Youhei Tsubono, Japan
(24/1/6) Electron spin is illusion, Hype.
(Fig.1) Unrealistic quantum mechanics came after successful Bohr model stalled in helium three body problem due to lack of modern computers in 1920s, and all the current applied science stops progressing by this impractical, harmful quantum mechanics.
Science is already deadend, Moore's law is also dead. we are still unable to cure cancers, Alzheimer, medical research is deadend.
As shown in industrial revolution, "science" originally should make our life more convenient and happier.
But the current manistream fake "science" such as global warming (= green technology is deadend ) and COVID-17 treatment made our life inconvenient and unhappy by raising tax, tuition, imposing unnecessary restrictions, lockdown and mandate of ineffective vaccines, which are often used just as political tools.
All these stalled mainstream fictional science and created pseudo-science originated from the long-standing deadend quantum mechanics and paradoxical Einstein relativity, which needed to fabricate fictional scientific targets such as hyped quantum computers, information, sensor, spintronics, artificial intelligence.
To hide this inconvenient truth of the already-deadend manistream science, a lot of overhyped news was spread every day, and Nobel prize and academic journals were often used to enable impractical science to get taxpayers' money as (pseudo-)science funds.
(Fig.A) Quantum mechanics is useless in medical research which relies on biological tools obtained from natural organisms.
All the current biological and medical research tools such as DNAs, PCR polymerase came from natural organisms, Not from being designed by humans nor useless quantum mechanics that just obstructs medical development and curing diseases.
So humans cannot design or manufacture truly-artificial proteins from scratch for new drugs or medical treatment, because of the 100-year-old obsolete impractical atomic model.
All researchers can do is just delete some genes of natural proteins (= called mutagenesis ) or fuse multiple natural proteins into one new recombinant protein by using biological tools such as PCR enzymes obtained from natural organisms.
1. obtain DNA genes encoding target natural proteins.
If this target protein is encoded in RNA or mRNA like RNA viruses, change the target RNA into DNA (= called cDNA ) by enzymes called reverse transcriptase that originated from natural retroviruses. → RT-PCR.
2. amplify the target DNA by PCR polymerases which enzymes originated from natural bacteria using primers that can encode restriction enzyme cutting sites and mutations.
3. cut the amplified DNA and plasmid vectors (= originating from bacterial viruses ) that already encode another (natural) protein such as green fluorescent proteins (= GFP originating from jellyfish ) by restriction enzymes (= originating from bacteria ).
4. insert the cut target DNA into the cut plasmid by ligase which enzyme originates from natural organism.
5. Infuse cultured cells or bacteria with these plasmids encoding the target protein genes (= called transformation or transfection ), and let them produce new recombinant proteins such as the target natural protein joined to GFP from jellyfish.
In the current biological and medical researches, the only way for researchers to guess the functions of proteins is ( unreliable ) antibodies obtained from immunizing natural animals.
They can only vaguely see whether antibodies with fluorescence may stick to target proteins macroscopically without knowing detailed molecular mechanisms between proteins and antibodies.
These biological methods using antibodies are immuno-fluorescence, western blotting, immuno-precipitation (= IP ), flow-cytometry, ELISA ( this p.4 ).
It is impossible to know where in the target protein the antibodies stick to or how proteins change their functions or conformations after interacting with antibodies. ← effective drug development is impossible.
Useless basic physics or quantum mechanics prevents medical researchers from utilizing detailed atomic interactions, hence, finding effective drugs and treatments for deadly diseases such as cancers and Alzheimer is impossible.
(Fig.M) Science and technology stall by unphysical quantum mechanical DFT and extremely-time-consuming MD.
Due to unphysical basic physics or quantum mechanics, the current medical research can neither utilize microscopic atomic interaction between proteins nor develop effective drugs.
Medical researchers unable to utilize the detailed atomic or molecular interactions can only blindly try to find miracle drugs out of infinite candidate molecules or herbs, which takes an enormous amount of time, and often fails.
This is why cancers, Alzheimer are still incurable despite longtime researches.
The current only hope (hyped) immunotherapy using antibodies cannot cure deadly cancers, either.
Impractical quantum mechanics and its paradoxical Pauli repulsion expressed as unphysical antisymmetric wavefunction require every electron to unrealistically exist in all different atoms inside materials simultaneously.
So quantum mechanics can neither distinguish different electrons of different atoms nor give concrete shape, boundary to each atom, which fact prevents researchers from utilizing atoms or molecules as practical tools with concrete shapes for building useful nano-devices treating diseases.
In these unrealistic shapeless quantum mechanical atoms, physicists are forced to use impractical density functional theory (= DFT ) treating the whole material as one pseudo-electron model with artificial pseudo-potential, and fictional quasiparticle model.
To simulate molecular motions in these inconvenient shapeless quantum mechanical atoms, researchers have to rely on extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ) based on pseudo-potentials or force fields instead of realistic atomic model with shape.
So quantum mechanical one-pseudo-electron DFT and extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamics (= MD ) based on unphysical shapeless atoms are the main culprit of obstructing all the applied science and preventing curing deadly diseases (= which means if we treat each atom and molecule as realistic tools with actual shapes, we can develop practical nano-technology ).
The current medical and biological tools do Not use these impractical quantum mechanics, DFT or molecular dynamics in researches on HIV ( this = this p.9-10 ), cancers ( this = this p.12-15, this = this p.18-23 ), Alzheimer ( this = this p.9-12 ) and stem cells ( this = this p.11-16 ).
(Fig.B) Quantum mechanics based on fictional quasiparticle model with unreal electron's effective mass and one-pseudo-electron DFT method with artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials has No power to predict or invent useful technologies.
Contrary to an incredible amount of hypes, the unphysical quantum mechanics was useless for inventing computer's transistors, tunneling, spintronics, NMR, atomic clocks, electron microscopes..
Nuclear magnetic resonance (= NMR ) and atomic clocks rely on experimentally-observed atomic energy levels, which could Not be predicted by (useless) quantum mechanics that cannot solve any Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms.
The baseless claim that quantum mechanics might have contributed to computer's transistors came from quantum tunneling and (unphysical) band theory.
In quantum tunneling, which was an experimentally observed thing that did Not need quantum mechanical theory, a small amount of electric current can flow over extremely short distance less than only 1 nanometer (< 1nm ) under applied voltage, as shown in scanning tunneling microscope.
Quantum mechanics ridiculously insists this tunnel current is caused by (unrealistic) negative kinetic energy of flowing electrons (fictitiously) surpassing bigger Coulomb potential barrier of very thin insulators such as empty vacuum and air (= actually, No barrier ).
Of course, quantum mechanical electrons with the unrealistic negative kinetic energies can never flow as real tunnel current ( this p.8-4. ), because the negative kinetic energy means "non-existent imaginary velocity or negative mass"
We can naturally explain this quantum tunneling in a realistic classical way where electrons (= with positive kinetic energy ) can flow over an extremely short distance (< 1 nm ) by thermal fluctuation or interference of de Broglie wave (= of realistic atomic model ) that has energy enough for electrons to modify Coulomb energy as seen in electrons' interference, diffraction and electron microscopy.
Contrary to the hyped standard explanation, ( fictional ) quantum mechanics has never contributed to any technologies such as computer's transistors or smartphone.
Because the original Schrödinger equations can neither have true solutions nor predict any multi-electron atomic behavior.
Even their approximation took too much time to deal with many-electron solids or transistors ( this p.1-2nd-paragraph, this-introduction-3rd-paragraph ).
The useless quantum mechanics giving up real atomic picture has relied on unphysical band model consisting of illusory electrons and quasiparticles with fictitious ( negative ) effective mass, which is useless, unable to predict any physical phenomena including semiconductors and transistors.
Researchers found semiconductors suitable for transistors that could control their electric resistance through ( classical ) trial-and-error approach and accidental serendipitous discovery.
Quantum mechanics was completely useless and irrelevant, as shown in the fact that all the explanations of transistors use realistic Bohr's atomic model instead of unphysical quantum mechanical electron-cloud wavefunction.
This 4th-paragraph says
"Bardeen suggested they replace the silicon with germanium. They got a current jump.. -- but in the exact opposite direction they'd expected ( this-p.2-middle-1st-paragraph )" ← No quantum mechanical prediction
This-lower-Trial and Error says
"the foundations of transistor electronics were created by making errors and following hunches that failed to give what was expected"
This p.16-1st-paragraph says
"there still is No really adequate quantitative
theory explaining the working of the point contact transistor... who observed something that
they were not looking for or expecting (= No quantum mechanical prediction )."
One of transistor inventors, Shockley said in this lecture ↓
p.14-2nd-paragraph says "they are Not yet adequately explained quantitatively. The discrepancy between simple theory and experiment.. is, from deviations from the single (fictitious) effective-mass model of semiconductors"
p.15-1st-paragraph says "It was difficult at the time to interpret these procedures from an atomic point of view and this is still true at present (= quantum mechanical atomic theory is useless )."
This another Shockley paper ↓
p.11-last says "The effective mass concept.. may Not necessary be correct."
p.20-2~3rd paragraphs says "exact theory.. has Not been developed.... phonon (= fictional quasiparticle )"
"two constants were arbitrary chosen to fit (= No quantum mechanical prediction).. effective electron mass.. "
(Fig.S) Giant magnetoresistance = spintronics contradicts quantum mechanics.
In fact, spintronics or giant magnetoresistance (= GMR ), which was discovered in 1980s and applied to hard disk, contradicts quantum mechanical theory, contrary to hypes.
In GMR, the electric resistance of two ferromagnetic layers having parallel magnetization is lower than the resistance of two ferromagnetic layers having the anti-parallel (= opposite ) magnetizations.
In case of non-giant magnetoresistance (= MR ), the very old Mott model vaguely says the higher electric resistance of two ferromagnetic layers with antiparallel magnetizations may be caused by (fictional) electrons' opposite spins more likely to scatter than the parallel ferromagnetic magnetization ( this 1.1.2 ).
But quantum mechanics was useless, unable to explain the detailed microscopic mechanism of magnetic resistance ( this p.1-left-1st-paragraph, this p.4(or p.5)-last ), and the magnetic interaction between two electrons' spins is known to be too weak to cause some observed phenomena ( this p.17 ).
This p.1-right-2nd-paragraph says
"To take account all of the potentials into the
GMR model is not an easy task. The Mott model.. provides qualitative result for the GMR, but still Not
explain the microscopic mechanism inside the GMR. "
Even quantum mechanical Pauli exclusion's unphysical exchange energy could Not give the satisfying explanation of magnetoresistance.
This introduction-2nd-paragraph says
"the underlying physics of GMR and the interlayer exchange coupling are broadly understood. Nevertheless, when it comes to detail, discrepancies between experimental observations and theoretical models can arise: "
Quantum mechanics indicated giant magnetoresistance (= GMR ) was impossible, so the unexpected discovery of GMR in 1980s surprised physicists very much ( this-10th-paragraph, this p.2-left-2nd-last-paragraph, this p.1-right,p.4 ).
This p.3-2~3rd paragraphs say
"The general
consensus (= quantum mechanics ) in the 1980s was that it was not possible to significantly improve on the performance of
magnetic sensors based on magnetoresistance.
Therefore it was a great surprise when in 1988 two research groups independently discovered materials
showing a very large magnetoresistance, now known as giant magnetoresistance (GMR)" ← The existing quantum mechanical theory failed ( This p.1-introduction )
Even now, quantum mechanics is unable to explain the physical mechanism of giant magnetoresistance (= MR ) or spintronics used in the practical hard disk ( this p.1-left, p.6, this p.10th-paragraph, this p.3-middle-2nd-paragraph ).
This p.12-2nd-paragraph says
"there is No theoretical
model... further theoretical study is highly
required to quantitatively describe the giant MR (= magnetoresistance )"
So contrary to the hypes, spintronics is completely inconsistent with the failed quantum mechanical (spin) model.
If we use the realistic electron's orbital motion instead of the unrealistic spin, we can naturally explain this giant magnetoresistance (= when two electrons' orbital motions are anti-parallel, their antiparallel orbits with the opposite de Broglie wave directions tend to crash each other, and raise resistance ).
No quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations for any multi-electron atoms or hydrogen molecule ion have true solutions ( this p.21, this p.6-lower ).
Physicists have to artificially choose fake trial wavefunctions or basis sets with many fitting parameters for unsolvable Schrödinger equations, which is called variational method.
↑ Quantum mechanical variational method cannot know true atomic energies or wavefunctions until physicists compare the calculated results with experiments ( this p.2-2nd-last-paragraph ), which means quantum mechanics intrinsically has No ability to predict any physical values, contrary to hypes.
Even these quantum mechanical approximate methods artificially choosing (trial) wavefunctions such as configuration interaction (= CI ) can Not deal with actual atoms, solids, semiconductors ( this p.11, this p.7-lower, this p.6-lower ), so the inventions of transistors and spintronics have nothing to do with quantum mechanical prediction.
So physicists tend to rely on one-pseudo-electron density functional theory (= DFT ) based on artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials that also can Not predict any physical values, and it stops scientific development ( this p.16, this p.1, this p.8 ) forever.
(Fig.D) Density functional theory (= DFT ) based on one-pseudo-electron model, artificially-chosen exchange-correlation functionals cannot predict anything.
Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations can Not give true solutions or wavefunctions of any multi-electron atoms or molecules.
Even quantum mechanical approximate methods such as Hartree-Fock methods, configuration interaction (= CI ) just choosing fake trial wavefunctions are too time-consuming, unable to deal with actual molecules, solids, semiconductors.
So quantum mechanics was forced to adopt ad-hoc density functional theory (= DFT ) or Kohn-Sham theory, which can only describe any materials, molecules and solids as one-pseudo-electron model with artificially-created potentials called exchange-correlation functionals and pseudo-potentials ( this p.3-5, this p.12-13, this p.8, this p.2-4 ).
Of course, this fictitious one-pseudo-electron model of DFT often expressed as unphysically-spreading plane waves is unreal with No physical meaning ( this-last-paragraph, this-p.3-2.2, this p.2-1~2th-paragraphs, this p.15, this-p.21-3rd-paragraph, this-p.17(or p.5)-2nd-last-paragraph, this-p.8-5th-paragraph ), and obstructing scientific progress.
This unrealistic mainstream DFT model is also used to express fictional quasiparticle model with fake effective mass and pseudo-spin ( this p.27 ).
DFT just artificially chooses different illusory potentials or ( unknown ) exchange-correlation functionals in different materials ( this-3rd-paragraph ), and there is No universally-correct exchange-correlation functional ( this p.3-right, this p.13-14, this p.1-left, this-introduction-1st-paragraph, this-introduction-1st-paragraph ).
No matter what exchange-correlation functional is invented someone will always find a case where it fails ( this-p.7, this-p.17, this p.1-2nd-paragraph ).
Quantum mechanics, which cannot solve any Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms, has No truly-ab-initio or first-principle method that can "predict" physical values.
As a result, DFT is a fake ab-initio or empirical theory based on artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials or exchange-correlation functionals ( this-p.23, this-p.10-2nd-paragraph, this-p.11-left, this-3rd-paragraph, this-7-8th-paragraphs ) that cannot predict any atomic energies or physical values ( this-p.7-2nd-paragraph, this-p.2-last ).
(Fig.P) Density functional theory (= DFT ) treats the whole solid as one-pseudo-electron model spreading as unphysical plane wave through pseudo-potential.
Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations cannot predict any multi-electron atomic energies, and even their ad-hoc approximation just choosing fake trial wavefunctions can Not deal with molecules, solids, semiconductors.
So the useless quantum mechanics has to rely on density functional theory (= DFT or Kohn-Sham theory ) unscientifically treating any materials as one-pseudo-electron model with artificially-chosen exchange-correlation functionals.
Furthermore, DFT also has to artificially create and choose unreal pseudo-potentials for atoms inside materials due to the useless Schrödinger equations or all-electron methods ( this p.1-left-1st-paragraph, this p.17 ), including paradoxical relativistic spin-orbit pseudo-potential ( this 2~3rd-paragraphs ).
