(Fig.1) Quantum mechanical fictitious models with No realistic figures are inapplicable to useful technology and medicine. Only pseudo-science in academic journals thrives.
Contrary to an incredible amount of hypes, quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations, which cannot have exact solutions in any multi-electron atoms and molecules, are useless for explaining atomic behavior inside materials such as metals, semiconductors, insulators, molecules.. ( this p.1-2nd-paragraph, this p.11, this p.12-last ).
This 3rd-paragraph says
"After all the Schrodinger equation can be solved exactly only for the hydrogen atom. Even a simple protein constitutes a system that is infinitely more complex. The complexity forces our embattled savant to make cruel approximations at every stage. At some point, not only is he forced to commit the blasphemy of using classical mechanics for simulating the motion of the protein, but he also has to stoop to using empirical data for parameterizing many of his models."
Impractical quantum mechanics ( this 3rd-paragraph ) has to treat the whole materials consisting of multiple electrons and atoms as an approximate pseudo-electron or fictitious quasiparticle model with fake changeable effective masses ( this p.2-left ), which can even become impossible negative mass ( this p.2 ), and fake charges, which can become unreal fractional charge ( this 5~6th-paragraphs ).
This 3rd paragraph says
"Enter the (fictitious) quasiparticle, a mathematical construct that makes near-impossible calculations (= original many-electron Schrödinger equations are impossible to solve, impractical, this 7th-paragraph ) not only possible.."
"they don't have to tackle the many-body problem that arises from the messy interactions of real quantum particles. Instead, a crystal solid can just as accurately be studied and analyzed as an (wrongly) averaged bulk object along with a collection of quasiparticles .. They're fictitious"
These quantum mechanical mainstream ( fictitious ) quasiparticle models contradict the experimentally varified facts.
Because they unscientifically claim one indivisible electron can split into a fictional spinon quasiparticle expressing spin and a holon quasiparticle expressing charge (= further splits into fictitious orbiton quasiparticle, they claim ). ← fictional spin-charge separation
And the physically-impossible magnetic monopole with only one south or north pole is also said to seemingly appear as this fictional monopole quasiparticle.
This 2~3rd paragraphs say
"Quasiparticles are formed by many electrons moving in sync. They can travel at any speed—even faster than light.."
"The most fascinating aspect of quasiparticles is their ability to move in ways that would be disallowed by the laws of physics governing individual particles (= which means quasiparticle is contradictory and unreal )"
To hide the inconvenient fact that the current most-widely used quantum mechanical quasiparticle models (= just nonphysical math operators with No shape, this p.2-lower ) lack reality, they constantly circulate overhyped misleading news.
For example, this hyped news about fictitious quasiparticle insists
"A perovskite-based device that combines aspects of electronics and photonics may (= this word means "just speculation, still useless" ) open doors to new kinds of computer chips or quantum qubits (= impractical forever ) ."
And another hyped news summary says
"A new kind of 'wire' for moving (fictitious quasiparticle) excitons could (= just baseless speculation ) help enable a new class of devices, perhaps including room temperature quantum computers (= never happen )."
Quantum mechanics can only describe its fictitious electrons and quasiparticles insde materials ( this p.2-upper ) as nonphysical meaningless math symbols called creation and annihilation operators with No concrete shapes and sizes (= each electron, quasiparticle is expressed just as nonphysical symbols = a†, b†, c† ), which lack real particle picture ( this p.3, this p.1-lower, this p.10, this p.2-5 ).
Actually, quantum mechanical unphysical band model just shows approximate band energy and fake (crystal) quasi-momentum (= or wavenumber k, this-Fig.1,2 this p.2-left-lower ) of these fictitious electrons or quasiparticles with unreal effective masses ( this p.5-theoretical model ), without showing any conrete shapes and positions of real electrons and atoms.
To distract people from the inconvenient fact of quantum mechanics using only unreal electron's effective mass, a lot of overhyped misleading news is spread every day.
For example, the 2nd-last paragraph of this hyped news about unreal negative effective mass says
"At present, the discovery may still seem like more of a scientific oddity, but the scientists already have a number of possible applications in mind (= just imagination ). For example, the concept may (= just speculation, still useless ) aid the development of superfast computers, where electrons move almost without resistance. The transition from positive to negative mass also creates so-called singularities... to the (imaginary) black holes of cosmology (← ? )"
The recent Nature paper unscientifically claims (fictitious) heavy fermion with heavy effective mass was (indirectly) found on some matierial called CeSiI.
The 2nd paragraph of this news says
"Heavy fermion compounds are a class of materials with electrons that are up to 1,000 times heavier than usual. In these materials, electrons get tangled up with magnetic spins that slow them down and increase their (fictional) effective mass. Such interactions are thought to play (= just speculation, still useless ) important roles in a number of enigmatic quantum phenomena,"
↑ This experimnet just measured electric current by scanning tunnel microscope and ordinary electrons with real mass (= Not unreal heavy fermion ) scattered by light using ARPES, and tried to explain it using fictitiously-changeable ( heavy ) effective mass and one pseudo-electron DFT model with artificially-chosen energy parameters U, pseudo-fermion expressed by nonphysical math operators with No shape ( this p.2-3 ) and with No quantum mechanical prediction.
(Fig.D) Quantum mechanical only mainstream approximation = density functional theory (= DFT ) stops all the applied science.
Useless Schrödinger equation ( this 2.Schrodinger equation ) forced physicists to use unphysical mainstream approximation called density functional theory (= DFT ) or Kohn-Sham equation, which outrageously treats the whole many-electron material as fictitious one pseudo-electron approximation with effective pseudo-potential ( this p.3-5, this p.6-2nd-paragraph, this p.6-(21)-p.7 ) for describing all physical phenomena of metals, semiconductors, insulators, molecules..
Of course, this one-pseudo-electron density in DFT lacks real physical meaning ( this p.2-1st~2nd-paragraphs, this-last-paragraph, this p.15 ) = Not real objects, so it is impossible to ulitize these unphysical quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron DFT model (and fictitious quasiparticle model ) as real parts for designing (= simulating ), building and creating some useful nano-devices, which useless quantum model stops all the scientific progress forever.
DFT has to artificially choose fictional exchange-correlation energy functionals and pseudo-potentials ( this p.2-lower-p.3, this p.6-methods ) out of many choices, and the exact universal form of these exchange energy functionals is unknown ( this 1.intro-1st-paragraph ), which means all quantum mechanical calculations so far were wrong due to wrong DFT pseudo-potential energy functionals ( this p.3,5,7 ).
This means quantum mechanics and its mainstream aprpoximation DFT depending on artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials and trial (or basis ) wavefunctions have No ability to predict any physical values (= DFT is just empirical or fake ab-initio method, this p.23-lower, this 7-8th-paragraphs ).
This p.21 says
"Although a DFT calculation with any particular choice of XC functional may be
considered ab initio, this freedom in the choice of functional naturally leads to many practitioners
deciding which is best for a particular simulation, and therefore introducing an element of
empiricism. As there is No known universal functional, nor even a framework in which to
improve XC approximations systematically, the performance of an XC functional may only be
tested by comparison to simple model systems, known experimental results."
↑ So DFT has No prediction power. It is better and faster to use experimental values from the beginning to avoid wasting time in meaningless DFT (= but quantum mechanical pseudo-models can Not use actually-observed experimental values or atoms, which is why quantum mechanical pseudo-model is impractical forever ).
To hide the inconvenient fact that the current mainstream quantum mechanical approximation = one pseudo-electron DFT model is impractical, many kinds of hyped science news were created.
For example, the abstract of this hyped article says
"Graphene has received tremendous attention among diverse 2D materials because of its remarkable properties. (← just using exaggerated words "tremendous" and "remarkable", it did Not say anything useful was realized ) "
".. the peculiarity of the obtained results reported is consequent on the nature and type of the dopants, the choice of the XC functionals, the basis set, and the wrong input parameters (= DFT has No power to predict ). "
(Fig.P) The current technological capability of building useful nano-devices is obstructed by unrealistic quantum mechanical model with fictitious quasiparticle, one-pseudo-electron DFT, time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD )
To design and build some practical machines, cars and planes, after engineers measure and confirm the shape, size and properties of parts, they can design (and simulate ) motions of the machines and cars that they try to build, and all they do is put together those parts with known shapes as planned and simulated.
↑ This means if we want to correctly simulate motions of machines, molecules and proteins, we need to know the concrete shapes, sizes and properties of each component, atom and molecule so that they can be used for designing and building useful (molecular) devices such as enzymes killing only cancers with no side effect.
But in the current unphysical mainstream atomic theory or quantum mechanics, even if researchers measure properties and shapes of materials, molecules and even single atom by using various sophisticated devices including atomic force (= AFM ) or scanning tunnel microscopes (= STM ) that can measure each atomic shape and property, they blindly, automatically rely on the fictional quasiparticle model, quasi-electron with fake effective mass, pseudo-spin expressed as nonphysical math operator with No concrete shape, and one- pseudo-electron DFT model ( this p.5-right ) to explain the observed phenomena.
↑ It means quantum mechanical unphysical models such as fictional quasiparticles and one-pseudo-electron DFT can Not use the experimentally-verified real atomic shape or property, which is why quantum mechanical pseudo-model is useless for applied science forever.
