles have No reality. ]

(Fig.34)  Quantum mechanical particles (= a^†, b^†, c^† .. ) are just nonphysical symbols with No shape or size.

The present mainstream quantum mechanics and quantum field theory can only describe each electron, (fictitious) photon and quasiparicles as nonphysical math symbols with No concrete figure and shape ( this p.3 ), which is unable to explain real physical mechanism forever.

For example, in the famous BCS theory of superconductor, quantum mechanics uses only unphysical meaningless math symbols to express electrons and fictitious quasiparticles such as phonons, Cooper pair, Bogoliubov quasiparticles ( this p.4,  this p.9,  this p.4 ).

↑ Actually, this BCS theory failed to explain various (high temperature) superconductivity.

Quantum computer is fiction, an impossible dream.

[ Quantum computer can do multiple calculations simultaneously using fantasy parallel worlds ? ]

(Fig.35)  Multiple computations using parallel worlds ?

Quantum computer research is deadend with No progress.

Quantum computer are all impractical, forever.

(F.36)   No evidence of faster quantum computer

All types of qubits are hopeless.

[ Quantum mechanical particles expressed as nonphysical math oeprators (= a^†, b^†.. ) have No physical shape, telling us nothing about detailed physical mechanism.  ← useless. ]

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

Quantum mechanics tells us nothing about detailed figures of particles, just giving nonphysical meaningless math symbols as (fictitious) particles with fake effective masses.

The impractical quantum mechanics can only express particles and electrons as nonphysical math symbols (= each particle = a^†, b^†, c^†,.. with No detailed shapes or sizes ) with No concrete physical shapes in all physics ( this p.2 ), condensed matter fields such as semiconductors ( this p.2 ), superconductors ( this p.3 ), band theories ( this p.2 ) with unreal effective mass ( this p.9-right ).

Unscientific quantum mechanics can also only describe fictitious photon particles as nonphysical meaningless math symbols (= each photon = a^†, b^†,.. = giving No detailed figures of photons,  this p.16,  this p.8,  this p.2-right )

The useless quantum mechanical condensed matter physics has to rely on unreal quasiparticle model such as phonons ( this p.13-lower ) to explain various phenomena such as superconductors by using only the abstract nonphysical interaction term between electrons and unreal phonon quasiparticles (= ex. phonon's creation oeprator b^† ) expressed as meaningless math symbols ( this p.4,  this p.6 ).

In these nonphysical quantum mechanical particle description, Pauli exclusion principle is also described as nonphysical math description called anticommutation of nonphysical electron particles. which abstract forms give No detailed physical mechanism of Pauli principle, so completely useless ( this p.6-upper (or p.8 ),  this p.7 ).

Pauli principle by quantum field theory lacks reality.

[ The present physics gives No detailed Pauli mechanism. ]

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

Exchanging two unphysical math operators allegedly expressing two electrons flips the sign = Pauli principle ?

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

Quantum mechanics refuses to give concrete physical mechanism of Pauli explusion principle, except for just saying Pauli principle was expressed just as nonphysical antisymmetric wavefunction where exchanging two electrons are supposed to flip the sign of the whole antisymmetric wavefunction (= which was proved to be false ).

In quantum field theory using relativistic Dirac equation which expresses each electron as a mere abstract math symbol, the mechanism of Pauli exclusion principle is also expressed just as meaningless abstract math relation called anticommutation ( this p.3, this p.7,  this p.2 upper,  this p.5-lower,  this p.4,  this p.52-53 (or 45-47)-(3.53),  this-(8.2.14),(8.2.22),  this 3-5th-paragraphs,  this p.6 )

Two unphysical quantum mechanical electrons c1, c2 are exchanged. → c1c2 = - c2c1  ← The sign becomes opposite, which abstract anticommutation relation tells us nothing about detailed Pauli principle.

In anticommutation relation allegedly denoting Pauli principle, when two electrons (= c1 ↔ c2 ) are exchanged, the sign is changed.  ← That's all.  No more detailed explanation of Pauli exclusion repulsion is given by quantum mechanics.

↑ So in this abstract quantum field theory's Pauli principle description, if two electron particles (= expressed as nonphysical math symbols c1 and c2 ) are the same ( c1 = c2 ), those electron particles vanish ( c1c2 = - c2c1, → when c1=c2, → c1c1= - c1c1 → 2(c1)² = 0 → c1 (and c2 ) = 0,  = Pauli exclusion principle !?  this p.6 or p.8-upper,  this p.6, this p.1-2,  this p.9 )  ← Nonsense.

What causes Pauli principle is unknown forever, as long as unphysical quantum mechanics continues to be the mainstream theory.

As you see, unscientific quantum mechanics has given up pursuing deeper physical mechanism for a long time, fearing many self-contradictions and unrealistic aspect inherent in quantum mechanics will be exposed, when we start to look into true underlying mechanism.

All quantum mechanics, relativistic quantum field theory, QED and particle physics are unreal.

[ Quantum field theory = quantum mechanics + Einstein relativity  → fantasy extra-dimensional unified theory wasting money in meaningless gigantic particle colliders for pursing imaginary useless particles forever. ]

(F.39)  All Einstein relativity, quantum mechanics, relativistic quantum field theory, QED, particle physics lack reality.

See this page in detail.

How an electron emits a photon ?

[ How each electron interacts with a photon cannot be clarified in nonphysical quantum field theory. ]

(F.40)  ↓ Unrealistic picture of quantum field theory

See this page in detail.

The present particle physics is filled with too many unreal, unnecessary particles.

[ Particle physics, standard model continues to waste money and time in gigantic meaningless colliders only for pursuing fictional useless unstable particles in vain, forever. ]

(F.41)  Unseen fractional-charge quark, Higgs, W,Z bosons are unobservable, unreal and useless forever.

See this page in detail.

[ Muon is unreal ]

See this page in detail.

[ Standard model predicts nothing ]

See this page in detail.

[ Fractional-charge quarks are unreal. ]

See this page in detail.

Particle physics loses touch with reality.

[ Nonphysical "symmetry" was introduced as a "fake target" for useless particle physics. ]

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

The present particle physics or standard model relies on unphysical meaningless symmetry irrelevant to real world's phenomena.

Quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) is false.

[ QED uses a wrong math trick of canceling out infinity by introducing another chosen infinite value. ]

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

Quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) is an unsuccessful theory just artificially manipulating infinite bare charge, mass parameters to cancel virtual particle's infinite energies to illegitimately obtain tiny,tiny Lamb shift and anomalous magnetic moment, so an unreal and useless theory

Antiparticles are unreal

[ Unreal positron emission is replaced by real electron capture in PET, so antiparticle is unnecessary. ]

(F.44)  Positron (= antiparticle ) emission is impossible.

[ Positron is doubtful. ]

See this page in detail.

[ PET doesn't use antiparticles. ]

See this page in detail.

[ Pair production is Not antiparticle. ]

See this page in detail.

[ Antiprotons are unreal ]

See this page in detail.

[ Positrons are other particles. ]

See this page in detail.

[ Antihydrogen is unreal ]

See this page in detail.

[ Positronium is illusion. ]

See this page in detail.

Einstein relativistic theory is false.

[ Michelson-Morley experiment didn't deny the real light medium moving with the earth like air. ]

(F.45)  Light medium moving "with" the earth can perfectly explain the constant light speed c detected by Michelson-Morley experiment.

See this page in detail.

True paradoxes.

[ Observer can "bend" a rigid rod just by moving !? ]

(F.46)  Different clock times in different positions.

See this page in detail.

True paradoxes-2

(F.47)  "Block" changes the rod "future" direction.<

See this page in detail.

Electromagnetic paradoxes

[ Lorentz magnetic force contradicts Einstein relativity. ]

(F.48)  A stationary observer K sees the neutral wire (= charge density ρ_e = 0 ) with electric current J_x generating magnetic field B, which is magically seen as the electrically-charged wire (= whose charge density ρ_e' is Not zero ! ) generating the electric field E_z' from the viewpoint of a moving observer K' !

See this page in detail.

Electromagnetic paradoxes-2

(F.49)  An external negative charge (= - ) is Not attracted toward the neutral wire seen by the stationary observer K, but the same negative charge appears to be attracted and moved closer to the same wire magically transforming from the electrically-neutral to positively-charged seen by the moving observer K' = this is true unsolvable paradox

See this page in detail.

Einstein mc² is false.

[ Relativistic mass and energy magically increase or decrease depending on observer's movement ]

(F.50)   Mass (= energy ) change is "relative", NOT absolute

See this page in detail.

de Broglie wave paradox.

[ de Broglie wavelength (= λ ) contradicts special relativity. ]

(F.51)  Electron's de Broglie wave vanishes !?

See this page in detail.

GPS time paradox.

[ Which of two satellite clocks is slower ?  ← Paradox of relativity,  which cannot be fixed ! ]

(F.52)  Which satellite clock ticks more slowly ? = paradox.

See this page in detail.

Black hole paradox

[ Infinite time is needed to form black hole whose clock time stops. ]

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

See this page in detail

Big Bang is illusion.

[ Universe expansion has No evidence. ]

(F.54)  Driving force to expand universe is dark energy ← NOT diluted ?  Unreal negative pressure ?

See this page in detail

Gravitational wave paradox

[ Gravitational wave is unreal, contradicting Einstein relativity. ]

(Fig.54')   Black hole, gravitational wave are illuson.

See this page in detail.

Quantum information is useless.

[ Photon used as quantum information is just "classical light".   = No quantum mechanics. ]

(F.55)  Weak light is destroyed = eavesdropping is detected ?

Quantum information, internet, cryptography and key distribution are all useless forever, and their photons are just very weak classical light wave. No quantum mechanics

See this page.

Avoiding destructive interference of two electrons' de Broglie waves.  → Helium two orbits cross "perpendicularly".  → perfectly agree with experimental energies of helium atom, helium-like ions and real Pauli principle mechanism.

(Fig.57) Two electrons' de Broglie waves crossing perpendicularly to avoid destructive interference agree with experimental Helium orbits and energies.

Bohr's realistic atomic model perfectly agreed with experimental hydrogen's energies, and obtained Nobel prize.

Bohr's atomic model successfully explained energy levels of all hydrogen-like atoms, ions, even fine structure, and obtained Nobel prize.  But it could not explain two-electron Helium atom.  Why ?

Many experiments showed an electron causes de Broglie wave whose wavelength was determined by observing its interference (= pattern of constructive and destructive interference ).

↑ So we have to naturally consider the electron's de Broglie wave interference (= destructive and constructive interference ) in true atomic electron's orbits.

Realistic Bohr's atomic model could successfully explain the exact energy levels and spectral lines of all hydrogen-like atoms ( this p.2,  this p.4,  this 3rd-last-paragraph ) by using this de Broglie wave interference (= avoiding destructive interference of the electron's de Broglie wave in its quantized orbit ).

Quantum mechanical unrealistic Schrödinger equations also use this de Broglie wavelength, and agree with Bohr's atomic energies.  ← But the quantum mechanics must include unreal zero orbital angular momentum where the unrealistic electrons always crash into nuclei in linear orbits, and its unphysical wavefunctions (= representing quantum mechanical de Broglie waves ) are likely to cause destructive interference and become unstable.

↑ Quantum mechanical atomic model (= with its unreal electron spin and parallel-world probability ) contradicts the experimental observations of de Broglie wave destructive and constructive interference (= as seen in the unrealistic linear orbit of zero orbital angular momentum ), so depends on the wrong useless calculation method.

It is impossible for quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations to obtain exact helium atomic orbits and (conserved total) energies, even if it relies on computers, while Bohr's realistic model can get exact helium's orbit and the exact helium's conserved total energy by using a computer that did Not exist in 1920s, as I explain here.

In fact, the unphysical quantum mechanics relies on de Broglie wave destructive interference as the source of Pauli principle repulsive energy or antibond (= its electron spin magnetic energy is too weak to cause strong Pauli principle repulsion ), but it is based on contradictory kinetic energy increase through unphysical exchange energy that lacks real Pauli repulsive exchange force or real force carriers ( this p.9-10,  this introduction-3rd-paragraph ).