Almost all the current condensed matter researches rely on these artificially-created pseudo-potentials and pseudo-wavefunctions with No power to predict experimental values = DFT is fake ab-initio ( this p.6-right-DFT simulation, this p.2-left-3rd-paragraph, this p.4-2nd-last-paragraph ).
DFT trying to use one-pseudo-electron model spreading over the whole material as unphysical plane wave through pseudo-potential is impractical, unable to give actual shapes to individual atoms or molecules ( this p.3-2.1 ), which obstructs scientific progress.
Choice of pseudo-potentials is Not unique ( this p.7-last ), bad choice of pseudo-potentials gives wrong results ( this p.2-fear, this p.14-disadvantage, this p.2-left-2nd-paragraph ).
This p.3-1.3 ( and p.4 ) about how to create artificial pseudo-potentials says
"one checks whether the resulting PP (= pseudo-potential ) is actually working. If not,
one tries again in a different way"
"The second and third steps are closer to cooking than to science. There is a large
arbitrariness in the preceding step"
"choose the generation parameters" ← Not ab-initio method at all
All quantum mechanical methods such as VASP, Espresso, PAW (= projector augmented wave ) have to artificially choose these fake pseudo-potentials, bond-length, lattice parameters ( this 3rd-paragraph, this p.2, this p.18 ).
Ordinary DFT's exchange correlation functionals are known to disagree with energies and band gaps in metals, semiconductors and strongly-correlated materials.
So in solids and metals, physicists also have to use additional freely-fitting empirical potential parameters called "Hubbard U or V, J" to describe experimental values with No power to predict them ( this-introduction, this-abstract, this-p.2-1~3rd-paragraphs, this p.15-4, this p.3-right-2~3rd-paragraphs, this p.1-left-last-paragraph ).
Ab-initio methods of determining these U parameters (= ex. linear response, cRPA ) must rely on artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials ( this-p.9-left-2nd-paragraph, this-lower-caveat, this p.4-left-1st-paragraph, this-8th-paragraph ), wavefunctions ( this p.2-right-2nd-paragraph, this p.3-1st-paragraph ), and often fail ( this p.3-3rd-paragraph, this-p.6(or p.5)-last, this-p.8-Table I-headline, this p.2--left-1st-paragraph ).
As a result, quantum mechanical mainstream one-pseudo-electron DFT model based on artificially-chosen pseudo-potential and Hubbard-U parameters is useless, unable to predict anything, and its unphysical shapeless wavefunctions obstruct science.
Not only artificially-created pseudo-potentials but also all-electron full potential methods are fake ab-initio, unable to predict any physical values such as atomic or band energies.
All-electron full-potential methods containing APW, LAPW, FP-LAPW (= full-potential-linearized augmented plane wave ) divide molecules or solids into two regions of atomic (sphere) core region and interstitial region containing valence electrons as unphysical plane wave (= No physical meaning, this p.3-2nd-last-paragraph ) and fictitious constant potential V (= fitting parameter, this p.3-left ).
So this all-electron full-potential method also has to artificially choose different radii of (fictional) atomic core (= called Muffin-tin or MT radius ) in different atoms, which is one of freely-fitting parameters ( this p.27-32 ).
Besides this atomic core radius, the all-electron full-potential method has to artificially choose energy parameters (= El ) in different orbitals (= core, semi-core, local-orbitals, valence electrons' orbitals ), instead of finding these energy parameters by ordinary variational methods ( this-p.10-11,p.23-24, this p.92(or p.89), this p.6-12, this p.6-left, this p.44, this p.8,p.28-32, this p.24(or p.9)-2nd-paragraph, this p.4-2nd-paragraph ).
This-p.31(or p.29)-4.5.2 says
"In order to minimize the linearization error, the energy parameters should be chosen as
close to the band energies as possible. However, the band energies ε(k) depend on k
whereas the energy parameters El
are constants. In addition, the radial functions contribute to the eigenfunctions of different band with different energies. Therefore, deviations between ε(k) and El have to be accepted.
This p.1-right-last~p.2-left says
"However, approaching the complete basis limit using the FLAPW (= full-potential ) method still requires expert knowledge, e.g., of the atomic electronic structure in order to define the local orbital basis at appropriate energies, choosing parameters such as the MT radius and angular momentum cut offs, and controlling the linearization error."
This p.4-right-2nd-last-paragraph says
"A clever choice of energy parameters Etℓ is
essential for accurate results, and WIEN2k has several automatic
ways to make an optimal choice in most cases
The energy parameters
of all other valence states are set to 0.2 Ry below EF (← artificially chosen instead of variational method = variational methods are applied only to some coefficients, Not to energy parameters ).
"
Ab-initio (constrained-) random phase approximation (= cRPA ) is said to guess Hubbard interaction energy U parameters (= this ad-hoc U energy parameter must be often empirically chosen ).
But even this cRPA is Not true ab-initio, hence, cannot predict any physical values such as Hubbard U Coulomb interaction energy parameters in solids.
The random phase approximation (= RPA ) often uses all-electron (full-potential) linearized augmented plane wave method (= LAPW ) that must artificially choose energy parameters in different bands ( this p.4-right ). ← Not prediction of energies
This cRPA's (fake) prediction of Hubbard U or Coulomb interaction parameters heavily relies on the artificially-chosen parameters such as band energies ( this p.2-3rd-paragraph ), energy window (= choose which energy bands should be included in estimating Hubbard U parameters, this p.6-D, this p.14,p.16-3.5 this-p.3-III,Table.I ), Muffin-tin atomic radius, lattice parameters, basis-set ( Wannier ) wavefunctions ( this p.5-right, this p.5-D. this p.47, this 6~9th-paragraphs ) with No quantum mechanical prediction.
In addition to this artificially-chosen energy parameters, calculated energies and Hubbard U interaction values are affected by various ad-hoc freely-adjustable parameters such as Slater integrals (= F, this 5~7th-paragraphs, this p.8-9, this p.2-right ), double-counting energy correction ( this p.10-2.1, this p.3-left-2~3rd-paragraphs ), and energy frequency (= ω, this p.28,43,69, this p.15, this p.7,p.9 ) in DMFT.
As a result, all quantum mechanical methods are unable to predict any physical values (= so they are fake ab-initio or fake first-principle ) due to their dependence on artificially-chosen fitting parameters.
Density functional theory (= DFT ) is known to be unable to explain intermolecular dispersion van der Waals attraction and Pauli repulsive energies.
So DFT often relies on empirical dispersion (= van der Waals energy ) functionals called Grimme's DFT+D2, DFT+D3 ( this-abstract ) with several freely-adjustable parameters ( this p.4 ) with No prediction power.
Other dispersion functionals such as vdW-DF2, PBE-vdW also often failed ( this p.6-right-3rd-paragraph, this p.3-last-paragraph ).
(Fig.C) All of Alphafold, docking softwares, molecular dynamics (= MD ) are unable to simulate practical proteins' conformational change due to unphysical quantum mechanical atoms with No shapes.
All the current mainstream quantum mechanical methods, the most-widely-used one-pseudo-electron DFT, (pseudo-)classical molecular dynamical (= MD ) simulation are unable to explain molecules, solids, proteins, biology, and useless for drug discovery.
So Alphafold or ( hyped ) AI tries to predict only proteins' static structures ( this-2nd-paragraph ) based on experimentally-observed protein structure data bank (= PDB, this p.2-right ) without considering detailed atomic interactions nor using (useless) quantum mechanics.
This Alphafold(-2 or AF2 ) just giving one static (virtual) protein structure based on experimentally-obtained database can Not simulate proteins' conformational change or protein folding ( this 29~35th-paragraphs, this 5th-last-paragraph ).
Alphafold is also unable to predict proteins' interactions, docking or drug interactions ( this-abstract-lower, this-summary-lower, this p.18-19-what will this mean ).
This p.1-Abstract says
"AlphaFold does Not resolve the decades-long protein folding challenge, nor does it identify the folding pathways"
This or this 5-6th paragraphs say
"using the AlphaFold structures gives significantly worse results than docking into the pocket determined by experiment."
Furthermore, Alphafold cannot deal with proteins with mutations, post-translational-modification (= phosphorylation ) or molecules (= lipids, nucleotides ) except proteins ( this p.5-right-3~4th-paragraphs, this 7-10th-paragraphs, this 13~17th-paragraphs, this p.10-left-lower ).
As a result, all the current protein simulating methods including Alphafold, AI, quantum mechanics and molecular dynamics are unable to contribute to discovery of drugs or medical treatments forever.
The 11th paragraph of this hyped news also admits
"But the antibodies that RFdiffusion churned out are a long way from reaching the clinic. ← They tried to design artificial antibodies (= whose effectiveness is still unclear, so still Not antibodies ) bound to target molecules with very low success rate ( this p.6-last-paragraph )."
(Fig.M) Molecular dynamics, which is the current fastest simulating method, is useless, too time-consuming to simulate even micro-second biological reactions.
All the present protein docking tools are useless with bad success rates of predicting protein interaction ( this-p.12-2nd-paragraph, this-p.4-right, this-p.5-2nd-paragraph ).
Alphafold (or Alphafold-2 = AF2 ) can only predict some proteins' static structures based on experimentally-obtained protein structure database, which can Not predict interactions between proteins or drugs.
To precisely explain protein interaction or docking, we have to know proteins' conformational change in the process of docking, which is extremely difficult.
The present docking tools can deal only with static useless proteins (= rigid ) and small conformational change of several side-chains of amino-acids (= flexible ), and they can Not simulate proteins' backbone conformational change ( this p.3-last, this p.2-2nd-paragraph, this-4.conclusions-last-paragraph, this-p.12-right-2nd-paragraph ) that is important for many biological reactions.
Molecular dynamics (= MD ) is the current only method of simulating proteins' conformational change ( this 4th-paragraph ), but MD is impractical, too time-consuming, one of main culprits stopping all the applied science, medicine from progressing.
Molecular dynamics (= MD ) is the current only and fastest method of simulating motions or conformational change of molecules and proteins.
This classical MD treats atomic and molecular interactions as fictional springs which pseudo-potential between fictional atoms (= without electrons nor shapes ) is called force field.
Due to useless quantum mechanics, parameters of these pseudo-potentials or force fields must be often determined empirically, but often give wrong simulating results ( this p.5-limitation, this p.2-left, this p.2-2nd-paragraph ).
This p.2-left-3rd-paragraph says
"use of ab initio results by themselves is Not sufficient" ← Quantum mechanics is useless for molecular dynamical simulation.
These pseudo-potentials or force fields always bridge different atoms or molecules like artificial springs (= even in intermolecular interaction ), which is unable to give boundaries or shapes to individual atoms, obstructing practical science.
All the quantum mechanical model lacks real individual atomic shapes, as shown in the most-widely used one-pseudo-electron density functional theory (= DFT ).
So the classical molecular dynamics (= MD ) is also Not allowed to give concrete shape to each atom.
Instead, MD updates each atomic position by differentiating pseudo-potential or force field (= V or U ) and giving the fictitious force (= F = ΔV or ΔU ) at short time intervals repeatedly, many, many times ( this or this p.5-25, this p.1-14, this p.2-4 ).
Each time interval or step must be less than 2 femtoseconds (= 2fs = 2 × 10-15 s ), so simulation of the 1-μs (= 1 × 10-6 s ) motion of a molecule or a protein needs as many as 109 time steps of calculating and updating each atomic position, which unrealistically takes too much time.
(Fig.T) Molecular dynamics (= MD ) is impractical, slow, unable to simulate many important reactions such as allosteric enzymes. protein folding, synthesis.. = cannot cure cancers
Due to unphysical quantum mechanics unable to give concrete shapes and boundaries to individual atoms, molecular dynamics (= MD ) has to take an enormous amount of time to repeatedly update each atomic position based on artificially-chosen pseudo-potentials or force-fields.
As a result, even this current fastest molecular dynamical (= MD ) simulating method is extremely time-consuming, impractical and unable to simulate many important biological reactions or drug interactions ( this-p.1-left ).
Even molecular dynamical simulation of the 1 microsecond (= 1 μs ) motion of molecules or small protein takes more than one day ( this-3~5th-paragraphs, this-3rd-paragraph, this-lower-current limitation, this p.3-right-1st-paragraph, this p.4 ).
Many important proteins' conformational change and folding usually take milliseconds (= ms ) ~minutes~ hours ~more, which are out of reach of the current molecular dynamical simulation ( this p.14-left-2nd-paragraph, this-introduction-1st-paragraph, this p.2-1st-paragraph, this-introduction-3rd-paragraph ).
This-abstract says
"However, enabling MD simulations to access biologically relevant timescales
(e.g., beyond milliseconds) still remains challenging"
This-p.3-left-2nd-paragraph says
"atomistic MD
calculations using empirical force fields typically use time steps
of the order of femtoseconds (i.e. 10-15 seconds), being able to
compute few nanoseconds with a personal computer, but far from
the millisecond to second timescales of domain motions and
allosteric transitions occurring in some enzymes."
Ab-initio or first-principle molecular dynamics (= AIMD ) represented by Car-Parrinello MD (= CPMD ) is based on calculating one-pseudo-electron DFT pseudo-potential ( this 1st-paragraph ) and fictitious electron's mass model ( this p.20 ) in each time step.
This ab-initio MD (= AIMD or CPMD ) lacking real atomic figures is much more time-consuming and more impractical than classical MD ( this-1.introduction-1st-paragraph, this p.19(p.13)-3rd-paragraph, this p.2-left-1st-paragraph, this p.23-middle, this-p.5-right simulated only very short 480ps ) like impractical time-consuming machine-learning (= ML ) force field ( this p.1-introduction ).
Even the current fastest classical molecular dynamics (= MD ) is too time-consuming and impractical.
So researchers tend to rely on fake molecular dynamical simulation called "coarse-grained MD or CGMD" which tries to treat multiple atoms as one bigger fictional bead ( this p.2-1st-paragraph ).
Of course, this fake coarse-graining MD relying on fictional bead model can Not describe real atomic or protein interactions ( this-last, this p.1-right-last-paragraph, this p.23-5., this p.2-1st-paragraph, this p.2-introduction, this-introduction-3~4th-paragraph ).
This-introduction-3rd-paragraph says
"the coarse-grained models lack the atomic details of the interactions, yet the interaction parameters were fitted by all-atom simulations or experimental results."
This 2nd-paragraph says
"many CG methods suffer from an inability to correctly predict more than one or two material properties"
Furthermore, even this coarse-grained MD is extremely time-consuming ( this p.3-left-coarse grain ) and impractical.
Monte-Carlo (= MC ) method relies on random motion of atoms is also time-consuming, incorrect and impractical especially in complex molecules ( this p.1-left-2nd-last-paragraph ).
(Fig.S) Molecular dynamics (= MD ) with shapeless atoms with No boundaries can Not know when two atoms collide. → Updating each atomic position at short time intervals repeatedly (= to avoid two atoms clashing and overlapping ) takes too much time.
The reason why the current mainstream molecular dynamics (= MD ) is too time-consuming and impractical is quantum mechanical unphysical Pauli principle based on fictional exchange energy and antisymmetric wavefunctions cannot give clear shapes or boundaries to individual atoms.
So the current most-widely-used quantum mechanical density functional theory (= DFT ) and ( classical or ab-initio ) molecular dynamics (= MD ) can only give vague pseudo-potentials or fictional force-field potential instead of giving clear shape or boundary to each atom.
In these unphysical shapeless quantum mechanical atoms with No clear boundaries, when two atoms collide with each other is unknown and unpredictable.
As a result, molecular dynamics has to update each atomic position at extremely-short-time intervals (= each time interval or step must be less than 2 fs or 2 × 10-15 ) repeatedly, many, many times by differentiating pseudo-potentials or force-fields in each time step, which takes an enormous amount of time ( this p.5-25, this-what is an MD-4th-paragraph ).
If each time step is chosen to be longer than 2fs (= to try to save time ), it increases chances that two atoms collide and unrealistically overlap each other due to lack of clear shape or boundary of each quantum mechanical atom.