Because if physicists could apply the experimentally-observed real atomic shape (= by atomic force microscope ) to real atomic model as it is instead of the contradictory quantum mechanical fictitious quasiparticle model, they can use those experimentally-verified real atoms as practical components to simulate and build useful bigger devices and proteins
↑ Even when the sophisticated ( atomic force or scanning tunnel ) microscopes can measure each atomic shape and property, the current impractical quantum physics automatically gives up using real atomic model, and instead, tries to use fictitious quasipartice models ( this-2nd-paragraph ) such as polariton, skyrmions ( this p.1-left-lower ), exciton ( this p.5-left-upper ), one-pseudo-electron DFT model with artificially-created pseudo-potential ( this p.17(or p.16), this p.6-DFT modeling, this p.4 ), fake effective mass, nonphysical math (creation) operators ( this p.5-6, this 2 Model and methods ) with No shapes.
↑ No realistic shapes are given to atoms or molecules, so these unphysical quantum mechanical models can Not be used as practical parts for designing (= simulating ) and building useful molecular machines, proteins.
To seemingly simulate the unrealistic shapeless quantum mechanical atoms and molecules, the (impractical) molecular dynamics (= MD ) based on pseudo-potential called force fields was created as the only mainstream molecular and simulating method, which MD is too time-consuming to be useful, hence stops all the applied science now.
Actually, when we design (= simulate ) and build practical machines, laptops, cars and planes, the impractical quantum mechanics, DFT or extremely-time-consuming MD is Not used at all (= just putting together parts with known shapes is enough to build and simulate practical machines, cars ).
Under this useless mainstream physics, all physicists pursue now is already-deadend quantum computers trying to utilizing fictional quantum parallel worlds in vain. ← Science stops progressing.
To advance really useful nano-technology and develop effective drugs, it is definitely necessary to give concrete shapes to each atom, molecule, and treat them as real objeces, parts with actual shapes instead of blindly relying on unphysical quantum mechanical quasiparticle model or one-pseudo-electron DFT approximation lacking real particle picture that just artificially chooses unreal pseudo-potentials.
But (top) academic journals always demand that researchers have to rely on the (unphysical useless) meaninstream quantum mechanics, density functional theory (= DFT ), and impractical molecualr dynamics (= MD ) as the necessary condition for publishing papers (= researchers are required to observe old rules or impractical equations by citing old papers, which reference keeps journals' high impact factors ), which bad old customs obstruct developing really-useful technology and curing diseases, which fruitless science will eventually ruin researchers' careers.
According to the recent research, scientists accidentally tied the smallest and tightest knot from 54-atomic molecule.
↑ To explain this atomic mechanism, scientists always blindly tried to rely on unphysical quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron DFT model (= because journals demand this unreasonable reliance and citing old obsolete methods for publishing papers and keeping high impact factors ) which mainstream quantum mechanical pseudo-model is impractical, unable to give real concrete shape to each atom or molecule.
Actually, the 4th-paragraph of this news says
"the team behind it still does Not understand how it happened. It is Not yet known if it is possible to make a knot any smaller."
↑ This paper (= p.3-discussion ) also mentioned the wrong useless quantum mechanical DFT prediction, saying
"DFT calculations (= BYLP functional was artificially chosen ) predict that trimerization of Au2 to form Au6 is unfavorable in solution, and that the knot complex Au6 is also higher in energy than the corresponding open Au6 ring. The formation by self-assembly of the unique knot complex Au6 was therefore unpredictable (= quantum mechanical DFT model with this functional was wrong )"
See other cases where the impractical quantum mechanical mainstream DFT model stops science progress.
Academic journals always require scientists to use only the old impractical methods such as one-pseudo-DFT and unrealistically-time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ) to explain the observed atomic phenomena as the necessary condition for publishing papers (= referencing old methods can keep journals' high impact factors ), which old bad habit clearly prevents scientific development now.
The recent research observed the actual atomic shape of sodium channel in cell membranes by the sophisticated atomic force microscope (= AFM ).
But in order to explain this observed atomic behavior, the current impractical mainstream theory forced scientists to rely on the unrealistically-time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ), which can simulate the molecular motion of only very short microsecond (= μs, this p.9-right = this research simulated only very short 1μs molecular motion ).
↑ So this impractically-time-consuming MD can never simulate or explain important biological reactions that happen on the time scale of milliseconds ~ hours.
To hide the inconvenient truth of the current deadend science, the science news tends to be hyping like the last paragraph of this news saying
"The observation of the dissociation of voltage sensor domains, as well as the dimerization between pore channels, are findings that will (= uncertain future, so still No understanding ) lead to a better understanding of what causes pores to close (← ? )"
The 1st and 2nd paragraphs of this hyped news say
"A research team.. has developed a novel computational method that can accurately describe how proteins interact with molecules of potential drugs and can do so in a mere tens of minutes (= actually, this new method can Not explain accurate protein interaction energies ). This new quantum-mechanical scoring function can thus markedly expedite the search for new drugs (= still, No new effective drug was discovered by using this method )"
"experts tested it on 10 proteins of different levels of structural complexity, each binding a large variety of small molecules (usually referred to as ligands). They then compared their results not only with those of other corresponding methods, but also with findings of laboratory experiments, and both comparisons turned out very favorably (= ambiguous expression )."
↑ This method tried to calculate binding energy between some 10 target proteins and ligands using semiempirical quantum mechanical method using free parameters fitted to experiments ( this p.2-left-lower ) with No quantum mechanical prediction. ← This nonphysical quantum method can Not give real shapes to atoms nor simulate actual protein-drug interaction.
↑ This method just estimates vague abstract total binding energy ( this-p.2-(1) ) which can tell us nothing about how individual atoms behave in detail in protein interaction.
Even this new semiempirical quantum mechanical method called SQM2.20 or any other mainstream methods such as one pseudo-electron DFT with empirical parameters could Not predict exact binding energy of proteins and ligands ( this p.6-right-1st-paragraph ). ← Drug discovery is impossible in these methods.
This p.12-top says
"Although the SQM2.20 score calculates the key terms of the binding free energy using accurate computational
methods, the result is Not on the same scale as the experimental ΔGbind (= binding energy ). ← Even this latest semiempirical quantum mechanical methods cannot explain actual protein-ligand energies."
↑ So they tried to use "artificial scoring function" or correlation (= R2 ) as an indicator, which does Not mean predicting actual binding energy correctly.
They compared this new method with other mainstream quantum mechanical (pseudo-)methods such as one pseudo-electron DFT with empirically-fitted parameters (= take too much time, and No exact prediction of energy, poor convergence, this p.7-DFT scoring used empirical D3 intermolecular functional ), (pseudo-)classical force field potential of extremely-time consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ) or mechanics (=MM ), and some machine-learning (= ML, this p.7~8 ) that gave bad prediction results.
↑ All of these current mainstream quantum mechanical, (pseudo-)classical and machine learning methods are unable to use experimentally-observed real atomic or molecular shapes, hence, Developing effective drugs based on real atomic interaction is impossible.
(Fig.T) Transistors and spintronics (= giant magnetoresistance) are irrelevant to (useless) quantum mechanical model and pseudo-spin.
As I explained above, we can Not use the unphysical quantum mechanical models such as fictitious quasiparticle, quasi-electron with fake effective masses, which are just nonphysical meaningless math operators with No shapes, as practical parts for designing and building useful nano-devices (= such as enzymes killing cancers and very practically-efficient artificial photosynthesis device ).
Quantum mechanics (and academic journals ) automatically demands that researchers must be 'blind' to real particle picture, which costs researchers unrealistically much time to find lucky material out of infinite choices by classical (macroscopic) trial and error approaches (= due to incapability of utilizing real microscopic atoms or their interactions for designing useful molecular devices ).
Actually, accidental discovery of transistors was based on this classic trial-and-error approach ( this-lower trial and error ), Not on useless quantum mechanical prediction, because inventors said the observed results were completely opposite to what they expected ( this p.16-1st-paragraph ).
↑ After discovering practical transistors, researchers struggled to apply quantum mechanical unphysical effective masses of band model to this transistor's conductance in vain ( this p.14-2nd-paragraph, quantum mechanical single effective mass model disagreed with experiemnts ).
↑ Even after the first discovery of transistors, more serendipitous unexpected discovery in trial and error approach (= irrelevant to useless quantum mechanics ) was needed to improve practical computer technology.
But this 'macroscopic trial-and-error approaches (= such as accidental discovery of transistors ) that just measure electromagnetic properties in various materials without seeing or manipulating each single atom (= manipulation of a single atom for building practical nano-devices needs real atomic picture with shapes instead of quantum mechanical unphysical quasiparticle model with unreal effective mass ) have already reached their limit, and cannot reduce the machine's size any more (= fo building smaller atomic computers, manipulation of each real atom with the knowledge of their concrete shapes is indispensable ).
So Moore's law has been already dead (= sizes of laptops, cell phones cannot be smaller ), though companies that want subsidies tend to refuse to admit this incovenient fact of the already-deadend-computer industry, instead, tend to spread overhyped news ( this -lower- Is Moore's law dead ? ).
Giant magnetoresistance (= material magnetization's direction affects electric resistance ) used in hard disk drives symbolizing spintronics (= electron spin is Not real spinning though ) was also 'unexpected surprising discovery (= so classic trial and error approach, this p.1-intro )' which disagreed with the existing quantum mechanical theory even now ( this p.1-left, p.6-brief history, this p.1-right, this p.6-right, this p.8-lower ).
Actually. This p.3-2nd-3rd-paragraphs say
"The general
consensus (= based on mainstream quantum mechanics ) in the 1980s was that it was Not possible to significantly improve on the performance of
magnetic sensors based on magnetoresistance.
Therefore it was a great surprise when in 1988 two research groups independently discovered materials
showing a very large magnetoresistance, now known as giant magnetoresistance (GMR)." ← Quantum mechanics was not only useless but also disagreeing with giant magnetoresistance or hard disk drives.
This-introduction-2nd-paragraph says
"Nowadays the underlying physics of GMR (= giant magnetoresistance ) and the interlayer exchange coupling are broadly understood. Nevertheless, when it comes to detail, discrepancies between experimental observations and theoretical models can arise (= quantum mechanical theory disagrees with giant magnetoresistance or spintronics )."