Two orbits of helium must be perpendicular to each other to avoid destructive interference of de Broglie waves.  → Perfect agreement with experimental energies and real Pauli principle.

Hydrogen and Helium atoms are the smallest atoms which are known to have up to two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits ( which correspond to Schrödinger equation 1s orbital giving the same energies as Bohr model,  this p.3-last ).

1 × de Broglie wavelength contains a pair of opposite phases of wave crest (= containing an electron particle ) and trough which 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 destructive 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 not only in a helium atom (= He ) but also in all helium-like ions (= Li+, Be2+, B3+, C4+ ..  ← we can obtain exact energy values in these realistic helium perpendicular orbits on the condition that two helium electrons are moving strictly conserving total energy in any positions, and their orbital length is 1 × de Broglie wavelength ), hence, it proves to be a right Helium atomic model.

Unlike the old circular orbit model, the calculation of two perpendicular Helium orbits is impossible by pen and paper. It needs modern computer calculating actual Coulomb force among two electrons and a nucleus and de Broglie wavelength at short time intervals, which could Not be done in 1920s when they chose wrong theory = quantum mechanics.

This destructive interference of real electron's de Broglie wave can naturally explain real Pauli exclusion principle without relying on unphysical quantum mechanical exchange energy (= pseudo-kinetic energy change ).

Electron's de Broglie wave interference must be considered in real helium model.

(Fig.58) Old Bohr's circular helium = electrons are expelled, so wrong.

In Old Bohr's circular helium, electrons are kicked out from orbits due to destructive interference between opposite de Broglie wave phases.

Actually, this old Helium model with a single circular orbit containing two electrons gives wrong ground state energy (= -83.33 eV,  this table.3-He → He2+ ) which is lower than true Helium ground state energy = -79.005 eV = the sum of 1st (= -24.5873 eV ) and 2nd (= -54.4177 eV ) ionization energies of helium.

Two 1 × de Broglie wavelength electron orbits must cross each other perpendicularly to avoid cancellation by destructive interference.

No more electron orbit can enter this new Helium, so it can explain Pauli exclusion principle using real wave or the real repulsive de Broglie wave destructive interference.

Real stable Bohr's helium atom must consist of two perpendicular orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength.

(Fig.59) Hydrogen and Helium atoms.

All these orbits are one de Broglie's wavelength.

In this new helium, the two symmetrical orbits crossing perpendicularly are wrapping the whole helium atom completely.

This new helium model is just consistent with the fact of the strong stability and the closed shell property of helium.

Helium atom is known to produce small magnetic field (= Helium has magnetic field called diamagnetic ).

Of course, helium's two orbits are constantly changing their directions, so unable to produce as stably-strong magnetic field as ferromagnet where two neighboring electron orbits in some materials with many orderly aligned atoms are meshing and synchronizing with each other by strong Coulomb force Not by unreal spin.

So Helium has magnetic moment (= spin up + spin down = no magnetic moment ? ) = diamagnetic means quantum mechanical Helium with No angular momentum disagrees with actual Helium producing magnetic moment, so quantum mechanical helium model with unreal spin is wrong and disagrees with experimental facts.

Computation shows this new helium model is correct, perfectly agreeing with experimental values !

Two electrons are moving, conserving the total energy strictly by Coulomb force in orbits perpendicular to each other which avoid "destructive" interference. = this realistic helium atomic model can perfectly predict the actual helium energy.

(Fig.60) Two same-shaped orbits are perpendicular to each other.

(Fig.61) Right r1 → electron-1 crosses y-axis perpendicularly

This realistic helium model with two perpendicular orbits perfectly agrees with experimental helium energy.

In this computing method, first, we input the initial x-coordinate (= r1 ) of electron-1, which makes the electron-1 start from ( r1, 0, 0 ), and the electron-2's initial position automatically becomes ( -r1, 0, 0 ).

The electron-1 is moving on x-y plane, and the electron-2 is moving on x-z plane to avoid the destructive interference of two de Broglie waves.

These two electrons are moving obeying Coulomb force, total energy conservation law strictly, and those electrons' positions, velocities, de Broglie wavelengths are updated at short time intervals, until the electron-1 (or electron-2 ) arrives at the y-axis (or z-axis ).

We can find only one r1 position which makes the electron-1 (or electron-2 ) cross the y-axis (or z-axis ) just perpendicularly (= in this case, the electron's orbit becomes symmetrical around the nucleus, which forms the closed orbit ).

As shown in the calculated results, when the helium's total energy is -79.0037 eV, helium's orbital length becomes just 1.000000 × de Broglie wavelength (= so -79.0037 eV is the predicted helium energy in this calculation ).

The experimentally value of helium total (ground-state) energy is -79.005 eV, so this realistic helium model with two perpendicular orbits perfectly agrees with the experimental energies of the helium atom and all other helium-like ions.

Computing programs

You can choose one of the sample programs of JAVA, simple C, or Python (= all of these three programs give the same results ) below to compute this realistic helium model.

Sample JAVA program
C language program
Python program.

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.

(Fig.63)  Acceleration unit

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)  Example of inputting values in JAVA program

First we input the initial x-coordinate r1 = r   (in unit 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 = electron-1's starting point becomes ( 3060 MM, 0, 0 ).
The initial x coordinate of electron 2 becomes -3060 MM, automatically = electron-2's starting point becomes ( -3060MM, 0, 0 ), because, two electrons are symmetrical around the helium nucleus.

Next we input the absolute value of the total energy |E| (in eV) of helium.
In Fig.64, when we input "79.0", and press enter key, it means total energy of this helium is -79.0 eV.

↑ This -79.0 eV is close to actual helium ground state energy = -79.005 eV (= this p.4,  this p.9 )

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.

(Fig.67) ↓  Program calculates electron's initial velocity "v" from input values.

Calculation of Coulomb force at short time intervals.

(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 relationship.

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

So the x component of the acceleration ( m/sec² ) of the electron 1 by Coulomb force between electrons and nucleus is,

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

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

(rm) is an electron's reduced mass.

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

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

Due to the finite helium nuclear mass (= M_nuc ), we should use the electron's reduced mass slightly smaller than the original electron's mass (= m_e ) by considering one stationary nucleus and two moving electrons.