These unphysically-overlapped atoms (= penetrating other atoms ) unrealistically increase Pauli repulsive potential energies and violate total energy conservation law, which give wrong results called "explosion" or "blow up ( this p.27-28, this p.1-lower~p.2, this 5th-paragraph, this p.28-1st-paragraph, this p.37-upper )"
This p.10-1st-paragraph says
"Too large a time step (> 2fs ) can cause a molecular dynamics simulation to become unstable, with the
total energy rapidly increasing with time. This behavior is often colloquially termed exploding
and it is caused by devastating atomic collisions that occur when a large time step propagates
the positions of two atoms to be nearly overlapping; the repulsive interactions then create a
strong force that propels these atoms apart."
If we give realistic shape or boundary to each atom, we can easily predict when and how two atoms collide like predicting motions of billiard balls and gears with known shapes, even without conducting extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamical simulation.
In the macroscopic world, we treat individual objects as practical tools with concrete shapes and boundaries, and can design and build many useful machines, cars, planes, laptops even without resorting to (impractically-time-consuming) MD or quantum mechanical DFT.
The fact that each macroscopic object or tool consisting of many atoms has its clear shape and boundary means each atom composing the touchable macroscopic object also has its clear shape and boundary. ← Quantum mechanical atoms contradict this sheer fact.
Actually we already have technology of observing and manipulating each single atom and molecule using atomic force or scanning tunnel microscopes that can measure each atomic shape as Pauli repulsion or contact force.
But only in the microscopic atomic world, physicists blindly rely on unrealistic quantum mechanical model that prohibits them from giving clear shape or boundary (= which can be experimentally measurable ) to each atom.
So all we have to do is give shapes and boundaries to individual atoms, and treat those atoms and molecules as realistic tools to design and build practical molecular nano-devices (= for curing diseases or generating energies efficiently ), like we do in macroscopic world, by abandoning useless quantum mechanical model, DFT and the extremely-time-consuming molecular dynamical methods.
(Fig.D) Bohr's realistic atom perfectly agreed with experimental atomic energies and fine structure, but couldn't get correct helium atomic energy due to lack of modern computer in 1920s (= Not that Bohr's realistic model was wrong )
The current only mainstream atomic physics or quantum mechanics is extremely unrealistic based on fictional parallel universes, a dead-and-alive cat.. ← Why and where was the atomic physics forced to pick this wrong unphysical quantum mechanical theory ?
Even founders of quantum mechanics, Schrödinger and Einstein harshly criticized the quantum mechanics as "unrealistic".
Strangely, still Nobody understands such a crazy quantum mechanics even after its 100-year history, which facts strongly indicate there are obvious flaws in the present atomic theory or quantum mechanics, which must be replaced by more realistic atomic theory to advance science.
In 1910s, Bohr model successfully and perfectly explained all energy levels of all hydrogen-like atoms and ions such as H, He+, Li2+.. ( this p.3, this p.2 )
Contrary to the mainstream narratives, Bohr's realistic atom was stable, Not losing energy just by an electron orbiting around a nucleus, as shown in the fact that Bohr model was awarded Nobel prize as the legitimate mainstream atomic theory ( this last ).
The example of "accelerating charge radiating and losing energy by classical electromagnetism" uses a fictitious charged particle into which many smaller charges are packed against Coulomb repulsion, which does Not correspond to Bohr's realistic atom that uses a single unbreakable electron that does Not consist of smaller charges, and stable de Broglie wave.
Bohr's realistic atom used a real moving electron and the condition of the orbital length equal to an integral multiple of de Broglie wavelength (= avoiding destructive interference of electron's de Broglie wave ) to successfully obtain correct atomic energy levels, quantized angular momentum (= ℏ ), and experimentally-confirmed Bohr magneton (= magnetic field produced by Bohr's electron's orbital motion ), most of these Bohr atomic concepts are used also in quantum mechanics ( this p.5-(c), this p.3-left-middle, this p.11-last ). = Bohr model is right.
This de Broglie wave interference of various particles was confirmed as real in many experiments such as Davisson-Germaer.
But unfortunately, this Bohr's realistic model could not obtain the correct helium atomic energy, because there were No modern computers to compute the complicated helium's two electrons' motion that was an extremely difficult three-body problem, which was impossible to solve with the old pen and paper approach (= the simplest circular helium model disagreed with experiments due to its ignoring the destructive interference of two electrons' de Broglie waves ).
↑ Lack of modern computers 100 years ago means it is Not that Bohr's realistic atom was wrong, but this was the tipping point when physicists 100 years ago had no choice but to incline toward the unrealistic quantim mechanics.
Even in the lack of computing resources, physicists had to continue their researches to build their academic careers, develop new (imaginary) theory, and aim at some science prizes. ← Science was Not allowed to stop progressing, whether it was fake or not.
This is why physicists had to reluctantly accept unphysical quantum mechanics as the only mainstream theory. ← Quantum mechanics cannot give analytical solutions of three-body helium atoms, either ( this p.2-top ). But it could use (illegitimate) approximate method ( this p.2-7 ) choosing (fake) trial wavefunctions, which is the main culprit that prevents today's technological innovation.
Schrödinger equation = quantum mechanical only calculation tool accidentally obtained the same hydrogen's energy levels as the Bohr's model using the same principle of de Broglie wave theory ( this 2~3rd paragraphs ) after replacing Bohr's realistic electron's orbit with unphysical electron spin.
↑ Reason why unphysical quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations could give energies seemingly close to experimental values (= not in a legitimate way, though ) is that it uses the same de Broglie wave theory, Bohr magneton and radius as the successful Bohr's atomic model, Not because quantum mechanics itself was right.
Furthermore, in 1916, Bohr-Sommerfeld model perfectly and successfully explained the experimental fine structure energy splitting that was "accidentally" the same as the later quantum field theory or Dirac equation's hydrogen fine structrue result. ← It means the quantum mechanics illegitimately and repeatedly copied the good points of the successful Bohr's atomic theory.
Quantum mechanical atoms must always include unrealistic negative kinetic energy ( this p.8 ) and zero orbital angular momentum where an electron must always crash into a nucleus in its linear motion (= zero angular momentum ) which causes destructive interference of de Broglie wave, hence unstable ( this middle ). ← Quantum mechanical model has been false from the beginning.
The so-called quantum tunnel is not supernatural but realistic (= classically-possible ) phenomenon where electrons can naturally penetrate the thin air or vacuum under applied voltage (= containing No solid barriers, but the vacuum is treated like insulator barrier whose exact potential barrier's height is unknown in the case of extremely short distance ). ← Quantum tunneling happens only when the barrier width is extremely short (= only nm wide, this 2nd-paragraph, this 3rd-paragraph, ).
Quantum mechanics can only show unrealistic explanation that tunnel may be caused by the physically-impossible negative kinetic energy ( this 1st-paragraph, this-intro-2nd-paragraph, this p.7-Fig.4 ) whose detailed mechanism is unknown and Not given by contradictory quantum mechanics ( this 2-3rd paragraphs ).
This electron's tunneling can be naturally explained by normal thermal fluctuation or real de Broglie wave's pressure (= de Broglie wave was proven to have enough power to push or affect an electron's motion as shown in in actually-verified interference experiments ) even without unrealistic quantum mechanical negative kinetic energy.
This unphysical quantum mechanical atomic wavefunction treated as vague electron's probability cloud has to always spread to infinity with no boundary, which means each single electron must always exist in all different places simultaneously like a dead-and-alive cat living in fictional parallel worlds, which is called superposition.
This is why even founders of quantum physics = Schrödinger and Einstein did Not accept such a ridiculous quantum mechanics as a real theory.
To explain two-slit interference experiment of a single electron, quantum mechanics needs unrealistic parallel worlds into which a single electron "splits" in order to pass multiple different slits simultaneously. ← ridiculous.
Quantum mechanics was not only unreal but also useless except for one-electron hydrogen that accidentally gives the same energy values as Bohr's atom, because all quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms and molecules are unsolvable, unable to give right atomic energies.
Contrary to the media-hype, quantum mechanical Schrödinger equation for one-electron hydrogen molecule ion (= H2+ ) is also unsolvable ( this p.2 3rd-paragraph, this p.1-left-last-paragraph, p.2-right uses fictitious quasi-wavefunction ).
So physicists have to artificially pick up fake solutions called trial wavefunctions and basis sets out of infinite choices, and artificially manipulate many parameters, which quantum mechanical method cannot predict any atomic energies. ← Not science but just "art"
↑ There is No way of knowing what (fake) trial wavefunctions can give energies close to experimental values, until physicists waste much time to compare their calculation results with experimental energy values one by one ( this p.4 5th-paragraph, this 2nd-paragraph, this p.21-lower, this 3~5th paragraphs ).
So quantum mechanical calculation method is completely meaningless, it is far better to use the experimental energy values from the beginning instead of wasting too much time in quantum mechanical meaninglessly-inefficient calculation of unsolvable Schrödinger euqations that were unable to predict any physical values and completely useless for developing modern computer transistors consisting of many, many atoms, contrary to the standard explanation.
We proved that quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms can never find true solutions like unsolvable H2+ molecular ion (= true atomic wavefunction must always conserve the constant total energy in any electrons' positions, which is proved to be impossible ), hence quantum mechanics is officially proven false.
(Fig.S) An electron must be unrealistically spinning much faster than light to generate the observed spin's magnetic field, which can be explained by realistic electron's orbital motion, so quantum mechanical electron spin is unnecessary.
Quantum mechanical hydrogen atomic ground state has the unrealistic zero orbital angular momentum which produces zero magnetic field and disagrees with experimental result of Bohr magneton actually observed in hydrogen atom.
So physicists had to artificially create another unrealistic concept called electron spin. ← An electron is extremely tiny (= less than 10-16 cm according to Coulomb scattering, as shown in this-middle-3rd-paragraph ), hence, each electron must be spinning much faster than light to produce the experimentally-obesrved Bohr-magneton magnetic field, which disagrees with another mainstream theory = Einstein relativity prohibiting faster-than-light motion ( this 3rd-paragraph ).
This is why quantum mechanics started to say contradictory things: "An electron spin has angular momentum = 1/2ℏ, but the electron spin does Not mean actual spinning or rotation !" ← nonsense.
↑ And it is too good to be true that quantum mechanical electron spin is supposed to accidentally have exactly the same magnetic field or magnetic moment (= Bohr magneton, this p.2, this 3rd-paragraph, this p.5-(3.29) ) as the Bohr's model without spin ( this p.3 4. this p.12 ).
↑ Quantum mechanics baselessly claims an electron spin has 1/2ℏ angular momentum (= unmeasurable ) but g-factor = 2 (= unmeasurable, too, this p.3, this 3rd-paragraph ), hence, the electron spin also equals Bohr magneton (= measurable ) accidentally ( this p.2-2nd-paragraph ).
Stern-Gerlach experiment measured a silver atomic (orbital) magnetic moment Not (fictitious unseen) electron spin, and its results perfectly agreed with Bohr magneton ( this p.6, this p.2,4 ) of Bohr's realistic orbit ( this p.12-last, p.14 ).
This fact shows quantum mechanical electron spin (= faster-than-light spinning ? ) is completely unrealistic and inconsistent with other physical principles, this spin's magnetic field (= Bohr magneton ) can be safely explained and replaced by Bohr's realistic electron's orbital motion (= of course, this Bohr's electron's velocity is slower than light ). ← Ferromagnetism has nothing to do with this unrealistic quantum mechanical spin.
To explain the ferromagnetism and Pauli principle, due to the too-weak spin magnetic energy, quantum mechanics needs the new ad-hoc unphysical concept called "exchange energy ( this 3rd-paragraph, this p.7-8 )", which paradoxically lacks exchange force ( this p.5-1st-paragraph, this p.6 ), and cannot explain the spin-singlet-triplet of atoms or molecules with more than two electrons.
To explain anomalous Zeeman effect of Alkali atoms (= hydrogen and lithium show normal Zeeman effect ), quantum mechanics needs the contradictory relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction, which is paradoxically observer-dependent and unobservable from the viewpoint of normal frame of nucleus at rest.
Furthermore, the (relativistic) spin-orbit magnetic energy is too weak to explain the sodium large fine structure energy splitting, which means Alkali or sodium large fine strucutre energy splitting is caused by strong electric interaction with inner electrons, Not paradoxical relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction, as shown in fatal paradoxes of Einstein relativity.
↑ All of these so-called electron-spin-related phenomena can be explained by the realistic electron's orbital motion, electric force, and de Broglie wave interference, so the unrealistic quantum mechanical electron spin is unnecessary.
Unlike the tiny, light electron, a proton is more massive and bigger than an electron, hence, the proton can be realistically spinning to produce its very weak magnetic moment, not exceeding light speed.
Quantum mechanical hyperfine structure allegedly caused by fictitious spinning electron entering a tiny proton is unrealistic and false due to its violation of energy conservation law.
↑ Proton or nuclear spin magnetic moments must be determined from actual experimental measurements (= Quantum mechanics, QED or QCD cannot predict these nuclear values without ad-hoc models artificially fitting parameters, this p.2-lower ), and the contradictory electron spin can be replaced by the realistic electron's orbital motion, so quantum mechanics and its spin have nothing to do with developing NMR technology or the so-called spintronics.
(Fig.F) Quantum mechanical fine structure (= Dirac hydrogen ) is irrelevant to electron's spin or relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction, and paradoxical.
Bohr-Sommerfeld model's fine structure based on electron's kinetic energy (= Not spin ) is right and legitimate.
In 1916, Bohr-Sommerfeld model could successfully explain the exact small energy splitting called fine structure (= tiny energy difference between hydrogen's 2p3/2 and 2p1/2 levels = 0.000045 eV ) without using the unrealsitic electron spin ( this 5th-paragraph ).
Later in 1928, the mainstream quantum field theory called Dirac equation accidentally obtained exactly the same fine structure energy formula as the successful Bohr-Sommerfeld atomic model ( this-lower, this p.14, this p.1-last~p.2-top ) using (unphysical) spin and the alleged relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction (= this is untrue, as I explain later ).
↑ This is too unnatural coincidence, showing the later quantum field theory based on relativistic nonphysical Dirac equation copied the successful Bohr-Sommerfeld fine structure energy equation by fabricating the artificial ad-hoc concept called relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction that actually does Not exist even in this Dirac hydrogen.
We can easily show that this current mainstream (relativistic) quantum field theory's fine structure formula (= using Dirac quation's hydrogen model ) based on the (paradoxical) spin-orbit interaction is illegitimate and wrong due to its impossible assumption, and only realistic Bohr-Sommerfeld atomic model without spin is left as the right fine structure theory.
To explain the hydrogen's fine structure energy splitting using the quantum mechanical spin-orbit interaction, we have to assume the impossible situation of electron rest frame or static electron's viewpoint like the old crazy geocentricism where a heavier nucleus is magically rotating around an lighter electron (= spin ) at rest, producing fictitious relativistic magnetic field (= by the crazy heavier nuclear orbital motion around a lighter electron ) at the illusory static electron's position, and causing (electron) spin-orbit magnetic energy splitting depending on the direction (= up or down ) of the electron spin ( this p.2-3, this p.6-8, this p.11 ).
↑ But this (relativistic) electron's rest frame like the crazy geocentricism is impossible, because a ligher electron must always rotate around a heavier nucleus at rest to conserve the total momentum satisfying action-reaction law which demands the ligher electron's velocity must be much faster than that of heavier nucleus when there are only an electron and a nucleus attracting each other.
Furthermore, Einstein relativity causes fatal paradox. In the ordinary rest frame of the heavier nucleus, No magnetic field is produced by the stationary nucleus in the position of electron (= there is only electric field, this p.2-Fig.3 ), hence No electron's spin-orbit magnetic interaction occurs, but only in the (unrealistic) rest frame of the electron, the fictitious magnetic field is produced by the heavier nucleus moving around the ligher electron, and spin-orbit magnetic interaction occurs.