This magnetoresistance where electric resistance changes depending on material's magnetization's direction can be naturally explained by realistic electrons' orbital motions (= causing magnetization ) instead of unrealistic electron spin.
Quantum sensor or nitrogen vacancy center in diamond is also an overhyped useless pseudo-science like time crystal and dubious quantum battery which are impractical forever, too.
In order to hide the inconvenient truth that the current physics and technological innovation are already deadend with No more progress (= due to unphysical quantum mechanics ), corporations, academia and journals need to use the media for constantly spreading overhyped news and getting subsidies, which bad habits eventually continue this deadend science state, ruin scientists' careers (by useless pseudo-science) and prevent curing deadly diseases.
For example, the headline of this hyped news about (fictitious) spintronics says
"Scientists hope Spintronics May (= this word means "baseless speculation", so still useless ) one day be the advanced crystals for computer electronics (← ? )"
The last paragraph of another hyped news about (deadend) spintronics says
"In the vast landscape of quantum physics, spintronics stands as a beacon of promise, heralding a future (= talks only about uncertain future, so still unrealized technology ) where the spin of electrons becomes a fundamental building block of electronics"
The 5th and last paragraphs of this hyped news using fictitious quasiparticle say
"What is remarkable here is that we are no longer talking about electrons but, instead, about composite (quasi)particles of spin and charge—commonly dubbed spinons and holons (= unreal particles ) ..
It may (= this word means "just baseless speculation" ) also now be applied to logic devices that harness spin (spintronics ← ? ). "
↑ This experiment just measured the tunnel electric current (= Not fictitious spin nor quasiparticle ), but tried to explain it using artificial quasiparticle spinon model with fake effective masses (= m* ) and freely-adjustable parameters. That's all, No fictitious spin or quasiparticle has been detected, and No quantum mechanical prediction ( this p.2=measure electric voltage, p.3=spinon,holon, p.8=No quantum calculation, this p.13-lower-p.14= artificially choose parameters such as fake effective mass ).
The 6th and last paragraphs of another latest science news about the alleged research offering insights into the metal-to-insulator transition say
"Quantitative determination of the interaction parameters in the Schrodinger's equation of real materials has been a very difficult task.. (= quantum mechanical Schrodinger equation has been useless for any multi-electron materials )"
"Once we have their quantum DNAs in hand, these complex materials will (= just about speculative future, still useless now ) be a lot more tameable for predictive materials engineering (← ? )"
↑ They ( this p.8-9, Fig.9, p.12-left ) tried to explain this mechanism using fictional quasiparticle models such as exciton and phonon, expressed those particles by nonphysical math operators with No realistic shapes using one-pseudo-electron DFT model with empirically-chosen exchange functional and many freely-adjustable parameters artificially fitted to experimental results. ← No quantum mechanical prediction, and useless pseudo-models lacking real particle figures or shapes hamper science development .
↑ This p.8-VII-electrons are expressed as nonphysical math operators (= c† ) with No shapes whose interaction parameters were artificially fitted to experiments, this-p.9, Fig.9-fictitious phonon, exciton quasiparticles' nonphysical math operators lack real shapes, this-p.12-left= one-pseudo-electron DFT with semiempirical correction, with No quantum mechanical prediction. ← useless quantum mechanical pseudo-model.
(Fig.M) Molecualr dynamics (= MD ) that cannot utilize real separable electrons or atoms with shapes is unrealistically time-consuming and impractical.
As I explained above, the current mainstream unphysical quantum mechanics relying only on fictional quasiparticles, one-pseudo-electron DFT model is unable to describe atoms and molecules inside materials as real objects with real shapes.
↑ Quantum mechanical pseudo-particles are just nonphysical math symbols with No shape ( this p.6-7, this p.3-4 ) contrary to the media's misleadingly colorful fake picture.
This is why current mainstream molecular or protein simulating method called molecular dynamics (= MD ) has to rely on artificially-created pseudo-potential energies called force field whose parameters must be empirically adjusted to experimental results ( this p.3-3rd-paragraph ), but often MD gives wrong results.
These MD pseudo-potential or force field can be obtained from quantum mechanical DFT's pseudo-potential, but this DFT's pseudo-potential has to depend on artificially-chosen exchange energy functional (= often incorrect, this p.2 ) adjusted to experiments, so after all, all the current mainstream methods have to rely on experimental results with No quantum mechanical prediction.
More important fact is that quantum mechanics and its mainstream DFT model are unable to use even experimentally-obtained actual atomic shape and real electron's mass in their pseudo-models (= such as fictitious shapeless quasiparticle models with fake effective masses ), which is why all the quantum mechanical methods are impractical for simulating actual molecules.
The pseudo-potential (= force field ) of the current fastest (pseudo-)classical molecular dynamics (= MD ) cannot deal with electrons' behavior, so classical MD cannot explain molecular bond breaking or forming ( this p.2-right-3rd-paragraph, this p.2-right-last-paragraph, this force field-2. ).
↑ The fastest classical MD, which cannot explain electron behavior, must be linked to the unphysical quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron DFT pseudo-potential.
Quantum mechanical DFT-based ab-initio MD (= AIMD ) or car-parrinello MD (= CPMD ) is more impractical, more time-consuming than classical MD ( this p.2-intro-1st-paragraph, this-intro-2~4th-paragraphs, this p.2-left-1st-paragraph, this p.19(or p.13)-3rd-paragraph ).
↑ Classical or ab-initio MD without separable electrons (= due to one-pseudo-electron DFT ) can Not give real boundary nor shape to each atom or molecule.
↑ Only nuclei or ions (= without valence electrons ) are separately movable ( this p.12-15, this p.21-22, this p.12 ) in unphysical MD where the unrealistically-inseparable electrons, which cannot be moved like real particles, are expressed by using fictitious mass μ ( this p.6,9,12, this p.7,25, this p1-2 ).
The lack of real separable electrons (= so No atomic boundary nor shape ) makes MD unrealistically-time-consuming and impractical forever.
↑ Actually, in these MD fictitious potential called force fields which always bridge all atoms including non-convalent-bond or van der Waals- Lenanrd-Jones potential ( this p.2, this Eq.8 ), all atoms or electrons are unrealistically inseparable, = each atom can Not have its own clear boundary nor its shape.
This current only mainstream molecular or protein simulation method = (ab-initio and pseudo-classical) molecular dynamics (= MD ) is completely impractical, unrealistically-time-consuming ( this p.1-left ), so MD is unable to simulate ordinary protein's conformational change, protein folding, enzymatic reactions with millisecond~hour time scales ( this p.3-left-2nd-paragraph, ).
Even the current fastest (pseudo-)classical MD takes more than days~ month to simulate only microsecond-protein change ( this 3~5th-paragraphs, this p.3-right-1st-paragraph, this p.3-left-coarse grain ), so almost all MD researches can only deal with very limitted small molecular change with nanoseconds = microseconds ( this p.5-last-only 100 ns-change, this p.7-right-last-only 15ns-change simulation with 0.2fs time step calculations, which can Not simulate millisecond~hour-long actual protein's change ).
Because the current mainstream simulating methods cannot utilize real atoms or molecules with real shapes.
Unlike the real objects with shapes whose motions and collisions can be easily predictable like billiard balls (= predicting billiard ball's trajectory is easy, Not using the useless quantum mechanical DFT or MD ), MD (or quantum mechanical DFT ) based on shapeless fictitious particles cannot easily predict motions, collisions and conformational change of molecules, proteins.
Molecular dynamics (= MD ) and DFT have to rely on artificially-adjusted pseudo-potential (called force field) to move each shapeless (pseudo-)atom gradually by differentiating the chosen pseudo-potential and updating each atomic position at extremely-short-time interavals (= each time step is often 2fs = 2 × 10-15 s ), repeatedly, many, many times ( this p.16-34 ), which takes impractically too much time ( this p.26-left ).
This p.7 says
"The typical folding time for a protein is on the order of seconds..
It should
be noted that an order of 1012 integration steps are then required to start
getting into biologically relevant (millisecond) timescales.."
" But, in practice this means we are Not routinely able to fold or unfold proteins in MD simulations, simply because we can Not simulate for long enough. Note, also, that just simulating for longer may also not simply solve the problem, as the results would still depend on the accuracy of the force fields we use."
Even in the recent research relying on some approximate (= not true ) method (= approximately splitting the original 10μs-long molecular motional process into multiple shorter processes ), it took 1 day + 7hours ~ 43 days for only 10μs simulation ( this p.16-right-3rd-paragraph, p.5-3.2.2 ), which will unrealistically require 100 days ~ 100000 days for simulating millisecond ~ second protein folding process. = unfeasible
Ab-initio MD based on fictitious mass and one-pseudo-electron DFT is much more time-consuming and more impractical than (pseudo-)classical MD ( this p.2-intro-1st-paragraph ).
It means all the current mainstream methods are completely useless for drug development due to their inability to access actual time-scale biological reactions.
Unlike real objects with shapes, the current impractical mainstream molecular simulating methods, molecualr dynamics (= MD ) and DFT, which cannot give concrete shape and figure to each atom or molecule, are unable to predict when two molecules or proteins collide or interact with each other.
So the molecular dynamics (= MD ) has to take unrealistically much time to calculate and update each (pseudo-)atomic position and velocity by differetiating pseudo-potential V (= force fields ) at short-time intervals (= each time step must be extremely short = about 2 femtosecond or 2 fs ) repeatedly, many, many times.