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

where m_e is electron's original mass = 9.10938 × 10^-31 kg

In the same way, the y component of electron-1's acceleration (m/sec²) by Coulomb force among a nucleus and two 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.

Computing precise electron's de Broglie wave in each short segment.

(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 = 10⁹ meter/sec ), the numerator of the right side of above equation Fig.75 means the moving distance (in meter) for 1 SS. the denominator is electron's de Broglie's wavelength (= h/mv, in meter ).

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

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

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

(Fig.76) Computing results, when we input 79.0 eV, r1 = 3060 MM.  r1 = starting x-coordinate.  VX, VY = electron-1's last velocity x, y components after arriving at y-axis.  midWN means the number of de Broglie wave contained in 1/4 of the orbit.

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

VX and VY are x and y components of the last velocity of electron 1 ( unit: MM/SS ).  ← The last electron-1's velocities (= VX,VY ) are x and y components of the electron-1's last velocities after electrons have moved one quarter of their orbits (= electron-1 should cross y-axis perpendicularly, so its last VY velocity should be close to zero ).
preVY is y component of the last velocity 1ss before VY ( so preVY is almost the same as VY ).

We pick up the values when this last VY is the closest to zero = meaning electron-1 crosses y-axis at right angles, which condition is necessary for the electron-1's orbit to be symmetrical on both sides of y axis around the nucleus.
The symmetrical orbit's total de Broglie wavelength simply becomes 4 × one quarter of de Broglie wavelength.

(mid)WN means the output result of the total number of de Broglie wavelength in one quarter of the orbit.  So, one quarter (= 1/4 ) of this electron's orbit becomes WN × de Broglie wavelength.

When one orbit is an integer = 1 × de Broglie wavelength, the 1/4 of the orbit has to be 1/4 (= midWN is close to 0.25000 ) × de Broglie wavelength.

↑ When the output result of one quarter of de Broglie wavelength becomes just 0.250000 (= just 1/4 ), and its input Helium total energy just agrees with experimental Helium total energy (= -79.005 eV ), this new Helium atomic model proves to be right.

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

Each time an electron has moved 1/4 orbit and calculated the total de Broglie wavelength included in the 1/4 of the orbit and the electron's last velocities, this program returns the electron back to the starting x-axis, and increases r1 (= initial x-coordinate of electron-1 ) by 1, until r1 changes from input initial x-coordinate value (ex. 3060 MM ) to +100 (= 3160 ).

As shown in Fig.76, when r1 is 3074 MM, last VY velocity of electron 1 becomes the smallest ( VY = 0.000000 ), which means electron-1 passes y-axis perpendicularly = symmetrical stable orbit.

This means when r1 ( initial x coordinate ) = 3074 × 10^-14 meter, these electron's orbits become just symmetric around the nucleus (= so, only this initial x-coordinate 3074 MM value of electron-1 remains as a legitimate one in this case ), and we can know one orbit is 4 × WN (= 0.250006, when energy is -79.0 eV ) = 1.000024 de Brolgie wavelength.

In this case where we input -79.0 eV as helium ground state energy, the number of de Broglie wavelength contained in a quarter of its orbit becomes 0.250006.

So, one orbit is 0.250006 × 4 = 1.000024 de Broglie wavenlength. ( ← so close !  but NOT just 1.000000 )
As shown in Table 1, when input energy is -79.0037 eV, de Broglie wave becomes just 1.000000.

So we can get the final value of -79.0037 eV as calculated ( predicted ) Helium ground state energy, when Helium has two perpendicular orbits of just 1.000000 × de Broglie wavelength.

The experimental value of Helium ground state energy is -79.005 eV (= sum of 1st and 2nd ionization energies of helium ), which just agrees with the computed ( predicted ) energy value of -79.0037 eV, proving this new Helium model is correct.

Predicted energy values by this new Helium model agree with experimental results.

Table 1. Results predicted by this new Helium model show good agreement with experimental Helium energy = -79.005 eV.

Prediction (eV)	r1 (MM)	1/4 wavelength	one wavelength
-75.00	3238.0	0.256586	1.026344
-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
-83.00	2927.0	0.243907	0.975628

WN × 4 is the total number of de Broglie's wavelength contained in one round of the orbital.
r1 is the initial electron-1's x-coordinate when the electron-1 crosses y-axis just perpendicularly (= last y-component velocity or VY is the closest to zero )

This computed helium ground state energy value (= predicted energy values by this new helium model ) is -79.0037 eV.

The experimental value of helium ground state energy is -79.005147 eV (= 1st + 2nd ionization energies, Nist, CRC ).  ← almost perfect agreement between the prediction and experimental values !

So we can conclude this new Helium model with two electrons' perpendicular orbits giving just the same ground state energy as experimental values, proved to be right.

Surprisingly, all experimental ground state energies of all other two-electron atoms and ions just agree with computed results predicted by this Helium-like model with two perpendicular orbits, proving this new helium atomic model is real.

New Bohr model helium's prediction perfectly agrees with experimental values.

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,

Table 2.

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

 

New Bohr model holds good in all two and three atoms.

(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 starting this program, we are asked to input atomic number Z.

If you pick Z = 2, this program starts to compute ordinary Helium atom in the same way as above
If you pick Z = 3, this program computes Lithium ion (= Li+ = 3e+ nucleus and two electrons )
If you pick Z = 4, this program computes Beryllium ion (= Be2+ = 4e+ nucleus and two electrons ).

So this program method computing all two-electron atoms and ions is almost the same as upper Helium program, except you should input another information = atomic number (= Z ) after running this program.

Computing ( predicted ) results of all two electron atoms and ions agree with experimental ground state energies !
See detailed computing method.

 

Predicted results in all two-electron atoms and ions just agree with experimental energies !

(Table 3) Predicted and experimental energies of two electron atoms and ions.