↑ Depending on observers' motions or different frames (= from viewpoints of the stationary nucleus or stationary electron ), the spin-otbit magnetic interaction or fine structure energy splitting is observed or Not, which is clearly paradox and shows Einstein relativity and quantum mechanical spin-orbit fine structure are wrong.
As shown above, Einstein relativity, which lacks the absolute frame, has to contain the unphysical frames where momentum conservation is clearly violated (= a heavier nucleus revolving around a lighter electron, like a heavier Sun revolving around a lighter earth ), which means relativistic quantum field theory cannot define the conserved angular momentum either ( this 2nd-paragraph ).
Einstein (general) relativity is also known to be unable to conserve total energy, which needed to artificially prepare (fictional) gravitational wave pseudo-tensor ( this-middle-3-5th-paragraphs ).
Hence, Einstein relativistic theory violating conservation law of energy and momentum (+ angular momentum ) is proved to be wrong.
In fact, the present quantum field theory or Dirac hydrogen does Not use the tiny spin-orbit magnetic interaction as the fine structure energy splitting.
Quantum mechanical (= or Dirac equation's hydrogen's ) unphysical spin-orbit operator σL (= σ is Pauli spin matrix, L is orbital angular momentum ) gives the total angular momentum numbers (= j = L+S, this p.3-5 ) that represents electron's momentum p or large kinetic energy ( > 3 eV, this p.30, this 2.-(1)-(5), this p.1-right ) like Bohr-Sommerfeld model without spin ( this p.5,p.8-fifth-paragraph, this p.1-left-2~3rd-paragraphs ).
↑ The current mainstream quantum mechanical Dirac hydrogen's spin-orbit operator represents the electron's large (classical) kinetic energy (> 3eV ) instead of tiny, tiny relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction (= only 0.000045 eV ). ← No spin-orbit interaction ! This is the trick.
This is why quantum mechanical fine structure just agreed with Bohr-Sommerfeld model without spin. ← the change of the quantum mechanical total angular momentum j from 1/2 (= p1/2 = spin-down ) to 3/2 (= p3/2 = spin-up ) of Dirac hydrogen's fine structure's energy ( this-last, this p.7,11, this p.3-4 ) corresponds to the change of electron's (large) angular momentum or kinetic energy (= expressed as orbital angular or azimuthal quantum number = nφ or L = 1 → 2 ) of Bohr-Sommerfeld fine structure ( this p.14, this-lower, this p.40-42, this p.4 ).
↑ Quantum mechanical Dirac's hydrogen's electron spin's flip from down to up (= total angular momentum j increases by 1 ) has large power to change the electron's big kinetic (or total) energy by increasing the principal quantum number (= n ) by 1, which is clearly inconsistent with the tiny,tiny relativistic spin-orbit magnetic energy.
By using the approximation considering the fine structure constant α (= 1/137) is a very tiny value, the hydrogen fine structure energy equations of both Bohr-Sommerfeld model and relativistic Dirac hydrogen become almost equal to Bohr's hydrogen atom or (non-relativistic spinless) Schrödinger's hydrogen atom ( this p.11, this-4.10.5, this Eqn.6 ), as shown in the above figure.
↑ Also in this nonrelativistic spinless Schrödinger's hydrogen atomic energy relation (= derived by approximating relativistic Dirac hydrogen's fine structure energy ) contains the total angular momentum number (= j ), and changing from electron's spin down (= j=1/2 ) to spin-up (= j = 3/2 ) corresponds to the orbital angular kinetic energy's change (= orbital angular kinetic energy quantum number nφ increases by 1, this p.14, compare this-last and this-last ). ← No electron spin even in quantum mechanical or relativistic Dirac fine structure !
↑ Quantum field theory Dirac hydrogen's fine structure expressed using the total angular momentum number j uses the same kinetic energy change (= instead of tiny spin-orbit magnetic energy ) as Bohr-Sommerfeld's fine structure without spin. ← There is No electron spin or relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction, which cannot explain sodium large fine structure splitting.
Relativistic spin-orbit effect is paradoxical and unrealistic.
Quantum mechanics tries to use only fake meaningless spin-orbit interaction contradicting the original Einstein relativistic spin-orbit interaction in condensed matter such as semiconductors. ← So both quantum mechanics and Einstein relativistic theory are wrong.
In solids, the useless quantum mechanics has to treat an electron as a fictitious quasiparticle with fake effective mass (= m*, this p.2-8 ) and charge, which are unrealistically changed from the original fixed electron's mass (= m0 ) or charge, according to their paradoxical rule.
In the same way, quantum mechanics tries to artificially change Einstein's original small relativistic spin-orbit coupling (= SOC ) constant (= -3.7 × 10-6 ) into the irrelevant far-bigger values with the opposite sign (= +5.3 in GaAs materieal ) as fake (= non-existent effective ) spin-orbit coupling constant causing some energy splitting ( this p.5-6, this p.24, this p.2-left ).
↑ This artificial fake spin-orbit interaction constants are freely-adjustable parameters fitted to experiments ( this p.6-IV ) or expressed by pseudo-model with pseudo-spin linked to fake electron's effective mass (= m* ) parameters ( this p.3 ).
Physicists often try to explain these quantum mechanical fake spin-orbit interactions in solid physics using one-pseudo-electron DFT approximate model with freely-chosen (relativistic unreal) pseudo-potential ( this p.26, this 8th-paragraph, this p.2-last-paragraph ) and XC exchange functionals ( this p.1-abstract,p.5, this p.2-right, this p.2 ), which have No ability to predict any physical values (= DFT is intrinsically empirical, Not predicted by quantum mechanical theory, ).
To estimate some magnetic susceptibity incorporating (fictitious) relativistic effect, they have to rely on some artificial relation, free-parameters and free choice of (fake) non-relativistic atomic basis-set wavefunctions ( this p.1-left, p.2-left, p.9-left, this p.13-left-3rd-paragraph ), which is Not the prediction of relativistic quantum theory at all.
To explain relativistic hyperpolarizability of some atoms, artificial semi-empirically-adjusted potential must be used instead of using prediction by (useless) quantum mechanics ( this p.3B ). ← No validity of quantum mechanics which can Not predict any relativistic effects.
As a result, there is No experimental or theoretical evidence of the electron spin and relativistic effects such as spin-orbit interaction (= ex. useless spin Hall effect ).
It is often said that the successful Bohr-Sommerfeld atomic fine structure used Einstein relativistic mc2, but it is completely untrue.
As I said, Einstein relativistic theory cannot define the single absolute frame, instead it needs to create the contradictory relativistic frames where a heavier nucleus must rotate around the ligher electron to cause the fake spin-orbit magnetic interaction even by violating momentum conservation.
Furthermore, Einstein relativity includes fatal paradoxes where even real kinetic energy can Not be defined.
Bohr-Sommerfeld fine structure uses only one single absolute frame with a stationary nucleus that does Not fit Einstein's crazy relativity that needs many different unreal relativistic frames like geocetricism.
In fact, Einstein's famous E = mc2 (= E is energy, m is mass, c is light speed ) is Not his original idea but one copying the classical Maxwell's equation's authentic E = mc2.
In 1800s, classical Maxwell equation showed that the light (= electromagnetic ) wave's momentum p is equal to E/c ( this p.9-2.22 ), which means the momentum p = mc = E/c → the light's energy E = mc2, where m is the light (or photon) mass, which is the original authentic Maxwell's mc2 ( this 2~4th paragraphs ).
Correctly, Maxwell showed the Poynting vector S (= equal to cE ) divided by the square of light speed c was equal to the light momentum p ( this p.5.1.29, this p.5-upper ). → S/c2 = E/c = p → E = pc = mc2.
Later Einstein copied this Maxwell original mc2 in the wrong way where his relativistic E/c = p is the same as the original Maxwell equation, but his relativity paradoxically claimed the photon or light has No mass despite non-zero photon's momentum, which causes serious paradox.
↑ In fact, Einstein paradoxically said a (fictitious) photon has zero rest mass ( m0 = 0 ) but non-zero relativistic mass (= photon's relativistic mass m is not zero due to the photon's non-zero relativistic energy E = mc2, this 4th-paragraph ).
Einstein's relativistic energy E is expressed as a function of the velocity and mass of a particle (= such as a photon ) where photon's mass is always zero and its velocity is always light speed c regardless of the photon's wavelength.
↑ This means that Einstein relativistic energy E relation gives only one single photon energy (or indefinite uncertain values = 0/0 ) regardless of the photon's different wavelengths ( or frequencies ), which disagrees with the experimental observation, showing Einstein mc2 is invalid.
Because the actual photons (or lights ) have different energies E depending on their different wavelengths (or frequencies), but Einstein relativistic energy E or mc2 cannot distinguish or give different energy values in lights or photons of different wavelengths.
Einstein relativity also contradicts de Broglie wave theory where de Broglie wave interference of a moving electron must magically vanish seen by an observer moving at the same speed as the electron in the rest frame of a moving electron where de Broglie wavelength of the stationary electron looks infinite ( this 2nd-last paragraph ).
Furthermore, if Einstein relativistic theory is right, the matter wave's velocity must exceed the light speed c. ← self-contradiction ( this p.3 3rd-paragraph ).
The matter's wave velocity v equals fλ (= f is frequency and λ is de Broglie wavelength ).
The particle's frequency f = E/h (= E is the large relativistic energy, h is Planck constant), and its momentum p = h/λ, hence, this matter wave's velocity becomes v = fλ = E/h × h/p = E/p where the massive relativistic energy E is equal to the square root of (pc)2 + m2c4, hence, the matter wave velocty v exceeds the light speed c, which contradiction underlies the current maintream relativistic quantum field theory such as Dirac equation ( this p.2-(4),p.15 ) which is a wrong theory, too.
The present (unrealistic) mainstream relativistic quantum field theory (= such as Dirac equation ) can only describe each electron and photon as nonphysical math symbols (= electron or photon = a†, b†.. ? ) with No concrete shape or size ( this p.4-left, this p.3-left ), so they are useless and irrelevant to real world phenomena.
Einstein relativistic theory is useless, unnecessary for GPS due to its various fatal paradoxes which are caused by lack of absolute frame or real medium propagating actual light or de Broglie wave where Einstein relativity can Not define even a real kinetic energy of a moving electron which is allowed to emit only an unreal virtual photon with imaginary mass.
Realistic Bohr-Sommerfeld model uses only one absolute frame (= Not fictitious multiple relativistic frames causing paradoxes ) where an electron moving with respect to the (absolute) medium (= common to light wave ) generates de Broglie wave storing its (kinetic) energy, which additional energy or mass based on Maxwell mc2 is added to the original electron's mass, and the moving electron appears to be heavier with more resistance from the sorrounding medium (= more energy is needed to accelerate a faster electron ).
(Fig.Q) Quantum mechanics + paradoxical Einstein relativity generates unrealistic QED with virtual photon's infinity which cannot predict any physical values due to its artificial inifnity cancellation or renormalization.
Unrealistic quantum mechanics and special relativity fuse into another unphysical theory called relativistic quantum field theory consisting of quantum electrodynamics (~ QED ) and particle physics.
We showed that Einsten relativity has fatal paradoxes, and quantum mechanics also has Pauli principle's contradiction, so all relativistic quantum theory, QED, particle physics proved to be false.
Here we explain how this allegedly-successful (= actually wrong ! ) QED became completely inconsistent with reaity, just artificially manipulating physically-meaningless free parameters, as shown in Nobody using this useless QED in daliy life.Einstein relativity unreasonably rejected the existence of real medium in space, so it needs ad-hoc dark matter and unreal virtual photons with non-existent longitudinal polarization and imaginary mass (= mass squared of virtual particle is unrealistically negative ) that contradicts the relativistic mc2 relation in order to explain electromagnetic force ( this p.9-10, this p.3, this p.15 ).
In the current mainstream relativistic quantum field theory and quantum electrodynamics (= QED ), their calculated values are known to always diverge to meaningless infinities due to their infinite numbers of unreal (= unobservable ) virtual photons filling space, which virtual photons are said to be unrealistically moving faster than light, which also contradicts Einstein relativity ironically.
So in QED, physicists have to artificially cancel these meaningless virtual particles' infinities by illegitimate trick called renormalization introducing other ad-hoc freely-adjustable infinite parameters called bare change and mass ( this p.4, this last ) to obtain the tiny-tiny finite values such as Lamb shift and anomalous magnetic moment ( this p.3 ).
↑ This means quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) is Not successful theory at all, because physicists just artificially manipulate these two meaningless infinities (= unobservable virtual photons' energies and infintie bare charge, mass = unobservable means free parameters, this p.14-upper, this p.2-second-paragraph ) to remove virtual infinities and get some desirable finite values ( this p.4 ).
Actually, even QED founders Dirac and Feynman harshly criticized this QED ad-hoc renormalization artificially canceling virtual particles' infinities as wrong, illegitimate and hocus-pocus ( this 1st-paragraph ).
QED cannot give or predict the analytical Lamb shift value = negligibly-tiny, tiny energy splitting allegedly between 2s1/2 and 2p1/2 caused by unreal virtual photons according to unphysical QED.
QED just chooses freely-adjustable parameters (= virtual average excitation energy = Lamb shift ? this p.3-left ) to give uncertain numerical values that always include illegitimate non-relativistic freely-adjustable values called Bethe logarithm = ln mc2/|Em-En| ( this p.4, p.12-last~p.13, this last-equation includes uncertain free average virtual energy parameter = ωnj or Em-En, this p.20-22, this p.15-discussion, this p.23-upper ), instead of predicting Lamb shift values in a purely relativistic, analytical way. ← QED has No power to predict Lamb shift.
This negligibly-tiny Lamb shift energy splitting can be explained by the ordinary thermal fluctuation or smaller fine structure (= by real Bohr-Sommerfeld model ) in n = 3 energy levels (= tiny Lamb shift is said to be measured only in n = 3 → n = 2 transition, hence the tiny, tiny ordinary fine structure energy splitting between 3d3/2 and 3d5/2 is about the same as the tiny,tiny Lamb shift which ignores this real 3d3/2-3d5/2 fine structure splitting by imposing baseless selection rule, this p.9 ) without the unrealistic quantum mechancs or virtual photons.
As a result, the current quantum field theory and QED are not only wrong, unsuccessful but also unable to predict any values such as tiny Lamb shift and anomalous magnetic moment, so unnecessary (= actually nobody uses nonphysical QED in our daily life ), contrary to the media-hype.
Other atomic energy calculations of QED are based on artificially-chosen models and pseudo-potentials, which are Not QED's prediction at all ( thid p.3-4 ).
Also in the so-called QED-correction to two-electron atoms, they have to artificially separate into unphysical relativistic term, where meaningless divergent infinities must be artificially canceled by counter-term, and non-relativistic term where atomic (fake) basis set functions, pseudo-potentials, free parameters must be artificially chosen and manipulated with No QED legitimate prediction ( this p.23-2~4th-paragraphs, p.25-C. p.26, p.27-1~3rd-paragraphs ).
(Fig.P) Quantum mechanical Pauli exclusion principle contradicts real physical principle, demanding the same electron must unrealistically bridge and enter two separate molecules and increase kinetic energy disagreeing with real replusion that must decelerate and decrease approaching electron's kinetic energy.
Quantum mechanical Pauli exclusion principle using unphysical antisymmetric wavefunctions to roughly explain why two electrons cannot enter the same state (= same wavefunction φ and same spin ) by Pauli repulsion is physically contradictory, so wrong.
Because this unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli repulsion or fictitious exchange energy demands each single electron must unrealistically exist in all separate atoms and molecules, and it can neither exert real ( exchange ) force nor describe singlet-triplet of more than two electrons in its defective Slater determinant ( this-middle Exchange energy ).
Quantum mechanical ( fictional ) electron spin's magnetic moment (= accidentally equals Bohr's model's Bohr magneton, this p.2 ) or spin magnetic dipole-dipole energy is too weak to explain important physical phenomena such as Pauli exclusion principle and ferromagnet ( this p.5, this p.8(or p.7), this p.2-last ), which is why physicists needed to artificially create new ad-hoc paradoxical concepts called "exchange energy ( this p.6 )".