↑ If each calculation time step is chosen to be longer than 2fs (for trying to reduce repetition and time ), two shapeless quantum mechanical molecules without clear boundaries are more likely to unrealistically overlap each other (= due to No atomic shape or boundary, two atoms can unrealisically overlap each other in MD ), which causes total energy abnormal explosion or violation of energy conservation law (= these two unrealistically-overlapped atoms cause abnormally-high Pauli repulsive energy ), giving wrong simulating results ( this p.9-10, this p.26-28, this p.1-lower-p.2, this 5th-paragraph ).
↑ So each time step must be extremely short = 2 fs (= 2 × 10-15 s ), and the microsecond (= 10-6 s ) simulation of protein needs updating and calculating each atomic position in as many as 109 repetitive time steps, which takes unrealistically too much time.
↑ If we give real shapes and sizes to atoms and molecules, we can easily predict when these two molecules collide with each other and how they move after collisions even without the extremaly time-consuming impractical molecular dynamical (= MD ) calculation.
Actually, when we design (= simulate ) and build various practical macroscopic machines, cars, planes and laptops, we do Not use these unphysical, (impractical) time-consuming quantum mechanics, DFT or molecular dynamical methods.
↑ All information we need to design (= simulate ) and build useful devices, cars, planes and laptops is each component's shape, size and property. ←Impractical quantum mechanical or MD simulation's pseudo-potential is completely unnecessary, just wasting too much time.
These quantum mechanics, DFT and molecular dynamics (= MD ) unable to give concrete shape to each molecule contradicts the actual observation, because the fact that macroscopic objects such as cars and planes consisting of atoms and molecules have concrete tangible shapes means atoms and molecules constituting macroscopic objects must also have definite shapes and sizes.
We already have technology of observing each atomic shape (and property ) and manipulating each atom one by one using atomic force microscopes, which means we should be able to design and build any useful molecular devices (= such as artificial enzymes killing cancers without side effects ) by using each atom and molecule with shape like a real object or part, and putting them together using the current technology such as atomic force microscopes (or their improved versions ).
The fact that we still cannot build useful nano-devices treating cancers despite the already-existing excellent technology (= atomic force microscopy, scanning tunnel microscope that can manipulate a single atom ) means the unphysical mainstream quantum mechanical models such as one-pseudo-electron DFT and extremely-time-consuming molecule dynamics (= MD ) with only pseudo-potential and No atomic shapes are the main culprit of preventing the current science from progressing.
All the current applied science, physics, biology and medicine have clearly stopped progressing due to this unrealistically time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ), quantum mechanical DFT.
To hide this inconvenient truth, they created a lot of overhyped news misleadingly promoting fictitious MD effectiveness and (falsely) bright prospect, which has harmful effect on the developing really-useful technology or curing diseases.
For example, the last part of this hyped article's abstract says
"MD may (= just speculation, still useless ) be an important functional prediction tool for cancer-related protein variants of unknown significance (← ? )."
Another hyped article (= p.26-right ) says
" However, during coarse-grained simulation,
the mean degree of freedom is difficult to determine..
It is believed (= No proof yet ) that with the advancement of computer
technology and simulation technology, MD will (= uncertain future, still useless now ) be widely
applied in more felds."
The abstract of this article about MD applied to cancer study says
"Overall, our findings suggest that these compounds have promising potential (= meaning still unrealized ) as anticancer agents,.. This methodology has the potential (= still unrealized ) to expedite the drug discovery process.."
The abstract of another hyped article about cancer research says
"The objective of this study is to evaluate a series of molecules based on cyclosulfamide as potential (= still unrealized, useless ) anticancer agents.
During the simulation, the receptor-ligand pairing demonstrated substantial stability after the initial 70 ns (= time-consuming MD can only simulate very short < 100 ns ). In addition, we used DFT calculations to analyze the electronic and geometric characteristics.."
↑ Impractical mainstream molecular similating methods = time-consuming MD and quantum mechanical DFT are main culprits of preventing curing cancers.
(Fig.A) AI Alphafold cannot predict protein, drug interaction. ↓
Artificial intelligence (= AI ) represented by the failed self-driving car is overhyped technology which is useless for drug discovery, because it still cannot explain protein (and drug ) interaction.
Alphafold representing this AI can predict some (static) protein structures based (= trained ) on experimentally-observed (final) protein structure database (= PDB, this 2nd-paragraph ), Not on (useless) quantum mechanical prediction nor on considering detailed atomic interactions.
↑ It means Alphafold does Not predict protein structures based on actual atomic or molecular interaction, nor clarify real protein folding, conformational change mechanism.
Alphafold just saw the final protein structures (= ignoring the processes of protein folding or interaction ) stored in experimentally-obtained PDB database ( this p.29-35th-paragraphs ).
This abstract, p.1-right say
"AlphaFold does Not resolve the decades-long protein folding challenge, nor does it identify the folding pathways. The models that AlphaFold provides do Not capture conformational mechanisms like frustration and allostery,.."
"It (= Alphafold) has been trained on protein chains from the PDB and uses the input sequence to query databases of protein sequences to construct a multiple sequence alignment. However, its striking success has Not led us to a deeper mechanistic understanding of exactly how a protein sequence folds, thus Not assisting in the folding of a protein from its sequence."
So Alphafold can Not predict disordered or mutated proteins deviating from PDB protein structures, Alphafold cannot predict post-translational modification ( this 3~5th paragaraphs, this p.5-right-3~4th-paragraphs ).
This p.2-right says
"It (= Alphafold ) has been trained on hundreds of thousands of experimentally determined protein structures and sequences in
the PDB and other databases.."
"AlphaFold has some limitations. It is Not designed to predict the effect of mutations, such as those that cause disease, on a protein's shape. Nor was it trained to determine how proteins change shape in the presence of other interacting proteins, or molecules such as drugs" ← Alphafold is useless for drug discovery ( this 5~9th-paragraphs ).
This-middle Is the protein folding problem solved? says
"It is worth noting that AlphaFold relies on existing structures and sequences, and is blind to the physics and chemistry of atomic interactions (= due to useless quantum mechanics ).
There are also flexible proteins with disordered regions for which AlphaFold does Not perform well."
Alphafold just giving one single static (= rigid ) protein structure from the input amino acid sequence can Not explain protein's conformational change ( this 2nd-paragraph, this p.18-what will this means ) nor protein interaction (= precise prediction of protein interaction or docking needs the knowledge of protein conformational change that cannot be handled by Alphafold, this p.2-intro ).
So Alphafold and AI unable to predict protein interaction (or protein conformational change ) are useless for explaining drug-protein intearction or drug discovery.
This 6th-paragraph says
"Essentially, the AI software is useful in one step of the process – structure prediction – but can't help in other stages, such as modeling how drugs and proteins would physically interact."
This 5~6th paragraphs say
"using the AlphaFold structures gives significantly worse results than docking into the pocket determined by experiment
This lines up with a number of other recent papers that have concluded that AlphaFold does Not give you any advantages in compound docking."
Actually, the latest AI tools combined with Alphafold-2 had very low successful rate (= only about 20% ) of predicting protein-molecule docking (= they only saw the designed protein bound to the target molecule without investigating how this binding changed their protein functions )
There are other latest researches showing that Alphafold2's (= AF2 ) success rate of predicting docking is very low with almost no improvement compared to the old (impractical) docking softwares ( this p.5, this p.8-Table.2 unbound-backbone docking prediction rates of Alphafold2 are especially bad = only 8~20%, this bound and unbound docking ).
AI and machine learning are just overhyped empty technology, as seen in still-impractical self-driving cars.
All these deadend technologies come from the useless quantum mechanical pseudo-models (= such as fictional quasiparticles .. ), as I said above.
To hide this inconvenient truth, corporations, the media and academia need to constantly spread overhyped baseless news.
For example, this hyped news headline exaggerates
"AI-discovered drugs will (= just baseless speculation, still useless ) be for sale sooner than you think (?)"
The 10~11th paragarphs of another overhyped news says
"Our model’s dramatic leap in performance shows the potential (= just speculation, still useless ) of AI to greatly enhance scientific understanding of the molecular machines..
The newest AlphaFold isn’t perfect, though.."
Many research results showed that Alphafold (2) could Not predict protein or drug interaction, so it is useless for drug dicovery.
But the recenct hyped news claims
"AlphaFold’s predictions may (= just speculation, still useless ) be more useful than we thought."
↑ This same news (= 10~14th paragraphs ) also says.
"they screened a database containing hundreds of millions of chemicals for ones that would bind to two proteins — sigma-2 and 5-HT2A — based on protein structures that had been determined using traditional methods."
"They then did the same thing using AlphaFold’s predicted structures for the same proteins, and the list of flagged chemicals was completely different (= Alphafold cannot predict experimental protein structures, this 3rd-paragraph )"
"Next, they identified hundreds of promising compounds from each list and headed into the lab to test whether the chemicals could actually bind to the proteins and meaningfully alter their function — and amazingly, the “hit rates” were about the same for each group."
↑ They investigated successful rates of predicting chemicals or molecules binding to two already-known proteins sigma-2 and 5-HT2A whose structures were experimentally determined (= by cryo-EM ) or predicted by Alphafold 2(= AF2) using the current leading docking software (= DOCK 3.8, Alphafold 2 itself has No ability to predict protein docking nor interaction ).
And the successful rate (= hit rate ) of predicting molecules binding to 5-HT2A protein was very bad = only 26% in Alphafold-predicted 2-HT2A protein structure ( this 6th-paragraph, this p.12-last-paragraph, p.26-upper, p.9-Fig.2 ).
↑ This very bad rates of predicting protein docking (= only 26% successful rate ) can Not be used for actual drug discovery which requires scientists to predict many interactions between drugs and many proteins inside body precisely for avoiding side effects.