Atoms	r1 (MM)	one wavelength	Predicted results (eV)	Experimental values (eV)	Error (eV)
He	3074.0	1.000000	-79.0037	-79.0051	0.001
Li+	1944.5	1.000000	-198.984	-198.094	-0.89
Be2+	1422.0	1.000000	-373.470	-371.615	-1.85
B3+	1121.0	1.000000	-602.32	-599.60	-2.72
C4+	925.0	1.000000	-885.6	-882.1	-3.50
N5+	788.0	1.000000	-1223.3	-1219.1	-4.20
O6+	685.3	1.000000	-1615.44	-1610.70	-4.74
F7+	607.3	1.000000	-2062.0	-2057.0	-5.00
Ne8+	544.5	1.000000	-2563.0	-2558.0	-5.00

↑ The experimental ground state energy of each two-electron atom or ion can be obtained from this this or this ionization energies (= the sum of the first and second ionization energies from the right = two most inner 1s electrons' energies ).

For example, the experimental ground state energy of Li+ ion with two electrons is the sum of the 2nd (= 75.64 eV ) and 3rd (= 122.454 eV ) ionization energies from this or table, hence -(75.64+122.454) = -198.094 eV.

 

Excellent results in three electron atoms !

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

(Table 4) Predicted and experimental results of three electron atoms and ions.

Atoms	r1 (MM)	one wavelength	Predicted result (eV)	Experimental values (eV)	Error (eV)
Li	1949.0	1.000000	-203.033	-203.480	0.47
Be+	1427.0	1.000000	-388.785	-389.826	1.04
B2+	1125.0	1.000000	-635.965	-637.531	1.56
C3+	928.0	1.000000	-944.46	-946.57	2.11
N4+	790.5	1.000000	-1314.25	-1317.01	2.76
O5+	688.0	1.000000	-1745.70	-1748.82	3.12
F6+	609.4	1.000000	-2237.60	-2242.21	4.61
Ne7+	546.0	1.000000	-2791.15	-2797.12	5.97

As shown here, we prove when two electron orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength cross each other perpendicularly, they give surprisingly accurate energy results in all two-electron atoms and ions !

 

Pauli exclusion principle can be perfectly explained by electron's de Broglie wave interference instead of unreal spin.

Quantum mechanical Pauli principle is contradictory, relying on unreal spin and exchange energy based on pseudo-kinetic energy increase.

(Fig.79) ↓ Helium two electrons e1,e2 orbits must be perpendicular to each other for avoiding destructive interference between two de Broglie waves.

Real Pauli principle needs to be expressed as real force instead of unphysical quantum mechanical exchange energy lacking real exchange force.

In fact, the unphysical quantum mechanics relies on de Broglie wave destructive interference as the source of Pauli principle repulsive energy or antibond (= its electron spin magnetic energy is too weak to cause strong Pauli principle repulsion ), but it is based on contradictory kinetic energy increase through unphysical exchange energy that lacks real Pauli repulsive exchange force or real force carriers ( this p.9-10,  this introduction-3rd-paragraph,  this 2. ).

↑ This unrealistic quantum mechanical Pauli principle ( this p.6 ) requiring every electron to exist in all different atomic orbitals simultaneously through the unphysical antisymmetric wavefuntion is the main culprit of hampering technological innovation.

So we need to express Pauli repulsion or contact force as "real force" originating from "real substance" to treat atoms and atomic force realistically.

Real electron's de Broglie wave (destructive) interference can be naturally used as the true origin of realistic Pauli principle or its repulsion.

 

How electrons avoid destructive interference ?

[ Electron must do U-turn when another closest electron's de Broglie wave changes to harmless midpoint between ± opposite phases. ]

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

The realistic helium model with two perpendicular orbits avoiding destructive interference of two de Broglie waves can perfectly explain the experimental energies of not only helium atom but also all two-electron helium-like ions.

As shown above, in this realistic helium model, the electron-1 (= e1 ) crossing the other electron-2's (= e2 ) orbit perpendicularly (= perpendicular waves do Not interfere, this p.1-last-paragraph ) can do U-turn safely when the other e2 orbit is the harmless midpoint (= node ) between ± phases.

↑ If the electron does U-turn when the other electron's orbit is the opposite wave phase (= instead of midpoint or the same phase.  ← same phases containing electrons are unlikely to approach each other due to Coulomb repulsion between electrons ), the electron is expelled by destructive interference of de Broglie waves, which is real Pauli principle mechanism.

 

Mechanism of how realistic Pauli exclusion principle determines numbers of valence electrons.

Excessive electrons are excluded by unavoidable destructive interference among de Broglie waves, which is true Pauli exclusion principle.

(Fig.81) ↓ An example of real Pauli principle by de Broglie wave's destructive interference. When there are four 1 × wavelength orbits in a atom, an electron is expelled by destructive interference from more than one other de Broglie waves' opposite phase.

Reason why more than two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits are Not allowed.

The realistic helium model with two perpendicular orbits avoiding destructive interference perfectly agrees with experimental energies of helium atom and all helium-like ions.

The maximum electron's number in 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits corresponding to the principal quantum number n = 1 (= remember the quantum mechanical Schrödinger equation also uses de Broglie wave and agrees with Bohr's successful orbits ) is " 2 " as shown in the helium atom (= He ).

Lithium (= Li ) ~ neon atoms (= Ne ) belong to n = 2 or 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbit (= with larger radius than n = 1 orbit ), as shown in the sudden change of atomic ionization energies ( this 5th-paragraph ).

As shown in the above figure, when there are more than two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits ( like the fictional Beryllium Be atom with four 1 × de Broglie wavelength or n = 1 orbits.  Three odd-number orbits are unsymmetrical and unstable ), the electron-3 (= e3 ) is excluded by destructive interference from the opposite phases of two e1, e2 electrons' de Broglie waves.

As a result, the maximum electron's number in n = 1 (= 1 × de Broglie wavelength ) orbits is " 2 (= two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits, each orbit contains only one electron )" as shown in helium (= He ) atom.

↑ This destructive interference of de Broglie waves is the true mechanism of Pauli exclusion principle based on real repulsive force or real substance (= this real substance has power to cause experimentally-observed electron de Broglie wave interference by pushing out the electron from destructive-interfering area. )

 

Neon with 8 valence electrons also can be explained by real Pauli principle based on destructive interference of de Broglie wave.

Realistic Neon consists of four 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits (= total 8 valence electrons ) crossing perpendicularly to each other.