Repulsive force by Pauli exclusion principle (= independent of electric repulsion ) equal to contact (or normal ) force plays an important role in explaining why two hard objects having definite shapes cannot pass through or stick to each other, instead, two independent objects bounce back from each other (= Pauli repulsion ), and get easily separated (= of course, electrons of object-A must be separated from electrons of object-B, which is unrealistically impossible in paradoxical quantum mechanical Pauli repulsion ).
The contradictory quantum mechanics claims this clearly-felt contact force or Pauli repulsion (= called exchange energy ) is Not a real force ( this p.9, this p.5-upper ) nor physically-defined concept ( this p.6, this p.3, this p.8-lower, this p.11 ), hence, we can Not touch any objects to "feel" real Pauli repulsive contant force in quantum mechanical world ! ← nonsense.
It means the unphysical quantum mechanical atoms or molecules can Not have definite tangible shapes nor boundaries, which facts make the current mainstream molecular simulating methods such as quantum mechanical density functional theory (= DFT ) and molecular dynamics (= MD ) impractical and time-consuming, stopping scientific development.
This contradiction originates from the quantum mechanical electron's wavefunction or vague electron cloud spreading to infinity with No clear boundary or shape and its paradoxical Pauli principle wavefunction rule.
Quantum mechanical Pauli principle demands any wavefunctions must be expressed as antisymmetric wavefunctions ( causing unphysical exchage energy or integral ) where exchange of any two electrons (= ex. electron-1 ↔ electron-2 or their labels 1 ↔ 2 ) must flip the sign of the total wavefunction.
↑ In this antisymmetric wavefunction, when two electrons share the same wavefunction, the total antisymmetric wavefunction becomes canceled out to be zero ( antisymmetric wavefunction = φA(1)φB(2) - φB(1)φA(2) → φA = φB → φA(1)φA(2) - φA(1)φA(2) = 0 = Pauli exclusion principle ? ) ← No more detailed mechanism is shown by quantum mechanics where microscopic science stops progressing.
↑ In this unphysical antisymmetric wavefunction, the single electron-1 (or 2 ) must unrealistically exist in all different atomic wavefunctions (= the same electron-1 must exist in two different atomic wavefunctions-A and B as φA(1) and φB(1), this p.15-upper, this p.11-upper this p.3, this p.3-last-p.4, this p.3-4 ), which makes it impossible to separate two different atoms bridged by the same single electron, and prohibits (two) different atoms from having concrete shapes or boundaries.
This unphysical quantum mechanical atoms and molecules without tangible shapes nor (Pauli) contact force clearly contradicts the fact that we can actually touch, measure contact forces and concrete shapes of macroscopic objects which consist of atoms (which should also have tangible shapes).
Also at the microscopic atomic level, we can actually touch and feel Pauli repulsive contact force using atomic force microscopy, which means each atomic or molecular "shape" is actually measurable as the measurable Pauli repulsion.
Intermolecular distances between two H2-molecules and hydrogen bonds ( O-H intermolecular hydrogen bond length is about 18.0 × 10-11 m = 1.8 Å ) are unable to be close to the convalent bond length (= H-H convalent bond length is 7.4 × 10-11 m, and O-H covalent bond length is 9.7 × 10-11 m ) due to strong intermolecular Pauli repulsive force or contact force between two molecules.
Quantum mechanics unreasonably claims Pauli principle's repulsive force is due to electron's kinetic energy increase (→ total energy increase due to repulsive energy, this p.9-10, this p.4(or p.3 )-2nd-paragraph, this-intro-3rd-paragraph ), which is called (unphysical) exchange energy increase (in antibond ).
↑ This quantum mechanical Pauli repulsion based on kinetic energy increase clearly disagrees with real repulsion that should decelerate or decrease kinetic energy of approaching atoms or electrons, so quantum mechanics disobeys the normal physical principle.
This contradictory Pauli pricinple or exchange energy started from the fact that the unphysical quantum mechanical spreading electron's wavefunction or electron cloud unable to exert Coulomb electric force strong enough to generate molecular attractive convalent bond ( this p.18-20, this p.3-4, this p.3 ), because unlike actually-orbiting electron particles, the spreading electron cloud cannot avoid other repulsive electrons or approach attractive nuclei to generate strong Coulomb electric-based covalent bond.
When two electrons have the opposite (= up and down ) spins (= α↑ and β↓ ) called singlet, these two electrons can share the same state, and their symmetric spatial wavefunction (= spin wavefunction is antisymmetric, so the total wavefunction meets Pauli antisymmetric wavefunction rule ) strangely decreases electron's kinetic energy because the ( symmetric ) wavefunction of the single electron unrealistically spreading or bridging two separate atoms constructively interferes, elongates its de Broglie wavelength (= de Broglie wavelength λ = h/p, where the momentum p or kinetic energy decreases when de Briglie wavelength is longer ).
↑ This quantum mechanical molecular convalent attractive energy based on decreased kinetic energy also disagrees with the real attraction that should attract each other's electron, and increase each other's atomic or electron's kinetic energy.
When two electrons have the same spin (= called triplet ), their spatial wavefunction becomes antisymmetric (= signs of two terms are opposite ), which sharpens and shortens the total wavefunction's de Broglie wavelength and resultanly increases the electron kinetic energy causing Pauli repulsive antibond ( this p.27-1st~2nd-paragraphs, this p.13-2nd-paragraph ), which contradicts the real repulsion that should decelerate or decrease each other's electron's kinetic energy ( and then stop and bounce back each other's electron ).
↑ In conclusion, quantum mechanical Pauli principle (= repel = accelerate, attract = decelerate ) is clearly inconsistent with normal physical principle (= repel = decelerate, attract = accelerate ), so false and unreal.
The important point is that quantum mechanics can Not predict or explain any intermolecular energy necessary for protein-protein enzymatic reactions such as Pauli repulsion and van der Waals attraction called London dispersion , so quantum mechanics is intrinsically false.
Intermolecular attraction called van der Waals potential is known to be inversely proportional to the intermolecular distance (= r ) to the 6th power (= - C6/r6 ).
Quantum mechanical wavefunctions can only generate intermolecular potential proportional to gentler exponential function (= e-r/r ), which completely disagrees with actual van der Waals attractive potential (= 1/r6 ).
So the contradictory quantum mechanics has to give up calculating the denominator part of the inverse 6th power, and tries to paradoxically focus only on artificially adjusting and fitting the numerator parameter C6 to experimental value empirically with No power of prediction.
Also in their (fake) ab-inito method, quantum mechanics can only deal with and manipulate the numerator parameter C6 (= called dispersion coefficient ) or electric polarizing parameter α (called polarizability ) by using unreal concept called imaginary frequency (= iω, this p.13-18, p.22-24, this p.2-5, this p.45 ) and artificially choosing (fake) basis wavefunction to fit experimental results ( this p.9-11-(32)(33), this p.4-right-1st-paragraph ).
↑ In this manipulation of van der Waals parameter C6 or fictitious polarizabilities α consisting of unreal imaginary frequency, the coupled cluster (= CC ) method's artificially chosen wavefunctions are often used ( this p.1-4, this p.1-4 ) as "gold standard", but his CC (or CCSD ) is known to be Not variational method, which means CC often gets wrong energies lower than the experimental energies ( this p.1-left-1st-paragraph, this 1st-paragraph ). ← so CC is false.
↑ Furthermore, all these quantum mechanical ad-hoc methods often cause wrong intermolecualr energies called basis set superposition error (= BSSE ) which must be artificially corrected by adding imaginary Ghost atoms. ← No prediction by quantum mechanics ( this p.5-Table I, this p.19-lower ).
Quantum mechanical wavefunction changing exponentially (= e-r/r r is intermolecualr distance ) is also unable to explain intermolecular Pauli repulsion much more steeply changing proportional to C12/r12 = the 12th power of intermolecular distance ( this p.2-right, this p.11, this p.19-1st-paragraph ), which must be explained by empirically-fitting Lennad Jones potential ( this p.3-2nd-paragraph, this p.2-right-last-paragraph ) based on experiments Not on quantum mechanical theory.
There are some ad-hoc Pauli repulsive potentials artificially created to change exponentially (ex. Buckingham or Born-Mayer potential ) mimicking quantum mechanical original wavefunction's exponential change.
↑ But this expotentially-changing artificial Pauli repulsive potential (= like quantum mechanical Pauli repulsion ) can Not cancel the van der Waals attraction decreasing more acutely obeying -1/r6 ( this p.4-2nd-paragraph ), so false ( this p.2-left-1st-paragraph, this p.4-left-1st-paragraph ).
↑ This useless quantum mechanics has to unphysically decompose the total intermolecular energy into van der Waals dispersion energy, Pauli repulsive energy, Coulomb energy.. and choose ad-hoc independent different pseudo-potentials and free parameters for these decomposed different energy terms, which (fake) ab-initio method can Not predict any energy values ( this p.3-2nd-paragraph, this p.1-intro ).
The current mostly-widely used quantum mechanical approximation called density functional theory (= DFT ) is also unable to explain or predict any intermolecular dispersion interaction ( this p.1-left ), so DFT has to artificially create and choose fictitious intermolecular potentials whose parameters must be empirically fitted to experiments ( this p.8-left, this p.1-right-upper ) using ad-hoc damping function ( this p.2, this p.5-left ), in addition to its fictitious exchange correlation functionals ( this p.3-adjustment ).
Originally, quantum mechanical Pauli principle has fatal defects which can Not deal with atoms or molecules with more than two electrons mixing singlet (= symmetric spatial wavefunction ) and triplet (= antisymmetric spatial wavefunction ).
So quantum mechanics unreasonably discarded only the singlet symmetric spatial wavefunction and leaves only Pauli repulsive (triplet) antisymmetric spatial wavefunction expressed as Slater determinant in generalized cases of more than two electrons.
↑ This means quantum mechanical contradictory Pauli principle tends to generate excessive Pauli repulsion, and can Not generate van der Waals attraction nor covalent bonds connecting many electrons.
This is one of fatal dedects of quantum mechanics.
Considering unrealistic quantum mechanical parallel worlds and relativistic paradoxes, it is natural to think the "actually-tangible" Pauli repulsive contact force is caused by some "real substance" or medium (= because we can actually touch and feel this Pauli repulsion ! So there is some real substance there ! ) generating electron's de Broglie wave interference, which has No contradiction and presents more realistic explanation than quantum mechanical wavefunction or de Broglie wave destructive interference paradoxically increasing kinetic energy ( this 9th-sentence ).
See Particle physics is unreal.
See QCD is unreal.
The present astronomers are just wasting their time and money in fantasizing about fictional unnecessary objects such as black hole, BigBang, wormholes, neutron stars.. which are too far away from the earth to go and confirm. ← So No direct evidence of these imaginary objects
All these imaginary concepts and too-weak gravitational wave (where "Eintein was right again" is fake news) have been useless, unnecessary for us except for this despite massive media coverage and wasted time.
(Fig.2) Quantum mechanics + Einstein relativity = string theory.
Einstein dream = theory of everything is supposed to unify quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity.
In 1970s, as the first theory of everything, unrealistic 26-dimensional string theory was invented.
Our real world is 3-dimensional (= x,y,z ), which is incompatible with this extra-dimensional theory of everything.
In 1980s, this fictional 26-dimensional string theory incorporating another fictional theory called supersymmetry turned into new theory of everything called superstring theory which still has 10 extra-dimensions.
In 1990s, this 10-dimensional superstring added one fictitious extra-dimension, and developed into 11-dimensional M theory which is supposed to be the present leading theory of everything.
The latest version of these fantasy unified theories is 12-dimensional "F theory".
As you see, quantum mechanics and Einstein relativity were so unrealistic that their unified theory, a.k.a. theory of everything is also filled with fictional extra-dimensions, parallel worlds, and wrong math (= 1+2+3 .. = -1/12, this 4th paragraph ).
These current so-called mainstream "science" is Not "science" but just illusion which has No relation to real physical phenomena around us.
(Fig.3) Electrons in "s" orbital always crash into nucleus . → unstable
All quantum mechanical atoms are said to have the unrealistic zero orbital angular momentum L = 0 in the s orbital ( this p.9 ).
↑ It means electrons of all atoms such as hydrogens, heliums, sodiums.. with the unrealistic s orbitals must always crash into nuclei in their linear orbital motion (= zero orbital angular momentum ). ← Quantum mechanical electron also must be actually "moving" because of their non-zero kinetic energy
In this unrealistic zero orbital angular momentum or linear motion, electrons experience destructive interference of de Broglie wave (= experimentally-verified ), hence, quantum mechanical atoms become unstable and impossible.
(Fig.4) Schrödinger's 2p radial wavefunction, negative kinetic energy area.
The easiest way to find out that quantum mechanics is wrong is to know the fact that an atomic electron of Schrödinger equation must have unreal negative kinetic energy.
Kinetic energy is defined as mass times the square of velocity of a particle, so kinetic energy can never be negative, unless a particle's velocity becomes an imaginary number ( when kinetic energy is negative = 1/2mv2 < 0, the velocity v is an imaginary number. ← Impossible ! )
In Schrodinger equation of hydrogen atom, the sum of an electron's kinetic energy and Coulomb potential energy equals total energy E. ← This total energy E value must be constant and conserved in any electron's positions inside an atom.
Kinetic energy can be divided into radial (= toward the nucleus ) and angular (= perpendicular to radial ) directions ( this p.2 ).
Fig.4 shows Schrodinger's 2p wave function of an hydrogen atom, this 2p orbital contains both radial and angular kinetic energies, because orbital angular momentum of 2p orbital is not zero ( l=1, n=2 ).
Unlike realistic orbits, quantum mechanical wave function, which allegedly represents probability of finding an electron, spreads all over the place, hence, an electron can exist in all places at once using fantasy parallel worlds.
When an electron gets close to the nucleus ( r → 0, ① area of Fig.4 ), angular kinetic energy (= also called centrifugal potential, this p.3 ) inversely proportional to the square of the distance (= r ) between an electron and nucleus increases to infinity so rapidly that it cannot be canceled out only by negative Coulomb energy near a nucleus.
To cancel out this too-rapidly increasing angular kinetic energy of an electron closer to nucleus for keeping constant total energy E, the radial kinetic energy has to become unrealistically negative (= an electron in ① area of Fig.4 ).
Not only when an electron is close to the nucleus, but also when an electron moves far awaty from the nucleus (= ③ area of Fig.4 ), radial kinetic energy has to become negative.
Because as an electron moves farther away from the nucleus ( r → ∞ ), Coulomb potential energy becomes higher than total energy.
To keep constant negative total energy E (= this E must be the lowest negative value ), again, the radial kinetic energy has to unrealistically become negative also in ③ area of Fig.4.
So both ends of the quantum mechanical wave function is classically forbidden region. A realistic electron has to turn around before it enters the area with non-existent negative kinetic energy ( this p.2 ), but quantum mechanical electrons, which have already lost reality, have to enter these unphysical negative kinetic energy area without stopping.
This negative kinetic energy has nothing to do with quantum tunnel.
For example, in ① area of Fig.4, a contradictory thing happens = only electron's radial kinetic energy is negative (= decrease to negative infinity ), and the electron's angular kinetic energy is positive (= increase to positive infinity ).
↑ So this weird electron has negative kinetic energy in radial direction and positive kinetic energy in angular direction simultaneously, which chimera-like thing is impossible in a real physical particle.
We proved all multi-electron quantum mechanical atoms are unable to conserve total energy (= unable to conserve the constant total energy E in any electrons positions ), so wrong.
(Fig.5) Quantum mechanics needs unrealistic electron spin. ↓
Electron spin is unrealistic and contradictory, because the electron is Not actually spinning, though it is said to have angular momentum. ← contradiction !
If a very tiny electron tries to spin and generate the angular momentum or magnetic moment designated by quantum mechanics, the tiny electron must be spinning much faster than light ( this 3rd paragraph, this 3rd paragraph, this p.2 ).