↑ Actually, there are many proteins whose structures Alphafold2 failed to predict, and they intentionally excluded those ( undesirable or unpredictable ) proteins from testing (= only in the upper two selected proteins, Alphafold2 protein structure predictions happened to resemble the experimentally-observed structures, this-lower Big Bet ).
This ( p.25-2nd-paragraph, p.28 ) says
"Certain caveats merit mentioning. We have focused on two targets where the AF2
conformations of the ligand binding sites are either quite close to that of the experimental
structure.."
"There are other AF2 models that differ so much from the experimental structures that we deem them poor candidates for docking. We have not explored how many proteins fall into these different categories.."
After all, the current AI and Alphafold are unable to predict protein interaction, hence useless for drug disovery, contrary to an incredible amount of overhyped news.
(Fig.B) Biological, medical researches without looking into real atomic interaction are just waste of time, which cannot cure deadly diseases.
All the current biological and medical researches are completely irrelevant to the (useless) quantum mechanics ( so-called quantum biology has nothing to do with actual biology, this p.30-10.conclusion, this-lower-looking ahead ).
This 4. Biologists' views says
"Many biologists consider physical laws, artificial life, robotics, and even theoretical biology as largely irrelevant for their research.
biologists, when they have the facts, need not worry about physical theories that neither address nor alter their facts."
This-middle-quantum biology today says
"Despite the work of Schrödinger and other pioneers of quantum mechanics, physicists of the 20th century believed that quantum effects had No significant impact on biology.
There is no doubt that quantum biology is still in infancy."
All the current biological tools are based on enzymes, virus plasmid vectors and antibodies obtained from natural organisms such as bacteria, viruses and immunized animals, which tools are Not designed nor created by humans or (useless) quantum mechanics.
Due to the impractical quantum mechanics, DFT and molecular dynamics, biological and medical researchers are unable to see and utilize atomic interaction.
↑ It means the current biological and medical researches unable to see atomic interactions have to adopt the extremely time consuming trial and error approach to vaguely see what proteins can bind to each other using immunofluorescence, Western blotting based on antibodies (= antibodies are the biology's only tool to vaguely investigate protein interaction ) obtained from immunizing natural animals Not from (useless) quantum mechanical calculations
↑ The detailed (atomic) interaction mechanism between antibodies and proteins is unclear, which means predicting protein behavior and drug development are impossible in the current biological and medical researches.
In biological methods such as constructing recombinant DNAs, they just amplify target DNAs ( originating from natural organisms' genes ) by PCR based on natural bacterial enzymes, insert those amplified DNAs into (natural) viral plasmid vectors by bacterial enzymes such as restriction enzymes and ligase, transfect it into cultured (bacterial) cells which eventually produce the target proteins that can be detected by immunofluorescence based on natural-animal-based antibodies.
↑ No atomic interaction nor (useless) quantum mechanics is used in biological and medical researches.
To discover some 'lucky drugs', medical researchers have to take extremely much time in (blindly) trying various drug candidate molecules out of almost infinite choices, without looking into detailed atomic interactions.
It is impossible for this macroscopic trial-and-error approach without considering precise atomic interactions to accidentally find some molecule or drugs effective against deadly cancers.
↑ To design and build molecular devices or enzymes to kill cancers without side effect, precisely knowing and manipulating each atom and molecule are indispensable (= for this, knowing each realistic atomic shape is necessary ).
This wide gap between the current medical research and underlying atomic physics is why many deadly diseases such as cancers and Alzheimer are still incurable despite extremely longtime researches, a lot of money and researchers' lives wasted for them.
Despite a huge amount of money and time wasted, cancers are still incurable, which means these research papers published in academic journals are unable to lead us into curing these deadly diseases.
↑ But academic journals demand that researchers should always waste a lot of time in citing and following even these old useless papers only to keep journals' high impact factors instead of allowing them to try really useful new technology (= independent of old papers and methods that will reduce journals' impact factors ), which old bad habit prevents effective treatment of cancers and other deadly diseases.
The current deadend biological and medical science (= due to impractical quantum mechanics) keeping deadly cancers incurable is masked by an incredible amount of overhyped news that falsely raises patients' exprectation and prevents developing truly-effective treatments.
No matter how many times we see the hyped bright news on cancer immunotherapy researches published in journals, the immunotherapy is still ineffective against almost all deadly cancers. ← No progress, and we should give up those hopeless single-pattern immunotherapies especially aganist solid cancers.
For example, the first paragraph of this hyped news says
"Enormous additions to our knowledge of human biology at the molecular and genetic level have opened the door to a potential (= which means still useless ) “golden age” of cancer treatment."
Abstract of this hyped journal says
"Nanotechnology provides a promising platform for improving cancer detection and treatment in the future (= just speculation, still useless now ), but further research is needed to overcome the current limitations in clinical translation."
The 18th paragraph of this dubious quantum-hype news says
"How it is possible that thought processes are dictated by quantum rules? Is our brain working like a quantum computer ? No one yet knows the answers (= which means quantum mechanics has been useless for explaining biological mechanism ), but the empirical data strongly appears (= just baseless speculation ) to suggest that our thoughts follow quantum rules."
The last paragraph of this hyped news says
"This research has shown the possibilities (= just speculation ) presented by quantum therapeutics as a new technology to communicate with biology. The fusion of quantum bioelectronics and medicine brings us one step closer to (= still unrealized ) a new treatment paradigm for disease (← ? )"
↑ This research claims some applied effectric field (causing quantum tunneling ? ) might triger apoptosis of some cancer cells.
↑ But this research ( this p.10-methods-p.13 ) did Not look into any detailed atomic interaction of apoptosis, nor use (useless) quantum mechanical calculations such as Schrödinger equation, density functional theory (= DFT ) or molecular dynamics (= MD ), which means this cancer research is macroscopic trial-and-error approach taking too much time to find "lucky" treatment (= so curing cancers is hopeless ).
The last paragraph of another hyped news says
"The study opens up a new avenue (= ambiguous ) of opportunity to develop drugs that can attack significant diseases such as cancer, fibrosis, and other aging-related conditions. The team is now looking ahead to further research and potential clinical trials (= still unrealized ), representing a promising advancement in the quest for healthier aging (← ? )"
↑ This research ( this p.18-23 ) also did Not consider any detailed atomic intraction, instead, they only looked into macroscopic cells, mice, proteins using immunofluorecence (= IF ), immuno blotting based on natural-animal-based antibodies, and dealt with DNA, RNA using natural-organism-based enzymes with No (useless) quantum mechanical calculation.
The 2nd-last paragraph of this hyped news says
"The researchers hope these findings will (= just speculative future, still useless ) help scientists develop better diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for breast cancer brain metastasis patients."
↑ This research ( this p.24-28 ) also did Not consider atomic interactions, instead, they only looked at macroscopic cells, DNA proteins using immuno-blotting by natural-animal-based antibodies and natural-organism-based enzymes with No quantum mechanical calculation.
↑ The current biological and medical researches do Not look into detailed atomic intearction, hence, developing effective drugs by precisely understanding detailed atomic interaction between drugs and cancer cells is impossible. → cancer is incurable
The 2nd and 4th paragraphs of this hyped news say
"Now, a rapid gene labeling or characterization scheme for bacteria-infecting viruses known as bacteriophages, or phages, has been developed for similar purposes by researchers (← ? )"
"For example, with the new barcoding method, investigators would (= uncertain future, still useless ) be able to track phages while they are being used to manipulate the microbiome around plant roots to enhance plant growth in drought conditions"
↑ This research used the natural organism-based tools (= Not created from humans nor useless quantum mechanics ) such as E.coli, PCR, plasmid, CRISPR system originating from natural bacterial immune system to cut and investigate the DNA gene of bacteriophage that is a naturally-existing virus infecting bacteria with No quantum mechanical calculation nor considering detailed atomic interaction ( this methods and materials ).
↑ So this is also one of (blind) macroscopic trial and error biological approaches that take too much time to make some lucky discovery, hence, fruitless research just wasting time.
The 4th, 7th, 8th, last paragraphs of this hyped news say
"they discovered that stress (= confine a mouse in very small tube ) causes certain white blood cells called neutrophils to form sticky web-like structures that make body tissues more susceptible to metastasis."
"The team found that stress hormones called glucocorticoids acted on the neutrophils. These stressed neutrophils formed spider-web-like structures called NETs (neutrophil extracellular traps). NETs form when neutrophils expel DNA. Normally, they can defend us against invading microorganisms. However, in cancer, NETs create a metastasis-friendly environment (= NET is double-edged sword )."
"First, she removed neutrophils from the mice using antibodies (= unrealistic treatment ). Next, she injected a NET-destroying drug (= DNase I enzyme ) into the animals. Lastly, she used mice whose neutrophils couldn't respond to glucocorticoids (= glucocorticoid-receptor-gene-deficient mice, which gene-deletion cannot be used for human's treatment ). Each test achieved similar results. The stressed mice no longer developed more metastasis (= NET and glucocorticoid could exacerbate metastasis )"
"The team also speculates that future drugs (= just speculation, still useless research ) preventing NET formation could benefit patients whose cancer hasn't yet metastasized"
↑ This research claims some cancer metastasis was reduced by suppressing the activity of neutrophil extracellular traps (= NET ) using knockout mice with abnormal gene of glucocorticoid receptor (= GR ) which receptor is needed for formation of NET, and injecting the enzyme DNase I that may destroy NET ( this summary ).
This research did Not consider any atomic interaction nor (useless) quantum mechanics (= detailed protein-enzymatic reaction mechanism at atomic level remains unclear ).
First of all, this neutrophil extracellular trap (= NET ), which is said to cause cancer metastasis, is necessary for our immune system protecting us from infection.