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

Like Helium, another noble gas = Neon with eight valence (= outer ) electrons can be explained by the same principle based on avoiding destructive interference of other electrons' de Broglie waves.

In periodic table, Neon is in the 2nd horizontal row which corresponds to 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits in energy levels ( = n = 2 ).

There are clear ionization energy gaps between atoms of different rows in periodic table, which sudden change of ionization energies shows H and He atoms in the 1st row of periodic table belong to 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits (= n = 1 ), and Li-Ne in the 2nd row belong to 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits (= n = 2 ).

Neon has eight valence electrons.
And one orbit of 2 × de Broglie wavelength (= two pairs of crest and trough wave phases ) can contain up to two electrons.

So we can assume Neon consists of four 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits, each orbit contains two electrons, therefore the total number of Neon valence electrons is 4 orbits × 2 electrons = 8 electrons, which agrees with the fact.

As shown in above figure, all electrons cross the opposite de Broglie wave phase of other electrons perpendicularly at vertices of hexahedron (= this hexahedral Neon structure is Coulomb electrically symmetrical, hence stable electrons' distribution compatible with noble gas ).

So Neon's electrons can avoid destructive interference of de Broglie waves just like Helium.

An orbit of 2 × de Broglie wavelength contains more pairs of wave crest (= electron ) and trough (= opposite phase ) than an orbit of 1 × de Broglie wavelength, so Neon can contain as many as four orbits ( without destructive interference ), such four orbits were impossible in Helium of two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits.

 

Real mechanism of how Neon has up to 8 valence electrons.

Real Pauli exclusion mechanism where 2 × de Broglie wavelength allows 4 orbits avoding destructive interference of electrons' de Broglie waves.  = maximum is 8 (= 2 × 4 ) valence electrons in Neon

(Fig.83) ↓ Electrons safely do a U-turn at midpoints of other electron's de Broglie waves without destructive interference in four 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits (= each orbit contains up to 2 electrons ).

Unlike 1 × de Broglie wavelength of helium (= with only two orbits ), the neon with 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits can contain four orbits avoding destructive interference of de Broglie wave.

This is why there are only two atoms = hydrogen and helium in n = 1 (= 1 × de Broglie wavelength ) orbits, while there are up to eight atoms = lithium ~ neon in n = 2 (= 2 × de Broglie wavelength ) orbits.

 

An orbit of 2 × de Broglie wavelength can contain 2 electrons.

(Fig.84)  ↓ An orbit of 2 × de Broglie wavelength

Realistic Neon atomic orbits.

Neon consists of 4 orbits with 2 × de Broglie wavelength containing 8 valence electrons.

(Fig.85)  Orbits of Neon cross each other "perpendicularly" avoiding destructive interference of de Broglie waves.

We can naturally think that realistic Neon atom consists of 4 (valence) orbits with 2 × de Broglie wavelength (= total 8 valence electrons ) crossing perpendicularly to avoid destructive interference of de Broglie waves.

 

The maximum valence electrons' numbers depend on de Broglie wavelength.

Realistic Pauli principle can be explained by destructive interference of de Broglie wave whose wavelength determines valence electrons' number.

(Fig.86)  The opposite de Broglie wave phases cross perpendicularly.

(Fig.87)  Maximum numbers of orbits, de Broglie wavelength

de Broglie wavelength determines the maximum numbers of valence electrons.

As shown in helium with 2 electrons with two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits and neon with 8 valence electrons with four 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits, de Broglie wavelength determines the maximum numbers of valence electrons by requiring all electrons to cross the opposite phases of other orbits perpendicularly.

Argon (= Ar ) with n = 3 can also have four 3 × de Broglie wavelength orbits containing 8 valence electrons (= Coulomb electrically symmetrical hexahedral distribution ), because each Ar orbit contains two electrons and one hole to avoid unbalanced Coulomb repulsion.

↑ Odd numbers of orbits are unbalanced and unstable with respect to Coulomb electric force among valence electrons, so numbers of stable orbits must be even like 2, 4, 6, 8.. orbits.

Krypton (= Kr ) has 18 valence electrons with six 4 × de Broglie wavelength orbits.

Krypton (= Kr ) with n = 4 or 4 × de Broglie wavelength orbits can contain up to 6 orbits for all valence electrons to cross the opposite de Broglie wave phase of other orbits perpendicularly.

Krypton (= Kr ) has 18 valence electrons (= 6 orbits × 3 electrons ), which means each Kr orbit contains 3 electrons and 1 hole to avoid Coulomb electric repulsion like Argon case.

The real numbers of valence electrons can be easily known from periodic table or the change of ionization energies where the change of de Broglie wavelength causes the sudden change of orbital radius or ionization energies.

Xenon (= Xe ) with n = 5 or 5 × de Broglie wavelength orbits also has 18 valence electrons to satisfy the symmetric distribution with respect to Coulomb electric force.

Radon (= Rn ) with n = 6 or 6 × de Broglie wavelength orbits has 32 valence electrons (= 8 × 4 electrons ), which means each Rn orbit contains 4 electrons and 2 holes to satisfy the balanced Coulomb electric repulsion.

Excessive electrons are excluded by destructive interference of de Broglie wave, which is real Pauli exclusion principle.

If helium (= 1 × de Broglie wavelength ) tries to have more than 2 orbits, or neon (= 2 × de Broglie wavelength ) tries to have more than 4 orbits, or krypton (= 4 × de Broglie wavelength ) tries to have more than 6 orbits, or radon (= 6 × de Broglie wavelength ) tries to have more than 8 orbits, excessive electrons cannot cross the opposite de Broglie wave phases of other orbits perpendicularly, which causes destructive interference and excludes the excessive electrons.

↑ This destructive interference of de Broglie waves is the mechanism of real Pauli exclusion principle not relying on unphysical exchange energy.

Quantum mechanics claiming the maximum numbers of valence electrons obey 2n² rule disagrees with experimental facts.

So quantum mechanics paradoxically claims 3d orbitals (= n = 3 ) have energies higher than 4s orbitals (= n = 4 ).