So the unrealistic uncanny faster quantum mechanical electron spin contradicts another mainstream theory of Einstein relativity which prohibits any faster than light motions, so false.
Why does the irrational quantum mechanics need such an unphysical and contradictory concept like "spin" ?
Quantum mechanics replaced real electron's orbit by unrealistic wave function which allegedly has unphysical zero orbital angular momentum.
This zero angular momentum means an unphysical one-dimensional "line-shaped orbit" where an electron heads for and crashes into a nucleus (= so unstable electron's orbit ), and cannot produce magnetic field which is generally produced by an electron's circular motion (= angular momentum is necessary to generate magnetic field ).
So quantum mechanical atom with zero angular momentum disagreed not only with reality but also with experimental results showing a hydrogen atom has magnetic field equal to Bohr magneton which was successfully predicted by Bohr model whose circumference is an integer times de Broglie wavelength (= orbital angular momentum is an integer times ℏ = h/2π where h is Planck constant ) to be stable avoiding destructive interference of realistic electron's wave.
This inconvenient fact prompted quantum mechanics to artificially introduce an ad-hoc concept called electron's "spin" which is said to happen to have the same Bohr magneton as magnetic field of Bohr model ( this p.2 ). ← too good to be true !
The problem is each electron particle is too tiny to produce enough magnetic field or angular momentum ( angular momentum = mvr is closer to 0 as the radius r of a tiny electron r → 0 ).
Therefore, an electron must spin much faster than light to generate enough magnetic field and angular momentum ( this p.16-18, this p.1-lower, angular momentum = mvr where a tiny electron's radius r → 0 and velocity v → ∞ ) ! ← Electron spin is unreal, contradicting another mainstream theory of Einstein relativity.
Even if we assume the tiny electron's radius is as big as the proton's radius (= 1 fm = 10-15 meter ), which is close to the old concept of classical electron radius (= bigger than the proton's radius ), the spinning electron's surface speed must be about 100 times faster than the light speed ( this p.16, this p.4, this p.2-3, this p.3-last-paragraph, this p.2 ).
↑ The actual electron's radius is much smaller than the proton's radius or classical electron's radius as seen in Coulomb scattering between the tiny (point-like) electron and proton, so the electron spinning speed must be unrealistically much faster than the light speed c.
So quantum mechanics made a poor excuse that an electron spin is Not an actual spinning contradicting its name of 'spin', and the strange spin cannot stop or slow down ! ← nonsense.
These facts prove that quantum mechanical electron spin is fake, and the atomic magnetic field is caused by "electron's orbital motion" like in Bohr's atom instead of unphysical electron spin.
Pauli exclusion principle needs strong repulsion which cannot be explained by contradictory electron spin whose magnetic field is too weak and too negligible to cause strong Pauli principle repulsive force. ← Electron spin is unreal.
Pauli principle based on quantum mechanical spins is invalid in all atoms or molecules with more than two electrons such as Lithium (= so, triplet or singlet description of three-electron Lithium is impossible in quantum mechanics ). ← self-contradiction
Physicists had no choice but to express this physically-impossible electron's spin as the nonphysical math symbols or the meaningless matrix called "spinor (= with No concrete physical picture of spin )" using nonphysical theory called relativistic quantum field theory (= all spin-1/2 particles must be expressed using unphysical Dirac equation, this p.4 ) or quantum electrodynamics (= QED ).
This unphysical relativistic QED is just "scam" that tries to artificially remove the meaningless infinities caused by QED unreal virtual particles by ad-hoc methods called "renormalization" introducing imaginary counter-infinities called "infinite bare charge or mass."
↑ Of course, this unrealistic QED crazy idea that some finite value such as the tiny anomalous magnetic moment should be obtained by infinity minus another infinity is mathematically illegitimate and wrong, because infinities (= uncertain with no bounds ) minus infinities become indefinite uncertain values that cannot be predicted or some finite physical values.
So the QED fraudulent renormalization artificially removing infinities is harshly criticized even by founders ( this 1st-paragraph ).
Einstein-de Haas experiments based on wrong assumption could Not show the evidence of this (fictitious) electron spin.
Unlike the unrealistic electron's spin, a nucleus can actually 'spin'. Because a nucleus (= proton ) is much bigger and heavier than a tiny electron ( angular momentum = mvr where nuclear mass m and raidus r are far bigger than those of an electron ).
And a nuclear magnetic field is far weaker than electron's (spin ?) magnetic field, which shows each nucleus "spins" realistically slower than light speed.
Quantum mechanical hyperfine structure allegedly caused by fictitious spinning electron entering a tiny proton is unrealistic and false due to its violation of energy conservation law.
(Fig.6) Why electron spin is Not a real spinning ? ↓
Unrealistic electron spin must be "spinning" much faster than light ( this p.3-lower, this p.4 ) to generate angular momentum and magnetic field which accidentally agreed with Bohr magneton ( this left ) given by Bohr model.
The famous Stern-Gerlach Experiment, which was supposed to measure electron spin's magnetic field, did Not measure an electron spin itself. It just measured the whole "silver atom's magnetic field" which can be naturally explained by electron's orbital motion instead of unreal spin.
Electron spin is Not a real "spinning", because spinning must be unrealistically faster-than-light, and the spin cannot stop or slow down.
This quantum mechanical illogical claim that the spin should Not be treated as electron's spinning clearly contradicts another quantum mechanical claim that spin has "angular momentum", which must be generated by a "spinning" object.
More unreasonable thing is electron spin needs to rotate twice (= 720o ) instead of once to return to its original state. ← No physical mechanism can be given to such an uncanny spin which is unable to return to the original state just by 360o rotation.
Such a fantasy (spinning) electron really does Not return to its original state by the ordinary 360 degree (= or 2π ) rotation, instead, it needs 720 degree rotation (= two full rotations, 4π ) to return ?
Useless quantum mechanics refuses to offer any deeper physical mechanisms of this unreal electron spin ( this p.3-4 ).
Some experiments claimed that this physically-impossible property of electron spin which needs 720o (= instead of 360o ) rotation to return to the original state was confirmed by rotating (= precessing ) neutron spin interference.
But of course, they could Not see each neutron spin actually spinning (= because spin is Not an actual spin ). They just imagined the neutron rotated twice on the false assumption that each neutron has 1/2 ℏ spin angular momentum (= angular momentum itself cannot be directly measuread, only magnetic field = Bohr magneton can be measured ).
If we assume each neutron's rotation has 1 ℏ angular momentum (= instead of 1/2 ℏ ) like Bohr's orbit, this experimental result can be naturally interpreted as the one showing neutron normally returned to its original state by rotating once (= 360o ) instead of unrealistic 720o
Because precession speed is inversely proportional to angular momentum as seen in gyroscope, so as a neutron's angular momentum increases from quantum mechanical 1/2 × ℏ to classical 1 × ℏ, precession velocity decreases from 720o to 360o rotation.
↑ These experiments of neutron precession and interference use the neutron's de Broglie wave interference ( this 7th-paragraph ) under applied external magnetic field ( this p.10, this p.6, this p.5 ).
A neutron is thought to have the small orbital rotation stabilized by the orbital length equal to an integer times de Broglie wavelength (= this neutron's position or phase is detectable as de Broglie wave interference ) in addition to the original intrinsic spin (= which could Not be detected as interference, because the intrinsic spin is irrelevant to de Broglie wavelength ).
The orbital motion based on de Broglie wave interference generates the quantized angular momentum = an integer times ℏ (= orbital angular momentum becomes 1 × ℏ instead of the unseen spin angular momentum's 1/2 × ℏ ) to avoid destructive interference of de Broglie wave by the orbital circumference equal to an integer times de Broglie wavelength (= by replacing the electron's mass with the neutron mass, you can get the same quantized angular momentum of 1 × ℏ ).
A neutron with quantized angular momentum ℏ under magnetic field started precession of its orbit (= whose de Broglie wave phase changes depending on the precession, and is detected as the neutron interference ).
The precession speed (= inversely proportional to the spin or orbital angular momentum ) becomes two times lower (= slower = 360o precession or rotation ) when we consider the neutron's (orbital) angular momentum is 1 × ℏ than when we (falsely) use the neutron's 1/2 × ℏ spin angular momentum (= two times faster false 720o precession, this 10.5.4 ).
As a result, these types of experiments based on neutron's interference just proved all particles such as neutrons returned to their original states by the ordinary classical 360o rotation instead of fantasy quantum mechanical 720o rotation (= which unrealistic wrong interpretation is caused by the false assumption of the unreal unseen spin's 1/2 angular momentum causing two times faster false precession ).
A neutron is known to be a composite particle consisting of a proton and an electron, and the magnetic moment of electron spin is far larger than the magnetic moment of proton. So if an electron's spin is real, the magnetic moment of a neutron should be as large as an electron.
But an actual neutron's magnetic moment is as small as a proton (= an electron's orbital radius is as small as that of proton inside neutron ), which means an electron's spin is unreal.
In conclusion, electron spin with 1/2 angular momentum is physically impossible. Atomic powerful magnetic field is produced by a large electron's orbital motion instead of illusory electron's "spinning".
(F.7) Fantasy basic theory makes even good technology useless.
The present mainstream science has stopped progressing due to fictional scientific target such as parallel-world quantum computer, paradoxical relativity, QED virtual particle, particle physics, and impractical protein simulating method called molecular dynamics.
(F) Einstein relativistic effect causes serious paradox
Relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction is paradoxical and unreal.
(Fig.8) Hydrogen shows "normal Zeeman effect" without spin.
By measuring the light energy or light frequency (or wavelength ), we can know the atomic energy levels.
Under external magnetic field, the atomic energy levels are known to split into more multiple levels.
When there is No electron spin, each atomic energy level (with orbital angular momentum) under magnetic field is basically split into three, which is called normal Zeeman effect.
Various atoms such as hydrogen ( this p.3-left-3rd-paragraph ), cadmium (= Cd, this p.4-1st-paragraph ), mercury ( this p.7-1st-paragraph ) are known to show this normal Zeeman effect, which clearly proves there is No electron spin.
Some people say when very very weak magnetic field (= whose energy is less than tiny, tiny fine structure energy of 0.000045 eV ) can be applied to the hydrogen atom, it could split into more spectral lines (= anomalous Zeeman effect, this p.3-upper ) which may be a sign of (fictional) electron spin.
But it is impossible to precisely measure such a tiny, tiny energy splitting smaller than the fine structure and distinguish them from other thermal fluctuation, orbital precession or nuclear magnetic field effect.
When applying the magnetic field larger than the tiny fine structure energy, all atoms are said to conveniently show normal Zeeman effect called Paschen-Back effect ( this p.14 ). ← This artificial Paschen-Back effect is clearly equal to normal Zeeman effect without spin, but quantum mechanics doesn't want to admit it.
↑ Hydrogen and lithium atoms are known to show only this normal Zeeman or Paschen-Back effect ( this-lower, this p.7-2nd-paragraph, You can Not find pictures of anomalous Zeeman effect splitting in hydrogen or lithium atoms in any textbooks or websites ), which means there is No electron spin.
(Fig.9) ↓ Unreal spin has No relation to energy levels
When excited atomic electron energy levels are split into more energy levels under external magnetic field in larger atoms, quantum mechanics claimed the electron's spin or its unrealistic spin-orbit interaction may cause these further splitting of energy levels. ← This is wrong.
First of all, quantum mechanics baselessly assumes the fine structure energy splitting between 2p1/2 and 2p3/2 energy levels is caused by the (fictitious) electron-spin-orbit interaction, which is proven wrong, as shown in the unphysical relativistic Dirac hydrogen illegitimately copying the Bohr-Sommerfeld real fine structure without spin.
These more splitting energy levels under magnetic field is called anomalous Zeeman effect.
This anomalous Zeeman effect is known to happen especially in large atoms (= with many electrons ) such as sodium, while smaller atoms (= with fewer electrons ) such as hydrogen and lithium show normal Zeeman effect pattern.
This fact means anomalous Zeeman effect is caused by complicated interaction between inner electrons and excited valence electron instead of unphysical spin.
Or, in the magnetic field, the electron's orbital motion can orient to various directions by the precession, which can cause more energy splitting patterns than the simplest normal Zeeman effect even without using the unreal electron's spin.
We can easily disprove the electron spin's involvement in anomalous Zeeman effect.
Textbooks often use sodium D line doublet as a typical example of anomalous Zeeman effect, which allegedly represents energy transition from two excited 3p3/2 and 3p1/2 (= split by spin ? ) energy levels to lower 3s1/2 energy levels.
But in fact, this sodium D line has nothing to do with electon spin from the beginning, which means anomalous Zeeman effect has nothing to do with spin, either.
Because an electron spin-orbit interaction, which allegedly causes sodium D line energy splitting, is too weak to separate two energy levels between 3p3/2 and 3p1/2 as widely as experimental energy separation.
Furthermore, if anomalous Zeeman effect is due to spin, its energy splitting must obey Lande-g-factor (= gj ) spin theory which should split the original line symmetrically (= just equal interval ) with respect to the direction of external magnetic field.
But actual anomalous Zeeman effect disobeys Lande-spin-g-factor theory, and energy line splits into more complicated unsymmetrical lines ( this p.3 lower, this p.38-39 ) relative to the direction of external magnetic field in anomalous Zeeman effect which should be theoretically symmetrical relative to external magnetic field .
Actually, in alkali atoms such as potassium (= K ) and rubidium, there are No experimental data of Lande g factor (= gj, this p.9 Table.10, this p.32(or p.28)-lower ). ← This is an excuse, because their experimental results of anomalous Zeeman effect were significantly different from prediction of quantum mechanical spin-based Lande g factor theory.
It is said the excited energy splitting of the anomalous Zeeman effect under external magnetic field should obey the artificial Lande-g-factor and L(=orbit )-S(= spin ) coupling rule ( this p.11 ).
But most of atoms show more complicated energy splitting (= disobeying quantum mechanical Lande g factor ) or anomalous Zeeman effect than the ad-hoc quantum mechanical rule or formula ( this p.4-last, this p.4-last, this p.8-upper ).
And there are very few reliable anomalous Zeeman effect data especially in light elements ( this p.2-left ), as if physicists tried to hide the wide discrepancy between quantum mechanical bad prediction and actual data.
First of all, quantum mechanics has No power to predict any anomalous Zeeman effect's energy levels. ← Because quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations cannot predict or give exact energy solutions in any multi-electron atoms regardless of the ground-state or excited states.
To fix the discrepancy between the theory and experimental values of complicated anomalous Zeeman effect, quantum mechanics tries to create many other artificial concepts such as J-J coupling, J-K coupling ( this p.3-4 ) in addition to the original L-S coupling Lande g factor rule.
↑ But in most atoms, energy levels in anomalous Zeeman effect show more complicated intermediate states among thouse artificially-created rule or LS, JJ, JK coupling, which No longer obey the original Lande g factor formulra ( this p.22, this p.19 ).
As a result, "anomalous Zeeman effect" might have been "predicted" by quantum mechanics ( or its impractical Schrödinger equations ) is untrue, they just artificially created many new ad-hoc rules to forcibly fit experimental values.
(Fig.10) Spin is too weak to cause Big Na splitting. ↓
Hydrogen 2p energy level is split into two 2p3/2 and 2p1/2 states, which small energy splitting (= called fine structure ) is said to be caused by relativistic effect = spin-orbit interaction. ← But this is untrue.
2p orbital has angular momentum ( l = 1 ), so the 2p electron moves around the nucleus. ← From the viewpoint of 2p electron (= rest frame of an electron ), the hydrogen nucleus unrealistically appears to be moving around the fake stationary electron (= though, such an unphysical thing never happens ) according to irrational Einstein relativity.
And this fictitious nucleus orbiting around the stationary electron should generate pseudo-magnetic field at the position of the electron, which could split electron's 2p state into two energy levels based on the electron's spin direction (= up or down, by electron's spin-nuclear-orbit magnetic interaction ) relative to the direction of this pseudo-magnetic field allegedly produced by orbiting nucleus.