This 5.conclusion-2nd-paragraph says
"it should be noted that neutrophils and NETs are important components of innate immunity, and inhibition of NET formation or destruction of formed NETs may affect neutrophils and reduce pathogenic clearance" ← severe side effect caused by targeting NET
In order to prevent cancer metastasis, this research also tried to suppress the stress hormone glucocorticoids ( this p.1-in brief, p.8(or p.7)-right-1st-paragraph says loss of GR = glucocorticoid recepter in neutrophils did Not affect the primary tumor, but it abrogated stress-induced lung metastasis ). ← Primary cancers are still incurable in this research method.
But this glucocorticoid hormones are also necessary for our cells' growth, metabolism and anti-inflammatory function.
The current cancer researches try to sacrifice these humans' normal proteins and hormones that are essential for us to survive. ← These cancer treatments sacrificing normal neutrophil-immune system and glucocorticoid hormones are likely to cause unrealistically-damaging side effects.
To develop effective cancer treatments without sacrificing normal cells' functions, we need to clarify detailed atomic mechanism and interaction, and create artificial proteins or molecular nano-device that can effectively eliminate only harmful cancer cells by precisely distinguishing them from normal cells (= at the atomic level ).
But the current mainstream quantum mechanics has been unrealistic and useless, which prevents medical researchers from using practical atomic models to find effective drugs or treatments.
This research also used the natural enzyme called DNase I (= protein discovered a long time ago ) to destroy neutrophil extracellular trap (= NET, this summary ), which could increase the chance of infection ( this-introduction-2nd-paragraph ).
And cancer cells are known to inhibit DNase I ( this-abstract ). DNase activity is known to be too short to use for cancer treatment ( this 4.Targeting neutrophils-6th-paragrah says DNase I has a relatively short-half and is quickly inactivated by G actin proteins, for therapeutic window of DNase I is small ).
The impractical quantum mechanical atomic theory has prevented biological and medical researches from considering atomic interactions essential for understanding cancer formation and finding effective drugs.
All the current biotechnology or medical research tools depend on enzymes, DNAs, plasmids originating from natural organisms, which were Not designed by humans nor (useless) quantum mechanical theory ( this-lower-method used No quantum mechanics ).
This research methods ↓
p.19 Knockout mice with glucocorticoid recepter (= GR ) deficiency in neutrophils.
p.22 Flow cytometry for cell separation and distinction by using antibodies obtained from immunizing natural animals by the target protein antigens
p.23 immunofluorescence staining using antibodies (from animals ).
p.24 in vitro T cell activation assay by using flow cytometry antibodies.
p.24 real-time PCR using bacterial polymerase enzymes.
p.24 Western blot and cytokine array using antibodies obtained from immunizing animals.
p.25 ELISA used antibodies obtained from animals.
p.25 CRISPR/Cas9 originated from bacterial immune system.
p.25 RNA sequencing using natural enzymes.
p.26 ChIP means chromatin-immunoprecipitation using antibodies obtained from animals.
↑ As a result, the current biological or medical researches completely ignoring detailed atomic interactions due to useless mainstream quantum mechanics are unable to develop effective treatments or reduce severe side effects forever. ← Researchers just waste their time and ruin their careers as slaves to journals.
(Fig.Q) Quantum computer is dead, hopeless forever. Only hypes remain.
Under the current deadend mainstream quantum mechanics, academia and corporations need to artificially create fictional scientific targets to continue to obtain research funds.
This fictional scientific target is the quantum computer allegedly calculating different values simultaneously using quantum superpoition (= a fantasy dead-and-alive cat state ) or imaginary parallel worlds.
Of course, these fictional quantum computers are useless, impractical forever.
The major reason why quantum computer is impractical (forever) is it can Not correct errors nor give right calculated answers.
Ordinary classical computer's error rate is extremely low = only one error in 1017 ~ 1025 operations that can be easily fixed, while (impractical) quantum computer error rate is far higher = one error in 102 ~ 103 operations, and the current error-prone quantum computers cannot correct their errors.
This p.1-intro-2nd-paragraph says
"Modern (classical) computers have device components with
failure rates of 10−17 or less (= only less than one error in 1017 operations = very rare error ).
Current state-of-the-art quantum
computers however exhibit gate-level (e.g. CNOT) failure rates
of around 10−2 (= one error occurs in each 102 operations = far more errors than practical classical computers ! ). Consequently, reliability and reproducibility
of results obtained from quantum computers is a problem"
↑ The (imaginary) practical quantum computer will need much lower error rate of only one error in 1015 operations ( this-5th-paragraph, this abstract ), which target required for practical computer is impossible to reach in the current already-deadend quantum computer research.
All the current quantum error correction operations just worsen and increase errors instead of decreasing errors, and they can just detect errors without correcting errors.
So for example, in the recent Harvard's fault tolerant research, they just discarded qubits that showed the sign of errors without correcting errors, though the remaining qubits' error rates even after discarding erroneous qubits are still too high (= error rate is 90% ! ) and impractical.
Due to this impossibility of error correction, researches on the quantum supremacy (= which quantum supremacy was disproved later ) and advantage can only output random meaningless numbers into which errors can be hidden.
↑ Because the current hopelessly-error-prone quantum computers can Not calculate nor give accurate meaningful non-random numbers.
They thought random meaningless numbers remain random numbers, even if those random numbers contain many errors (= Google supremacy random numbers contained 99.8% error rate ! ) ← unjustifiable motive for (still-useless) quantum supremacy experiements.
This p.3(or p.2)-upper says
"Google’s recent quantum supremacy experiment estimated that their fidelity (= 1 - error rate )
was merely ∼ 0.2% (i.e., the experiment was ∼ 99.8% noise = 99.8% error rate ! )
↑ Random meaningless numbers generated by Google supremacy quantum comptuer contain 99.8% error rate, which means their random numbers were just results of errors, Not of (imaginary) quantum mechanical superposition or parallel-world calculations (= so this is Not quantum supremacy, actually ordinary classical computer can obtain arbitrary random numbers more quickly and easily than quantum computer ).
↑ Physicists made unfounded claim that (error-prone) quantum computers could obtain random (meaningless) numbers by utilizing (imaginary) quantum superposition or parallel worlds (= Google 53-qubit quantum computer is said to generate fictional 253 superposition parallel worlds in the process of getting random meaningless numbers, this 9-12th-paragraphs, this 6-8th-paragraphs ) which superposition or parallel-worlds are unavailable to classical computer, so this is quantum supremacy ( this 8~9th-paragraphs ) !
↑ But it is impossible to confirm Google quantum computer really utilized the unobservable quantum superposition or a dead-and-alive cate state in fictional parallel worlds for getting random meaningless numbers (= because we can observe only one dead or alive state in collapsed superposition ), so this quantum supremacy has No evidence.
Ordinary classical comptuers can obtain random numbers more quickly, so there is No quantum supremacy or advantage, which is why their quantum computers are still useless ( this-last-paragraph, this-last-paragraph, this-3rd-last-paragraph ).
This 9~10th paragraphs say
"What exactly is Google’s quantum supremacy program doing?
Nothing useful in any practical sense — in fact, it is randomly generated,"
IBM tried to only increase the number of qubits to 1000 without correcting errors, which is meaningless and impractical, and even this current largest quantum computer is far from the practically required millions qubits ( this 11th-paragraph, this 19-23th-paragraphs ).
So quantum computer research has been already deadend, and researchers' only purpose is to publish papers in academic journals in vain instead of really making useful computers.
To hide the inconvenient fact of the already-hopeless quantum computers, a lot of overhyped news is created and spread every day.
For example, the first paragraph of this news says
"The future of quantum computing is here. As quantum computing develops quickly, it will have a major impact on the future (= talk only about uncertain future, so "still useless now" ) of computing. A quantum computer could (= just speculation ) transform the way we think about computing,.."
The 2~3rd paragraphs of another hyped news says
"Critics have often dismissed quantum computing as overhyped. But as it prepares to enter center stage, all eyes will be on whether it can deliver on its promises (= this word indicates "uncertain future", so it's still useless ) of a seismic shift in computational capabilities.."
"After AI, quantum computing may (= just speculation ) be the next shift we see worldwide.."
The last paragraph of this hyped article insists
"Although this research is still in its very early stages, the potential (= uncertain future, still useless ) of the technology is quickly becoming apparent and a new chapter of artificial intelligence is within reach"
This hyped news also says "China's quantum computer completes over 30,000 tasks (= Not saying "useful tasks", which is the point ) for global users" ← Their (only) 72 qubits are far from practically-required millions of qubits.
This hyped news is typical example of "quantum mechanical hype falsely raises hopes and kills cancer patients"
"In the future (= still unrealized ), quantum computing may (= just speculation ) provide several ways to detect cancers (← ? )"
The 1st and 13th paragraphs of another hyped news say
"We could have machines capable of breaking RSA encryption by 2030 (= uncertain future, still useless ).
a more immediate quantum technology might (= baseless speculation ) be quantum sensing."
The 1st, 6th, 7th, last paragraphs of this hyped news (+ hyped fake picture ) say
"A new study by researchers.. proposes a quantum battery (QB) charging scheme based on a rectangular hollow metal waveguide (← this research is just an imaginary theoretical proposal, Not experimental results )"
"The other challenge for the practical performance of QB (= quantum battery is still impractical ) is its low charging efficiency resulting from the fragility of coherent interactions between the QB and its charger."
"The QB (= quantum battery ) model is based on two two-level systems (TLSs), which are systems having two distinct energy levels. These energy levels are typically represented as a ground state and an excited state."