↑ Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations are unsolvable ( this p.7-last-paragraph ) with No ability to predict any atomic energies, so these paradoxical claim like 3d orbital's energy higher than 4s is based on some ad-hoc empirical rules (= like effective Z charge based on Slater empirical rule,  this p.2,  this 4th-paragraph ) without quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.1-left ).

 

"Coulomb repulsions" must be considered for symmetrical valence electrons.

Argon with 3 × de Broglie wavelength orbits has 8 valence electrons instead of 12 due to Coulomb repulsions.

(Fig.88)   If Ar has 12 valence electrons, Coulomb repulsion is Not uniform.

If all 4 orbits of 3 × de Broglie wavelength of Argon (= Ar ) are fully occupied, Argon has 12 valence electrons disagreeing with the actual 8 valence electrons.

As shown in the above figure, this fictitious Argon with 12 valence electrons are unstable due to unbalanced Coulomb repulsive force.

If Argon has 8 valence electrons with 4 orbits (= each 3 × de Broglie wavelength orbit has 2 electrons and 1 hole ), these 8 valence electrons are symmetrically (= hexahedrally ) distributed around the nucleus, which becomes electrically stable.

So we need to consider not only de Broglie wavelength but also Coulomb electric symmetric distribution to determine the valence electron's number.

This is why Argon has only 8 valence electrons.

 

If an atom has too many orbits ..

An electron is expelled by destructive interference of de Broglie wave.  ← real Pauli principle

(Fig.89) If Neon (= 4 orbits with 2 × de Broglie wavelength ) contains more than 8 electrons, electron (= e1 ) is kicked out by destructive interference with excessive electrons' de Broglie wave's opposite phases = real Pauli repulsion.

Destructive interference of de Broglie waves = real Pauli exclusion principle.

When there are two orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength, the electron can do U-turn safely at the midpoint-phase of the other electron's de Broglie wave orbit without causing destructive interference.

But when there are more than two orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength, electrons are excluded by other orbits' opposite de Broglie wave phase through destructive interference.

↑ Due to Coulomb repulsion between electrons, each electron tends to be close to or surrounded by the opposite wave phases of other orbits, and excluded when there are excessive orbits with respect to de Broglie wavelength.

The maximum number of 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits that can avoid destructive interference is four (= each electron can do U-turn at the midpoint de Broglie wave phase of other orbits ).

If there are more than four 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits like in the upper figure-left, the electron (= for example, e1 ) is surrounded by the opposite phase of other orbits (= e3', e1' = Not crossing perpendicularly ), and excluded by destructive interference of de Broglie waves.

If there are excessive electrons, the interval between neighboring intersection points of two orbits becomes less than the half de Broglie wavelength (= a segment from crest to trough wave phases is the half wavelength ), which causes the opposite wave phases to surround each electron, and destructive interference of de Broglie waves (= real Pauli principle ) occurs.

This destructive interference of de Broglie waves is the mechanism of real Pauli exclusion principle.

 

Hydrogen molecule (= H2 ).  ← H3 molecule is impossible due to Pauli principle based on de Broglie wave interference

Destructive interference of de Broglie waves prevents three hydrogen atoms from forming illusory H3 (= three-hydrogen ) molecule.  ← Real Pauli principle in molecular bonds.

(Fig.90)   Two perpendicular de Broglie wave orbits in H2

Two orbits (= 1 × de Broglie wavelength ) of the hydrogen molecule (= H2 ) must be perpendicular to each other to avoid destructive interference of electrons' de Broglie wave orbits.

As shown in the upper figure, when the third orbit tries to cross the middle hyrogen orbit perpendiularly, this 3rd orbit becomes parallel to the left hyrogen orbit, and is excluded by destructive interference beteen opposite phases of de Broglie wave.

Molecular covalent bonds form between electrons and holes of de Broglie wave orbits.

 

Orbits of an integral multiple of de Broglie wavelength are maintained due to the nature of de Broglie wave interference trying to be "in phase with" each other.

In complicated multi-electron molecules and atoms, each orbit is Not closed, if only Coulomb force is considered.  → power of de Broglie wave constructive interference trying to be in phase with each other is necessary.

(Fig.91)   Wave nature is needed for closed stable orbits ↓

Only in the simplest one-electron hydrogen atom and helium with just 2 symmetrical perpendicular orbits, each electron orbit is naturally closed even if we simply compute the orbits using just Coulomb force.

In all other complicated atoms and molecules, each electron's orbit is usually Not closed, if we consider only Coulomb force for predicting electron's motion.

As shown in two slit experiments, de Broglie wave interference has strong power enough to modify Coulomb force (= an electron is scattered by Coulomb force of slit wall atoms, but the direction in which an electron is scattered is changed by de Broglie wave interference causing fringe. ).

Electron's de Broglie wave tries to avoid destructive interference and synchronize in phase with each other.

Due to constructive interference of de Broglie wave, the electron's orbit is naturally closed (= both ends with the same phase tend to automatically fit and bind to each other for avoiding destructive interference by the pressure balance mechanism where the opposite de Broglie wave phases with low and high density area tend to attract and connect with each other naturally ).

This realistic de Broglie wave interference effect modifying Coulomb force a little needs to be determined by actual experiments.  = We should move forward with new experiments by treating electrons, de Broglie waves and Pauli repulsion as real physical objects which realistic atomic model-based scientific progress and experiments are miserably forbidden in the present unrealistic quantum mechanics due to "unrealistic exchange interaction" lacking real physical forces.  → Our science stops progressing now.

↑ As a result, real Pauli exclusion principle and the maximum valence electrons' numbers are determined by destructive interference of de Brolie waves.

 

Calculation shows Coulomb force (= Not unreal exchange energy ) can explain the bond energy of the realistic H2 molecule.

[ Program estimating energy values and de Broglie wavelength of two H2 realistic orbits where two electrons are orbiting around each nucleus, avoiding each other by real Coulomb force. ]

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

Except for the simplest one-electron hydrogen atom and the helium with two symmetrical (perpendicular) orbits around the same single nucleus, all other aromic and molecular orbits with different multiple nulei or multiple electrons are unable to have the closed orbits (= it's hard for two ends of an orbit to just meet each other on the same point under the complicated multi-electron or multi-nuclear Coulomb forces ), if we simply calculate only Coulomb force.