But Einstein relativity suffers from fatal paradoxes, and the electron spin needs faster-than-light spinning, hence, this spin-orbit interaction contradicts Einstein relativity from the beginning, so it is unreal.
Sodium (= Na ) also has one valence electron like hydrogen (= H ), so sodium D-line, where 3p Na energy level splits into two 3p1/2 and 3p3/2 states, is said to be due to the same (fictional) spin-orbit interaction as hydrogen's fine structure splitting.
The problem is electron spin is too weak to cause very wide energy splitting as seen in sodium D-lines, hence, spin has nothing to do with fine structure energy splitting or anomalous Zeeman effect.
The magnitude of energy intervals between two energy levels (= between 2p3/2 and 2p1/2 in hydrogen, and between 3p3/2 and 3p1/2 in sodium ) in fine structure is known to be proportional to Z4 (= Z denotes the average entire central charge putting a positive nucleus and all inner negative electrons together, except for one valence electron ) and inversely proportional to n3 (= n is valence electron's principal quantum number representing total energy level, this p.2-right~p.3-left ).
So the magnitude of fine structure energy splitting is proportional to Z4/n3 ( this p.7, this p.14. Other angular quantum number such as j and l are common to hydrogen and sodium fine structure energy states, so we can ignore them.
( Both hydrogen-2p1/2-2p3/2 and sodium-3p1/2-3p3/2 have the same angular quantum number l = 1, j=1/2 or 3/2 )
Hydrogen fine structure energy splitting is very small = energy difference between 2p3/2 and 2p1/2 is only 0.000045 eV ( this p.4-5 ).
On the other hand, sodium fine structure energy splitting is very big = energy difference between 3p3/2 and 3p1/2 is as big as 0.0021 eV ( this p.8, this Table.1 ).
↑ This huge discrepancy between hydrogen's and sodium's fine structure energy splitting shows the spin-orbit interaction, which allegedly causes both hydrogen's and sodium's fine structure, does Not occur in actual atoms.
Using these two energy splitting values, quantum number (= hydrogen 2p is n = 2, sodium 3p is n = 3 ) and hydrogen central charge (= Z = 1 ) in upper spin-orbit formula, we can get sodium average central charge is as big as Z = 3.54 ( this p.3 ).
As I said, this average central charge Z is the sum of charges of a positive nucleus and all other inner negative electrons than one outer electron, so Z should be close to "1".
( total charge of Na 11e+ nucleus and all inner -10e electrons are - +11e -10e = +e = Z = 1 ).
The value of Z = +3.54e ( instead of 1 ) needed for generating very wide sodium fine structure energy splitting is unrealistic ( from experimental results of sodium outer electron's ionization energy, the sodium inner effective charge Z should be less than 1.84, which is far smaller than +3.54 ! ), so electron spin has nothing to do with fine structure energy splitting or anomalous Zeeman effect in sodium.
It is more natural to think this very wide energy splitting in sodium fine structure is caused by "Coulomb electric interaction" between inner electrons and an outer electron, Not by fictional relativistic spin-orbit magnetic interaction.
If quantum mechanical spin-orbit formula is true, sodium's energy splitting between 3p3/2 and 3p1/2 states has to be smaller than hydrogen's energy small splitting between 2p3/2 and 2p1/2 ( this p.9 lower ) which quantum mechanical spin theory disagrees with experimental results.
(Fig.11) Na+ ion average charge is Z = 1.84 disagreeing with spin.
An outer electron, which causes the very wide fine structire energy splitting in sodium, can be considered to be orbiting around the effective central charge Z (= close to +1 ) that combines a positive sodium nucleus and all other inner electrons except one outer electron.
So a sodium's outer (= valence ) electron is moving around an singly-ionized sodium (= Na+ = effective central charge Z = 1 ).
Electrons are avoiding each other by Coulomb repulsion, so this effective central charge Z ( felt by an outer electron ) tends to be bigger than +1.
We can know true effective central charge of this Na+ ion (= Na nucleus + all inner electrons except one outer electron ) using experimental ionization energy values.
Both hydrogen and sodium atoms have the similar structure with only one valence (= outer ) electron, so we can use the common ionization energy formula where the total energy is proportional to Z2/n2.
In hydrogen atom, the nucleus is +e, so Z = 1, and ionization energy is 13.6 eV ( enegy level quantum number n= 1 ).
In sodium atom, the ionization energy of outer electron ( n = 3 ) is 5.14 eV.
Putting all these experimental values and quantum numbers into the energy formula, we can get the true effective central charge of sodium equal to +1.84 (= based on experimental ionization energy, this p.5 upper ), which is far smaller than Z = +3.54 (= obtained by assuming fictitious spin-orbit interaction causes very wide Na fine structure energy splitting ).
This huge discrepancy in effective central charges Z between experimental value and quantum mechanical spin theoretical value clearly proves that sodium D-lines = fine structure energy splitting is Not caused by fantasy electron spin, but by stronger Coulomb interaction between inner and outer electrons.
All other alkali and alkaline-earth atoms also show remarkable discrepancy between experimental values and prediction by quantum spin's theory (= spin-orbit or spin-spin magnetic interaction is too weak to cause wide energy splitting of alkali and alkaline-earth atoms ).
Hence, all quantum mechanics, spin and relativistic spin-orbit interaction turned out to be false, disagreeing with experiments.
(Fig.12) Spin-spin magnetic energy (= 0.0001 eV ) is too small !
Quantum mechanics claims the 3rd electron of lithium cannot enter inner 1s orbital, instead, the 3rd electron is kicked out to outer 2s orbital against strong Coulomb attraction of the nucleus, due to mysterious repulsive force called Pauli exclusion principle allegedly acting between two electron spins.
Pauli principle says two electrons with the same spin cannot enter the same orbital. ← But No more detailed physical mechanism is given by quantum mechanics, because serious contradiction will be exposed if you try to delve into Pauli principle. ← Science stops progressing now.
This repulsive force by Pauli exclusion principle must be strong enough to cancel out Coulomb attraction. Electron spin was introduced as a tiny magnet. But the magnetic ( dipole ) interaction between two electron spins is too weak to explain powerful Pauli exclusion force. ← So the electron spin disagrees with facts.
This (p.6) says "The magnetic dipole interaction" energy of two (spin magnetic) moments m.. If we evaluate this using uB (= electron's spin magnetic moment called Bohr magneton ) for the momnet and 3 Å as the separation, the (electron-spin-spin magnetic dipole ) interaction strength is 3 × 10-25 J or 0.02 Kelvin (= only 0.0000017 eV = far smaller than Pauli repulsive energy = about 20 eV ). This interaction is evidently far too weak to account for the fact that permanant magnet exists at room temperatre.. "
".. Instead, we have to turn back to Pauli exclusion principle, this is known as the exchange interaction .. Unlike (spin magnetic) dipolar interaction, the energy of the exchange intearction can be large, many times the thermal energy at room temperature. "
This (p.5) says "Magnetism comes from the interaction among the electrons: the classical magnetic dipole-dipole interaction (= electron spin-spin magnetic interaction ) is too weak to explain it ( this p.7 )."
So the magnetic force of electron's spin is completely useless for explaining strong Pauli repulsive force.
The paradoxical quantum mechanics introduced the (unrealistic) electron spin as the tiny magnetic moment, but later, this spin turned out to be unable to explain strong Pauli exclusion repulsion and room-temperature ferromagnetism ( this p.8 or p.7 ), they were forced to artificially create the unrealistic energy called "exchange interaction (= Not even a real force, this p.6 )", which ghost exchange energy is said to be three orders of magnitude larger than the original spin magnetic interaction ( this 4th-paragraph, this p.11 ).
If there was not Pauli repulsive force, the 3rd electron can enter inner 1s orbital together with other two electrons (= generating fictitious lithium with 3 × 1s electrons ), getting total energy lower than the experimental ground (= lowest ) state energy of lithium by Coulomb attractive energy caused by fictitious lithium atom getting all three electrons into 1s orbital closest to a positive nucleus.
Pauli exclusion repulsive energy between lithium 3rd electron of 2s outer orbital and the remaining two inner electrons of 1s orbital is more than 25 eV ( this 2nd-3rd paragraphs, this 5th-paragraph ) which Pauli energy is far larger than electron spin-spin magnetic energy (= less than 0.0001 eV, this p.4 ).
↑ Electron spin has nothing to do with Pauli exlusion principle ! Even singlet-triplet energy splitting is too large to explain by the weak electron's spin magnet (= instead, unphysical ad-hoc exchange interaction was introduced, this p.10 )
The total energy of this fictitious lithium of three 1s electrons (= by choosing three fictitious hydrogen atomic orbits as fake approximate solutions for unsolvable lithium Schrödinger equation ) becomes much lower = -230 eV (= -8.4609 Eh, this p.2, this p.3 ) than the actual lithium total ground state energy (= -203 eV )
The actual total energy of lithium is -203 eV (= sum of 1st-3rd ionization energies of lithium ).
Therefore, Pauli repulsive energy is as big as 27 eV (= 230 - 203 eV ).
On the other hand, the magnetic energy between two electron spins is just 0.0001 eV, which is far smaller than Pauli exclusion force ( this p.10-left, this p.17, this p.3, this p.2 ).
Quantum mechanics discarded the original definition of spin introduced as a tiny magnet, which turned out to be too weak to cause strong Pauli repulsive energy, and made up another new unphysical concept called "exchange interaction."
This "exchange interaction (= which has nothing to do with actual electric or magnetic forces )" is an unrealistic ghost-like concept, which cannot even be a force, and it lacks force carrier.
Quantum mechanics can Not explain the mechanism of this mysterious Pauli repulsive force using real objects ( this p.6, this p.10 ).
↑ The fact that quantum mechanics tries to explain strong Pauli repulsion by nonphysical "exchange energy" lacking real (exchange) force means the original electron spin introduced as a tiny magnet has nothing to do with this Pauli principle. ← If electron spin-spin magnetic interaction caused strong Pauli repulsion, they have insisted Pauli principle is a real (magnet) force, which didn't happen.
It tries to ascribe uncanny Pauli exclusion energy to the dubious exchange interaction which uses nonphysical abstract math antisymmetric wavefunction (which tells us nothing about detailed physical mechanism of Pauli repulsion), and the nonphysical exchange interaction unrealistically requires each electron to exist in multiple different places at once, violating energy conservation law ( this abstract ), so false.
We prove the quantum mechanical antisymmetric wavefunctions obeying Pauli principle nonphysical exchange rule can never conserve total energy, hence, quantum mechanics is intrinsically false.
Furthermore, atoms or molecules with more than two electrons (= such as lithium ) combining the symmetric (= between the opposite spins ) and antisymmetric (= between the same spin ) wavefunctions cannot be expressed by the defective quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions ( this p.12-third-paragraph ).
So quantum mechanical unphysical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions expressed as Slater determinants have to exclude only the symmetric wavefunctions giving molecular attractive exchange energies, which resultantly causes unneeded Pauli repulsive exchange energies disagreeing with actual molecules such as intermolecular van der Waals attraction and Pauli repulsion that need to artificially create and add the ad-hoc pseudo-potential energies disproving the original quantum mechanics.
This unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli exclusion principle based on unrealistic exchange energy is said to be explained by unphysical relativistic quantum field theory or Dirac equation.
But this relativistic quantum field theory or Dirac equation just shows nonphysical abstract meaningless math relation called anticommutation where each electron is described just as a nonphysical math symbol ( this p.5-lower, this p.17 ), which thoery and unphysical description are useless and tell us nothing about the detailed mechanism of how to cause Pauli exclusion repulsion at all.
(Fig.13) Spin magnet is too weak to explain ferromagnet.
Ferromagnetism is said to be caused by electron spins aligned parallel to each other.
But in fact, ferromagnetism (or antiferromagnet, paramagnet .. ) has nothing to do with electron spin, because the magnetic interaction (= magnetic dipole-dipole energy ) between electron spins is too weak to keep ferromagnetism stable even at room temperature ( this p.7(or p.6), this p.8(or p.7) ).
This 3rd paragraph says "Such an interaction (= spin magnetic dipole interaction ) is, in general, much too small to produce ferromagnetism. Instead, the predominant interaction is known as the (unphysical) exchange interaction ( this p.7-8, this p.11(or p.3 )-lower )."
↑ This quantum mechanical ad-hoc unphysical exchange energy, which did not exixt in the original spin magnetic definition, lacks reality, because they paradoxically claim quantum exchange energy may exist, but there is No exchange force ( this p.8-last-paragraph, this p.5-first-paragraph, this-middle Exchange energy ). ← nonsense.
Ferromagnetism of iron (= Fe ) is known to keep stable even at high temperature = the critical temperature 1043 K.
But if electron spin-spin magnetic interaction is the origin of keeping ferromagnetism, the iron easily loses its ferromagnetic property even at extremely low temperature.
↑ Electron spin-spin magnetic (dipole-dipole) interaction energy = 0.3 K is far smaller than actual strong interaction energy required to make ferromagnetic atoms (= direction ) stable = 1043 K ( this p.7, dipole-dipole interaction ).
So the electron spin (= magnetic moment ) is Not the origin of keeping ferromagnetism stable, which fact contradicts the original definition of electron spins which was introduced as ones causing tiny magnetic field ( this p.10, this p.1-upper ). ← The existence of electron spin (= magnet ) has No evidence due to experimental disagreement between weak spin magnetic moment and strong Pauli principle, ferromagnetism which were Not caused by (fictional) electron spin.
Electron orbital motion (= realistically causing magnetic field of ferromagnet ) interacting and meshing (= synchronizing ) with other neighboring electron's orbital motions through Coulomb electric force can keep ferromagnetism stable even at high temperature ( this p.11 ).
↑ The electron's orbital motion covers larger space than the point-like electron's spin, so the electron's orbit-orbit interaction covering larger space naturally involves strong Coulomb electric interaction between electrons to let two neighboring electron's orbits interact and synchronize with each other stably.
All the (useless) quantum mechanical calculations of metals and ferromagnetism are based on unreal pseudo-electron with fictitious effective masses, quasiparticles and freely-adjustable parameters ( this p.3, this p.2-3, this p.5-left, this p.5-right ), which dependence on pseudo-models disprove the quantum mechanical spin.
In the realistic electron's orbital motion-induced magnetism, each atomic specific orbital shape and arrangement pattern determine the stable Coulomb electric interaction between neighboring atomic electrons' orbits, and resultantly determine the magnetic property of whether a material has ferromagnetism or anti-ferromagnetism, which explanation is perfectly compatible with actual observed stable ferromagnetism even at room temperature, which can Not be explained by the too-weak electron spin magnetic interaction.
The fact that realistic orbital motion instead of unrealistic electron spin causes ferromagnetism is shown in all the quantum mechanical description of ferromagnet using Bohr magneton (= μB ) based on Bohr's electron orbit ( this p.2-right-2nd-paragraph, this p.6 ).
Unrealistic quantum mechanical electron spin is just a point particle (= so a point particle has No shape difference ), which featureless point-particle can Not determine whether other electrons' spin directions become parallel (= ferromagnetism ) or anti-parallel (= anti-ferromagnetism ), which are different in different materials.
So quantum mechanical spin model intrinsically has No power to determine or predict whether each material or atom becomes ferromagnet or anti-ferromagnet.
All such a useless quantum mechanics can do is invent various roughly-approximate nonphysical pseudo-models such as Heisenberg and Hubbard spin models ( this p.6-9 ) with freely-chosen parameters to seemingly explain (anti-)ferromagnetism without showing any realistic physical mechanism of how ferromagnetism is generated ( this p.3-first-paragraph, ) by the point-like electron spin. ← impossible.
Quantum mechanics can only describe each electron ( spin) as a nonphysical math symbols (= each electron is just a nonphysical simbol = a†, b†, c†.. ) with No concrete figures, which abstract model tells us nothing about the detailed picture of how each electron actually behaves in ferromagnetism ( this p.7, this p.3 ).