"we plan to develop a many-body QB model working in the way of.. (← meaning just imagining theoretical model without experimental verification ) "
↑ This research paper (= theoretical proposal ) ↓
p.1-left-last paragraph says "However, the practical performance of the QB (= quantum battery ) is challenged by two facts" ← still No practical use ( this last-paragraph ).
p.5-left-2nd-paragraph says "In conclusion, we have proposed a remote-charging
scheme.." ← just proposition, No experiments.
p.9~ Nonphysical mechanism with no real particle picture
This article ( 1-3rd paragraphs ) talks about the hopeless deadend quantum battery,
"There’s been plenty written about quantum batteries over the past 10 years but it’s unlikely they will replace conventional batteries"
"scientists did Not foresee any technological application of their model. Quantum batteries were invented to study how energy moves in quantum systems, Not to be sold in shops."
"A quantum battery is only a theoretical (= imaginary ) concept for now."
The first experimental realization of quantum battery (= still far from practical use ) was research in Science paper in 2022 ↓
Fig.1, p.2-right-2nd-paragraph says "Charging and energy storage dynamics were measured using ultrafast transient-absorption spectroscopy.. In this technique, we excite the
microcavity with a pump pulse (= light ) and then measure the evolution of
stored energy (i.e., corresponding to the number of excited molecules ) with a second probe pulse"
↑ So their so-called quantum battery is trapping the laser light energy ( in molecules ) between two mirrors called microcavity, which is too unstable to use as battery.
This-lower Discussion (= about this recent Science research ) says
"These numbers make it clear that even if QBs (= quantum battery ) could be scaled up to form a real battery, they wouldn't even come close to matching the energy performance or cost of widely available batteries like lithium ion"
"Quantum batteries face many challenges that make them hard to implement and hard to apply to real-world uses. Quantum systems rely on perfectly cohered light sources and decohere at the slightest introduction of environmental noise, allowing them to only store energy for extremely short periods of time. In the organic microcavity experiment, the coherence time was defined as 120 femtoseconds (= fs ), which is 1.2 × 10-13 s (= this-p.6-right-2nd-paragraph says cavity lifetime T = only 120 fs ← too short battery lifetime ! ). "
↑ It means the (impractical) quantum battery can store charged energy (= laser light energy ) for only extremely short time (= only 120 femtosedonds ! ), which extremely-unstable, short-lived quantum battery can never be of practical use ( despite longtime researches ).
IBM also fruitlessly tried to utilize their superconducting qubit (= ground and excited states ) as quantum battery (= discharged and charged states ), but its lifetime of storing charged energy is only 165 μs = 165 × 10-6 s ( this p.9-2nd-paragraph ), which is also hopelessly too short for battery's lifetime.
As a result, quantum battery is just an overhyped useless pseudoscience only for physicists to publish papers in academic journals, and this useless journal's pseudo-science (= inapplicable to other fields ) will ruin the researchers' careers, future.
(Fig.E) Gravitational wave disproves Einstein relativity.
Einstein relativistic theory is packed with fatal paradoxes such as time (= twin paradox is real paradox, contrary to textbooks ), kinetic energy, de Broglie wave, electromagnetic field, spin-orbit (pseudo-magnetic) effect..
It is impossible for such a paradoxical relativistic theory to be useful.
Actually, the alleged only application of Einstein relaivity = GPS's time often disagrees with relativistic theory's prediction, hence GPS clock time error (= caused by discrepancy between theoretical and measured times ) needs to be constantly corrected compared with ground-station's atomic clock (= clock time error correction model is irrelevant to Einstein relativity, this p.2-(4) ).
To hide this inconvenient truth of paradoxical, useless Einstein relativity, an incredible amount (= 100-year-amount ) of overhyped baseless news was created and spread.
For example, this hyped news headline says
"Einstein’s Theory About Gravitational Waves Was Just Proved Right — Again (?)"
↑ This is untrue, because gravitational wave is expressed as (unreal) pseudo-tensor contradicting the original Einstein relativistic theory's true tensor (= gravitational wave energy or pseudo-tensor paradoxically vanishes seen from some observers, this p.1, this p.2 = so gravitational wave is illusion, this p.3-4 ).
All dubious tests of Einstein relativity are based on imaginary distant objects such as black hole and Bigbang, which are too far away to go and confirm.
When you touch solid objects, you feel repulsive contact (or normal ) forces.
This contact force is said to be caused by Pauli principle repulsion ( this 5th-paragraph ), because contact repulsive force happens before two objects get close to convalent bond length where Coulomb force is still attraction, not repulsion.
The fact that we can actually touch and feel the contact forces means these contact forces are generated by some real substances filling space (= real Pauli repulsive contact force must be explained by real "tangible" substance, which contradicts unphysical quantum mechanical model ).
↑ But if this real substance causing real contact force (or real Pauli repulsion ) in space is admitted, it contradicts (not only unphysical quantum mechanics but also) Einstein relativity that prohibits any real medium or substance in space (= except for ad-hoc dark matter ).
This paradoxical Einstein relativity is one of reasons why unphysical quantum mechanics claims this actually-measurable Pauli reulsive contact force is Not a real force ( this p.10-1.5 ), only Pauli exchange energy without exchange force may exist. ← paradox !
↑ This unrealistic paradoxical quantum mechanical Pauli principle requiring each single electron to always exist in all different atoms inside material due to the unphysical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction is the main culprit of making quantum mechanical (pseudo-)model (= DFT, MD ) impractical, stopping practical scientific progress (forever, as long as quantum mechanical pseudo-model is used).
(Fig.J) Academic journals can Not cure cancer nor build practical quantum computer ! Their useless pseudo-science ruins researchers' careers and future.
Due to the stalled mainstream atomic physics or (fictional) quantum mechanics, all the current researchers in biology, medicine and physics only aim to publish papers as slaves to academic journals instead of really aiming to cure cancers or invent useful nano-devices.
So researchers are just wasting their precious time and (taxpayers') money in publishing papers on impractical science in academic journals, ruining their careers and future.
Academic journals are trying to exploit their (empty) prestage to manipulate the world's researchers in corporations and universites, let them spread overhyped (useless) science news, which just benefits academic journals by sacrificing researchers' lives, future, and corporations' (or taxpayers' ) money.
Actually, Google just lost a significant amount of money in fruitless AI Deepmind, Alphafold and impractical quantum computer's research only to obtain the honor of publishing papers in top journals (= this means Google spreading overhyped quantum computer and AI news is also one of victims exploited by top journals ).
No matter how many times researchers published their papers in prestigious (top) journals, many deadly diseases such as cancers and Alzheimer are still incurable, and quantum computers are hopeless, impractical forever.
But academic journals always forced scientists to use and reference old impractical (obsolete) physical models to explain observed phenomena as the necessary condition for publishing papers, which bad old customs of automatically referencing old fictitious useless theories can keep journals' high impact factor by sacrificing really-useful scientific development, researchers' careers, future, and preventing curing deadly diseases.
↑ Even when the physics, biological and medical papers on (still-)useless research are published in (top) journals, researchers are required to cite these useless old papers only to contribute to journals' high impact factor. → Technological innovation stalls stuck in old deadend methodology, No effective drug discovery.
Professors in universities got their academic positions by publishing their papers in (top) journals, so they tend to force young researchers and students to prioritize publishing papers in academic journals instead of doing really-useful researches, which old bad habit and their pseudo-science will ruin the researchers' careers and just end up raising university's tuition tormenting students and taxpayers.
It's about time to stop blingly worshiping top journals' pseudo-science religion that just ruins researchers' careers, delays developing really-useful devices, prevents curing cancers, and kills patients.
(Fig.2) Each atom or molecule has measurable concrete shape like a macroscopic object. ← But quantum mechanics cannot describe this measurable atomic shape due to its contradictory Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction model where a single electron must always spread over all different atoms unrealistically.
Quantum mechanical only calculation tool called Schrödinger equations are unsolvable and unable to predict any multi-electron atomic or molecular energy values.
Physicists have to artificially choose (fake) wavefunctions called trial wavefunctions or basis sets out of infinite choices to obtain (fake) total energies, which quantum mechanical fruitless calculating method is called "variational method" that is "art", Not science.
↑ Physicists cannot predict or know true atomic or molecular energies until they compare the calculated values with experimental energies ( this p.1-last ), which means quantum mechanics is unnecessary, because we should just use the experimental atomic energy values from the beginning instead of wasting too much time in the unpredictable quantum mechanical calculations ( this p.11 ).
As a result, the only calculation tool of quantum mechanics or Schrödinger equations is unnecessary, because No Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms are solvable, and it is far better and faster for us to use the experimental atomic or molecular energies from the beginning instead of wasting too much time in meaningless quantum mechanical calculation (= choosing fake wavefunctions, integrating, and getting fake total energies ) with No prediction power.
The problem is quantum mechanical unphysical spin and spreading probability wavefunction are not only useless but also inconsistent with realistic observation.
Quantum mechanical one-electron hydrogen atomic energy agreed with that of Bohr's realistic atomic orbit, but quantum mechancal hydrogen has to change the electron's orbital motion into the unrealistic zero orbital angular momentum or s orbital, and the contradictory faster-than-light electron spinning with the same Bohr magneton as Bohr's orbit.
Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations also use de Broglie wave theory, hence, in this quantum mechanical unreal s orbital with zero-orbital angular momentum (= linear orbit where electrons crash into nucleus ! ), the electron's de Broglie wave causes destructive interference due to its unscientific linear orbital motion, which is self-contradictory.
Electron spin's magnetic moment or magnetic energy (= spin magnetic dipole energy < 0.0001 eV ) is too weak to explain the strong Pauli repulsive energy ( > 30 eV ) that can kick out the third electron of lithium from the inner 1s orbitals by resisting Coulomb attraction ( this 4th-paragraph ).