We need to consider other forces such as de Broglie wave constructive and destructive interference (= which de Broglie wave force or influence must be determined by actual experiments, like Coulomb force relation and electric charge had to be determined by actual experiments at first, a long time ago ) to explain the closed orbits (= de Broglie wave's lower and higher pressure regiones attract each other, and form an integral multiple of de Broglie wavelength by constructive interference ) in more complicated multi-electron atoms and molecules.

So we need to use the approximate method of estimating real H2 molecular orbits using the following computing program, and prove that realistic Coulomb force and de Broglie wavelength can reasonably explain the actual hydrogen H2 molecular experimental bond energy, even without relying on the contradictory unrealistic exchange energies.

Two orbits of H2 molecule are supposed to be perpendicular to each other. Here we suppose electron-a (= or electron-1 ) moves in the orbit parallel to x-z plane, and electron-b (= or electron-2 ) moves in x-y orbit, as shown in Fig.92.

Sample JAVA program to compute H2 molecule (= two perpendicular orbits ).

When you run this program, you need to input the initial x-coordinate of electron-a (= ea ) and electron-b (= eb = distance between nucleus-b and electron-b ) in the unit of MM ( 1MM = 10^-14 meter ).

Then, you are asked to input the absolute value of the binding energy of H2 molecule (= experimental value of H2 binding energy is 4.746 eV, this p.2 ).

Lastly, you are asked to input the distance between two nuclei of H2 molecule (= experimental value of H2 internuclear distance is 0.7414 Å ).

From these 4 input values, this program calculates two electrons' motions and orbits based on Coulomb electric force (= calculate Coulomb force and de Broglie wavelebgth, change the electrons' positions and velocities at short time intervals, until an electron moves a half orbit ), and outputs de Broglie wavelength (= a value closer to "1" × de Broglie wavelength is better ) in one orbit, final coordinates of two electrons, and average forces acting on two nuclei (= for H2 nuclei to keep staying in the same positions, average forces acting on nuclei need to be close to zero ).

As I said, each H2 molecular orbit cannot be closed, only if we simply calculate it.

So we approximately suppose these two electrons experience the same average Coulomb force (= summing Coulomb force acting on two electrons and divide it by 2 at each electron's position at short-time intervals ), and two electrons have approxiamtely the same average velocity in two (perpendicular) symmetrical orbits.

↑ So this approximate method tends to give the lower binding energy (= higher H2 total energy ) than the actual H2 binding energy without approximation, but can give a pretty good result close to reality.

For example, we input the initial electron-a x-coordinate = ea (= "3370" MM = 0.3371 Å, here this unit is used, so input "3370" ), the initial electron-b's x-coordinate eb (= "4938.5" MM ), binding energy (= "4.746" eV = experimental value ) and distance between two nuclei (= "7414" MM = experimental value ).

In this case, the calculation results show one orbit of each H2 orbits is 0.98488 × de Broglie wavelength, which is almost an integer = "1" × de Broglie wavelength orbit, so this good result proves the realistic H2 molecule model with two perpendicular orbits is right (= as I said, this "approximate" method tends to give lower bond energy, so this de Broglie wavelength result tends to be slightly smaller than 1.00, which is a reasonable result ).

And in this case, average forces acting on nucleus-a is -0.000082 ( here, the force between electron and proton separated by Bohr radius is supposed to be "1" ) which is almost 0, meaning nucleus-a of this H2 molecule is almost stationary and stable at the same position surrounded by these H2 realistic electrons' orbits.

In the same way, the force acting on nucleus-b is also almost 0 (= -0.000128,  The sign = "plus+" force is in the direction of the other nucleus ), meaning nucleus-b is also stationary and stable at the same position in this realistic H2 molecule.

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

Here we calculate another case when two orbits of H2 molecule is on the same plane instead of perpendicular to each other.

↑ When two electrons are on the same plane (= neglecting de Broglie wave destructive interference causing realistic Pauli repulsion ), two electrons can avoid each other more, lower the total energy, and its H2 bond energy becomes bigger than two perpendicular orbits.

Sample JAVA program to compute H2 molecule (= two orbits on the same plane ).

After running this program (= compile it with the file name of "hhmol.java" ), when we input the initial electron-1's x-coordinate ea = 3250 MM (= 3250 × 10^-14 meter ), the initial electron-2's x-coordinate eb = 5570 MM, H2 bond energy = 4.746 eV (= experimental valeu), and the H2 internuclear length (= 7414 MM = experimental value ).

The result shows the one orbit is 1.001982, which is slightly bigger than the integer = 1.00 de Broglie wavelength (= when average forces acting on two nuclei become almost zero = stable nuclei ).

↑ This result shows when we consider two H2 orbits on the same plane, its total energy becomes slightly lower and its bond energy becomes bigger then the experimental values (= if we try to choose the case giving an integer 1 de Brolgie wavelength instead of 1.001982, its bond energy is bigger than the experimental value of 4.746 eV ).

This means the actual H2 molecular two orbits are perpendicular to each other by the realistic Pauli principle based on de Broglie wave interference instead of two orbits on the same plane.

Here we use the rough approximation supposing two electrons of H2 molecule always have the same velocity and experience the same Coulomb force (= average of two electrons ), so the upper 0.98488 de Broglie wavelength of two approximate perpendicular orbits become closer to an integer "1" with non-approximate method (= as I said, this truly non-approximate method needs to consider de Broglie wave interference's effect, which must be determined by experiments, in order to give closed orbits ).

These calculation results show that the realistic Coulomb attractive energies are strong enough to give the experimental values of H2 molecular bond energy (= unrealistic quantum mechanical exchange energy is unneeded ), and the actual H2 molecule orbits are perpendicular to each other (= proving the realistic Pauli principle ) instead of two electron orbits existing on the same place.

 

Real atomic model is necessary to develop science.

[ Quantum mechanical model is fantasy and useless. ]

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

Atomic physics stops progressing in quantum mechanics and molecular dynamics.

We havet to give concrete shape to each atom like macroscopic objects to utilize atoms for technological innovation.

 

[ Other pages. ]

    ♦ 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.