And the quantum mechanical spreading probability wavefunction or vague electron cloud is unable to express molecular covalent attractive bond, because in the always-spreading quantum wavefunction, electrons cannot approach the other nucleus or avoid other electrons by going around nucleus, unlike the Bohr's realistic electron that can naturally generate strong Coulomb attraction and form covalent bond by going around the nucleus periodically as a real moving particle ( this p.2 ).
So quantum mechanics had to artificially create another ad-hoc rule called "exchange energy expressed as unphysical exchange integral" or Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction to fictitiously generate molecular covalent bonds and strong Pauli principle repulsion in addition to the useless electron spin and the probability wavefunction ( this p.6, this p.4-5-Figure.1 this p.3-4 ).
This unphysical ad-hoc quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction (= ψ = χ1(x1)χ2(x2)-χ1(x2)χ2(x1) ) or Slater determinant is supposed to become the opposite sign, when interchanging any two electrons ( x1 ↔ x2 ψ ↔ -ψ ), which means when two electrons belong to the same state or wavefunction, the whole Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction becomes zero ( ψ = 0, when χ1 = χ2 ), which unphysical rule is the only description of quantum mechanical Pauli principle repulsion with No more consistent detailed explanation ( this p.6 ).
↑ The problem is in this unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction rule, each electron must always exist in any different atomic orbitals or wavefunctions. ← In a two-atomic molecule such as H2 molecule or when there are two separate atoms with no covalent bond, an electron-1 (= denoted by x1 or r1 ) must exist in two different atomic wavefunctions or around two different nuclei χ1(x1) and χ2(x1) ( this p.11, this p.3 ), unrealistically.
It means two different atoms or molecules expressed using this quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions are unrealistically inseparable with No clear boundaries or shapes (= even when No bonds are formed between these two separable atoms ) due to each inseparable single electron always spreading over all different atomic wavefunctions in this rule.
In this unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions, molecular attractive covalent bond energy is generated by decrease in the kinetic energy of the electron spreading over all different atoms, and Pauli repulsion is generated by increase in the electron's kinetic energy expressed as the unphysical exchange energy paradoxically lacking exchange force ( this p.9-10, this p.4, this p.13-2nd-paragraph ), instead of the realistic potential energy generating real force.
We prove it is impossible that quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations and its unphysical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions conserve total energy or obtain true solution, whatever fake trial wavefunctions with an arbitrary number of freely-adjustable parameters are chosen, hence, quantum mechanics is intrinsically contradictory and false.
And this original quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions consisting of spin and spatial parts can Not be applied to any atoms with more than two electrons such as Lithium without artificially modifying (= contradicting ) the original Pauli rule, which still unrealistically demands that every single electron must exist in all different atoms simultaneously, which cannot give a realistic shape or boundary to each atom.
As you know, all real objects and components have their own shapes and sizes, and we can design and build useful machines, cars and laptops by combining those components with definite "shapes".
Each macroscopic object having its tangible shape means each microscopic atom or molecule composing the macroscopic object also must have its tangible shape and size, which can be actually measured by atomic force microscope as Pauli repulsion or contact force.
But the unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions are unable to describe these exprimentally-observed shapes of atoms, molecules and tangible objects. ← This is a fatal quantum mechanical contradiction preventing our practical science from progressing.
↑ This obvious contradiction forces quantum mechanics to make more contradictory claim "even when we touch the object and feels the contact force (= Pauli repulsion ), this contact or normal force is Not a real force, hence, we cannot actually touch the object !" ← Nonsense.
This nonsensical fact shows that quantum mechanics disagreeing with actual observation is a wrong inconsistent theory that cannot be used for practical purpose.
The unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions cannot give clear boundaries or shapes to individual atoms or molecules due to each single electron forced to unrealistically spread over all different atoms by the absurd quantum mechanical Pauli rule.
↑ In the unrealistic quantum mechanical model, we cannot use the realistic atoms or molecules with concrete shapes that can be measurable. It means we cannot design or build useful nano-machines by combining atoms and molecules in this useless quantum mechanical models that do Not allow an individual separable atom to have concrete shape.
So in all these current useless quantum mechanics and mainstream molecular simulating methods such as molecular dynamics (= MD = the current fastest molecular and protein simulating method, though even this fastest MD simulation takes unrealistically too much time, and impractical ), physicists have to artificially change the actually-measurable atomic shapes or Pauli repulsive potential energies (= generating contanct force ) into the unphysical exchange energy (= pseudo-kinetic energy ) incorporated into the ad-hoc total energy called "force field."
And they have to take unrealistically too much time to simulate even a very simple atomic motion by differentiating the artificially-created total energy or force field, giving pseudo-exchange force and moving each atom little by little at short time intervals (= each time step moving each atom a little is only 2femtoseconds or 2fs, this p.5-12, p.24 ) repeatedly many,many times, which molecular dynamical simulating method is too time-consuming and impractical forever ( this 5th-paragraph, this p.3-right ), instead of using atoms or molecules with definite shapes or boundaries like real macroscopic components.
We do Not need to use this unrealistically-time consuming quantum mechanical calculation or molecular dynamics for designing or moving macroscopic components to build practical machines, cars and laptops.
The present mainstream theory is self-contradictory, double-standard (= between macroscopic and microscopic circumstances ), hence wrong.
Because engineers use the realistic objects or components with definite shapes or boundaries to build useful cars and machines only in the macroscopic world, and in the microscopic world, physicists suddenly stop using realistic atoms (= components ) or molecules with concrete shapes, and instead, they blindly apply the impractical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction, unphysical exchange energy and the time-consuming quantum mechanical molecular dynamical simulating methods in vain with No progress.
↑ If we just treat each atom and molecule with concrete shape (= without using useless quantum mechanical model or time-consuming molecular dynamics ), which is measurable as contact force or Pauli repulsion by atomic force microscope, in the same way as the practical macroscopic components for building cars, planes and laptops, it is possible for us to utilize and manipulate each atom for building practical nano-machines curing the current intractable diseases and effective drug development.
In the unreslistic "shapeless" quantum mechanical atoms and molecules due to its contradictory exchange energy based on pseudo-kinetic energy (= Not potential energy giving shape ), physicists can Not design or build the practical molecular nano-machines from these "unrealistically shapeless" atomic components, because they cannot know when these two "shapeless" quantum mechanical atoms hit each other or unrealistically overlap, unless they take too much time to move each atom little by little at extremely short time intervals (< 2fs of each time step ) for avoiding catastrophic overlapping of two shapeless atoms with No clear boundaries or explosion of repulsive total energy ( this p.9-10, this p.1-last~p.2 ).
↑ Such an absurd situation (= overlapping of two rigid components ) never happens when we design and build the practical machines, cars and planes (= we do Not use the extremely time-consuming quantum mechanics or molecular dynamics to design and build the practical cars, planes or machines, as you know ) using the real components with definite known tangible shapes.
Even the current fastest molecular simulating method or molecular dynamics (= MD ) is impractical, too time-consuming and unable to simulate any object's motion for longer than microseconds~milliseconds ( this p.5-Figure.2 ), so it is absolutely impossible for such an extremely time-consuming molecular dynamics (= original quantum mechanics takes much more time ) to simulate or design the actual objects, molecules or machines operating for the practical time length (= minutes, hours, days ~ ) forever ( this p.2 2nd-paragraph, this p.2-left-lower~right, this p.10-right-3rd-paragraph, this p.1-introduction-2nd-paragraph ).
For example, protein foldings and many biological reactions take milliseconds ~ seconds ~ hours ( this p.2, this p.4-left, ), which time scales are far beyond the capacity of the molecular dynamics (= MD ) that takes more than days even to simulate only less than microsecond protein's change ( this 3rd paragraph, this p.2-left, this p.3-right-1st-paragraph ). = completely impractical
↑ In addition to the protein folding, we need to consider much longer time taken by the protein sythesis or translation from mRNA to protein in ribosomes = only 2 ~ 5 aminoacids per second is added to the polypeptide chain in eukaryotes ( this 7th-paragraph, this abstract, this table.2 ), which means it takes 2~3 hours to make one single protein, which is impossible to simulate even by the current (useless) fastest molecular dynamics that can simulate only microsecond time scale change.
There are many proteins or enzymes such as ATPase, proteinase, polymerase, DNAse which catalytic reaction takes much longer time (~ seconds, this table.1, this p.23-24, this Fig.1 ) than the molecular dynamical maximum simulating time (= only ~ microseconds ).
↑ It's impossible to simulate practical biological reactions as long as we stick to the useless quantum mechanics and molecular dynamics which cannot treat each atom or molecule as a realistic object with concrete shape.
Like designing and building practical cars, planes, macroscopic machines and laptops from real parts, components with concrete shapes, which processes do Not use the useless, time-consuming quantum mechanical or molecular dynamical simulation (= creating artificial pseudo-potential energy → differentiating this pseudo-potential or exchange energy to get pseudo-force on each atom, many, many times, taking too much time ), we just need to treat each atom and molecule as a practical part or component with concrete shape (= realistic Pauli repulsion instead of unrealistic quantum mechanical Pauli exchange energy or pseudo-kinetic energy ) for designing useful molecular nano-machine and clarifying real protein conformation change without taking much time.
As a result, unlike the useful Newtonian, Maxwell, Coulomb theories that can be used as universally-correct consistent models, the quantum mechanics is a contradictory inconsistent and useless model that cannot use realistic atoms and molecules with the measurable concrete shapes, which quantum mechanical fatal contradiction (= quantum model disagrees with observation ) prevents us from utilizing atomic interaction for practical purpose such as medical treatment or drug discovery forever ( this 4.Biologists' views ).
2024/1/19 updated. Feel free to link to this site.