Physicists just artificially manipulate those freely-adjustable chosen parameters (= J, U, t, this p.3-lower, this p.2-lower ) to fit the observed magnetic properties of ferromagnet (= J > 0 ) or antiferromagnet (= J < 0 ) with No ability to predict whether each material becomes ferromagnet or anti-ferromagneti from the original quantum mechanical theory ( this p.8-9, this p.2-right-upper, this p.3 ).
Furthermore, quantum mechanical ferromagnetic model is full of fictional concepts such as quasiparticles, effective (= fake ) masses, quasi-momentum ( this p.12 ).
Under the useless quantum mechanical model, all physicists can do is rely on one-pseudo-electron DFT approximation which just artificially chooses fake potential energies (= exchange-correlation functionals ) and free parameters ( this p.4 ) with No power to predict any physical values.
(F.14) Lucky coincidence or quantum mechanics cheated ?
Hydrogen's small energy splitting can be perfectly explained by realistic Bohr-Sommerfeld model without spin.
The current mainstream quantum field theory or relativistic Dirac's hydrogen copied this successful Bohr-Sommerfeld fine structure, and includes serious paradox, so wrong.
(Fig.15) ↓ This was really a lucky coincidence ?
In much smaller energy splitting such as Lamb shift, quantum mechanics uses unrealistic math trick called QED renormalization where infinity caused by unreal virtual particles minus infinity gives some finite value (= very tiny Lamb shift energy caused by unreal unobservable virtual photons ? ← nonsense, this p.1-left )
↑ Two kinds of "infinite values" can be artificially manipulated to give convenient finite values, so this dirty method discrediting quantum mechanics was criticized even by QED founders as "hocus-pocus".Though negligibly-tiny energy splitting = Lamb shift is said to be explained by relativistic QED ad-hoc renormalization artificially cancelling infinite unreal virtual particles, these virtual particles with unreal imaginary masses clearly contradict Einstein relativistic mc2 mass-energy relation ( this p.5 ).
So the present Lamb shift by artificial QED virtual particles is an illegitimate and false theory.
In fact , even after artificially removing infinity ( by sweeping infinites under rug ) caused by unreal virtual particles, QED can neither eliminate other infinities nor get meaningful finite physical values.
First of all, the purely-relativistic QED methods can Not obtain exact analytical solutions of Lamb shift ( this p.6-7, this p.8, this p.4 ), so "QED is successful, predicting some physical values" is a big lie.
Even in the so-called "relativistic QED Lamb shift calculation", most of the calculated Lamb shift values were obtained from non-relativistic Bethe methods which rely on the freely-adjustable numerical (= Not analytical, see this p.3-left ) calculations artificially choosing convenient different virtual (average) excited energy values in different energy levels 2s1/2, 2p1/2.. called Bethe logarithm ( this p.4, this p.23, this p.5-3th,4th paragraphs, this p.3 )
In this unphysical relativistic QED calculation of the negligibly tiny energy splitting of Lamb shift, physicists can Not obtain or predict the precise analytical values of Lamb shift (= so QED is useless ), instead, they rely on the artificially-created virtual photons' average excited energies called Bethe logarithm ( this p.3 ) to estimate (virtual) 2s1/2 and 2p1/2 energy levels' splitting or Lamb shift ( this p.21, this p.4 ).
↑ These (unmeasurable) illusory probability equations of exciting the electron to virtual higher energy levels (= Bethe's average excitation energies ) by unreal virtual photons to allegedly cause tiny Lamb shift splitting are artificially-chosen parameters ( this p.3-right ) using fictitious quasi-principlal numbers ( this p.1-2 ← These R or ad-hoc average virtual excitation energies have nothing to do with the hydrogen's wavefunctions, quantum mechanics or QED, hence, completely irrelevant fabricated parameters and fake concepts are used to get convenient Lamb shift values illegitimately ). ← QED itself cannot predict Lamb shift values.
↑ So basically QED has No ability to predict analytical values of Lamb shift using relativistic quantum field theory based on unreal virtual particles.
We must replace this unrealistic useless Lamb shift theory by other realistic explanation without ghost-like virtual particles.
We can think of other more realistic possibilities such as an electron and nuclear tiny fluctuation or something than unreal virtual particle QED to explain such a small negligible energy splitting Lamb shift (= which is too weak to need, useless for our daily life )
Even at the extremely-cold = almost absolute zero temperature (= 1 kelvin ), the thermal fluctuation energy is as much as 8.6 × 10-5 eV which is larger than the negligibly-tiny tiny Lamb shift energy splitting = only 4.3 × 10-6 eV, which energy is too small to measure by the normal spectrum observations. ← The ordinary thermal energy fluctuation is the more realistic explanation of the tiny-tiny energy splitting than unreal infinite virtual photons of QED.
Also in very small hyperfine structure (= tiny enegy splitting by nuclear spin ), quantum mechanical model is unrealistic and just artificially manipulating freely-adjustable parameters such as nuclear spin g-factor (= this value cannot be predicted by quantum mechanics, it must be determined by experiment and measurement. this p.4-right ).
Because relativistic QED and QCD just artificially adjusting free parameters obtained from experiments are unable to predict any nuclear values such as nuclear masses, spins and hyperfine structure ( this p.3, this p.10-1st-paragraph ).
The extremely tiny hyperfine structure energy splitting (= ~ 10-6 eV ) involving spins of nuclei and protons can neither be calculated nor predicted by the original quantum mechanics, quantum field theoy or QED due to the imaginary unknown virtual (sea) quarks allegedly popping up inside nuclei ( this 8th-paragraph, this p.12, this 1.Hadron physics ).
Physicists have given up calculating nuclear masses or spins analytically ( this 2-9th paragraphs ), and created other nonphysical lattice QCD model which just chooses many arbitrary free parameters and cannot predict any nuclear values such as spins and hyperfine structure.
So there is No evidence indicating that quantum mechanical unphysical model is right in regard to atomic energy levels.
Useless quantum mechanics cannot predict any physical values.
The current mainstream (unrealistic) quantum mechanical theory claims that the energy levels of 2p1/2 and 2s1/2 are slightly different by the negligibly tiny, tiny energy splitting called Lamb shift.
But this Lamb shift energy splitting (= allegedly only 4.3 × 10-6 eV ) is so tiny = about 10 times smaller than the tiny fine structure energy splitting (= 4.5 × 10-5 eV, which is proven to be Not relativistic spin-orbit effect ) that Lamb shift energy splitting cannot be measured in the ordinary spectral lines emitted by hydrogen atoms. ← The existence of Lamb shift is doubtful.
↑ They claim that uncertain thermal fluctuation causes uncertain atomic fluctuation and Doppler shift of the emitted line's light wavelength, so they cannot measure the tiny,tiny Lamb shift.
But the uncertain Doppler shift doesn't prevent them from knowing the peak light wavelength emitted by hydrogen atom, which tell us the precise ordinary fine structure energy splitting perfectly explained by Bohr-Sommerfeld model.
The dubious tiny Lamb shift cannot be detected even in this peak light wavelength, which means the tiny, tiny Lamb shift energy splitting is extremely doubtful.
In the deuterium, another small peak light wavelength is slightly observed between two fine structure energy peaks in spectral lines, but this peak wavelength (= about half of fine structure ) is completely different from the quantum mechanical Lamb shift peak (= allegedly 10 times smaller than fine structure, this p.4-5 ).
Lamb conducted the completely different type of "non-rigorous" experiment of "electron's bombardment", which very rough method of randomly bombarding the target metal with accelerated H atoms and detecting ejected electrons is unreliable and inappropriate for measuring the tiny, tiny Lamb shift energy splitting ( this p.14-18, this p.9 ).
↑ Lamb used the high-energy hydrogen atoms (= randomly oscillating and rotating ) heated and excited by the electrons' random collisions to 2s state (= alleged metastable state, but No direct evidence ), and then, he applied very weak magnetic field to generate weak Zeeman splitting (= irregular splitting contradicting quantum mechanical Lande g factor ), illuminate them by microwave with some frequencies to cause transition from the metastable 2s1/2 to 2p1/2 (= unstable, this p.9 ) for roughly estimating the tiny, tiny Lamb shift energy splitting between 2s1/2 and 2p1/2.
↑ But it is almost impossible to align the vigorously-fluctuating and rotating hydrogen atoms with the weak magnetic field (= weak Zeeman energy splitting is changeable and uncertain due to electron's random fluctuation and precession, so this tiny energy splitting of fluctuating hydrogens under weak magnetic field is unreliable ), and he intentionally did not use the transitions from the magnetic stable states under the applied magnetic field such as the lowest energy lines of 2p3/2 (=d ) and 2s1/2 (= β ) as shown in this p.5 and this p.4.
Lamb intentionally did not look at the tiny Lamb shift transition from the alleged 2s1/2 metastable state to unstable 2p1/2 under no magnetic field (= so their spurious tiny Lamb shift could not be directly measured under no magnetic field, this is strange. His Lamb shift may be a fake artifact caused by the artificially-applied magnetic field ), which means he might try to create artificially-stable magnetic states (= Not due to the illusory metastable 2s1/2 or quantum mechanical selection rule ) under applied magnetic field to make it look like pseudo-metastable 2s1/2 state.
Another method called "saturation spectroscopy" supressing Dopper shift uses the alleged transition of energy levels between n = 3 and n = 2 ( this p.8 ) represented by Balmer's Hα line.
↑ In this energy transition between n = 3 and n = 2, the ordinary fine structure energy splitting between 3d3/2 and 3d5/2 (= Not dubious Lamb shift ) can produce the very small energy splitting resembling Lamb shift (= energy splitting between 3d3/2 → 2p1/2 and 3d5/2 → 2p1/2 is also about 4 × 10-6 eV like Lamb shift ).
By substituting n = 3 and l = 2 into the fine structure energy splitting equation ( this p.2-(4) ), this fine structure splitting between 3d3/2 and 3d5/2 gives the tiny energy splitting which is about 10 times smaller than the fine structure splitting between 2p1/2 and 2p3/2 (= n = 2, l = 1 ), which energy splitting resembles Lamb shift, so Lamb shift is unneeded.
↑ Quantum mechanics created the artificial ad-hoc rule called "selection rule" which prohibits the transition between 3d5/2 and 2p1/2 (= Δj = 2, this p.3, 9 ), but there is No guarantee that this artificially-created selection rule is always valid, and the fine structure energy splitting between 3d3/2 and 3d5/2 could be mistaken for the irrelevant Lamb shift energy splitting between 2s1/2 and 2p1/2 in the saturation spectroscopy using the energy transition between n = 3 and n = 2.
And this saturation spectroscopy uses the absorption of light (= Not seeing the emitted light ) by exciting the hydrogen atoms by laser which energy excitement process can cause the uncertain energy fluctuation of an electron slightly modifying its energy level which can be mistaken for the dubiously tiny Lamb shift.
So there is No reliable experimental or theoretical evidence of the negligibly-tiny Lamb shift, which is completely a useless and unnecessary concept.
(Fig.16) Double-slit experiments proved electron's wave interference obeying de Broglie wavelength.
Many experiments confirmed that an electron has wave nature where an electron can interfere with itself obeying de Broglie relation wavelength in the same way as ordinary light wave.
Quantum mechanics claims even a single electron can interfere with itself, but if there is only a single electron in "completely empty space", it's impossible to cause interference fringe pattern, because an electron cannot voluntarily push or pull itself to change its own moving direction to cause interference fringe patterns on the screen.
So there must be some "external things or medium" exerting force on an electron by pushing or pulling an electron to cause fringes responding to destructive or constructive interference of de Broglie wave occurring around an electron.
Actually, Bohr model could successfully obtain atomic energy levels which just agreed with experimental results using de Broglie wave theory.
Later, quantum mechanical Schrodinger equation also used de Broglie wave theory and got exactly the same results as Bohr model.
And the realistic electron's de Broglie wave can naturally explain Aharonov-Bohm effect, magnetic flux quantum and quantum Hall effect even without relying on unreal fractional-charge quasiparticles of quantum mechanics.
(Fig.17) A single electron splits into parallel worlds !?
A single electron is obviously the smallest elementary particle with unbreakable mass and charge, which can Not be divided into multiple smaller charges also in two-slit experiments.
Each single electron is known to interfere with itself in two-slit experiment. ← Each single electron cannot be divided, then, how can the unphysical quantum mechanics explain this two-slit interference of a single electron ?
According to the ridiculous quantum mechanical logic, even a single indivisible electron particle ( or an imaginary photon ) must pass through two different slits or paths simultaneously. ← Impossible !
Of course, it's impossible for a single indivisible particle such as an electron to pass through two different slits at once to interfere with itself even in the ridiculous quantum mechanics.
Actually, each single electron is detected as a single electron at only one location one by one after passing through two slits and interfering.
So physicists have been unable to give realistic explanation of how a single particle can go through two slits without actually splitting, as an unsolvable mystery (= forever ), giving up realistic mechanisms ( this last-paragraph ).
Finally, the illogical quantum mechanics came to make an unrealistic claim that even a single unbreakable particle such as an electron must exist everywhere in different places simultaneously (= called superposition ) as if the single particle split into different fantasy parallel worlds or multiverse, creating its body-doubles.
So according to such an unscientific quantum mechanics, each indivisible electron particle could unrealistically split into fantasy different parallel universes or multiverse, pass through two slits at once, interfere with itself, and be detected as the original single electron in double-slit interference experiments.
Any other interpretation of quantum mechanics are Not different from the current mainstream (fantasy) many- or parallel-world theory where physicists basically avoid delving into the unrealistic quantum mechanical mechanism, instead, just reluctantly saying "Nobody understands (weird) quantum mechanics, so just shut up and calculate !" ← It's Not science !
For each single electron to cause the observed interference fringe, the single electron must be pushed out of destructive interference area by some external things, because a single electron itself cannot push or pull itself to dislocate itself according to the law of action and reaction (= two opposite forces of pushing and pulling cancel each other inside a single electron ).
So the only realistic explanation is that a single electron (or a photon = just classical light wave ) causes the real de Broglie wave (= which interference was experimentally confirmed as real ) in the external medium, and this de Broglie wave interference affects and dislocates the electron's position, resultantly showing the constructive and destructive interference fringes.
↑ This realistic picture of separating a particle and wave can naturally explain the actually-observed two-slit interference of a single electron without relying on fantasy quantum mechanical parallel worlds.
All experiments such as light wave interference, refraction, and diffraction of an electron clearly show the existence of real medium in space.
(Fig.18) Schrodinger's orbital is n × de Broglie wavelength.
Bohr atomic model succeeded in explaining energy levels of all hydrogen-like atoms, and Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics also agreed with results of Bohr model ( this p.13-lower, this p.7-lower ). Why ?
Bohr model uses the assumption that electron' orbital length is just an integral multiple of de Broglie wavelength to avoid destructive interferene, which was experimentally confirmed.
Schrödinger equation also uses de Broglie wave theory for obtaining electron's momentum and kinetic energy.
Furthermore, in fact, the electron's orbital of Schrödinger wave function is also an integer multiple of de Broglie wavelength ( this last ), which is the reason why both Bohr model and Schrödinger equation give exactly the same results and use the same Bohr radius concept in hydrogen.
We can visualize any Schrödinger's orbitals just equal to an integer times de Broglie wavelength like Bohr's atomic model.
Fig.18 is hydrogen's 1s, 2s and 3s wave functions.
If we use the solution χ = rR ( R is radial wavefunction, r is the distance between an electron and nucleus ), Schrödinger equation just becomes the simple second derivative form where Schrödinger's "radial wavefunction" exactly means "de Broglie wave" like Bohr model ( this p.3 ).
In this radial wave function (= rR ), 1s, 2s and 3s orbital are just integers = 1, 2, and 3 times de Broglie wavelength.
This is a hidden trick of the only solvable Schrödinger's solution = hydrogen atom, which results just agree with Bohr's hydrogen.
But only Schrödinger wave functions include unphysical orbitals, so false.
Because Schrödinger equation always has to include unrealistic zero orbital angular momentum, where an electron crashes into a nucleus, moving in a linear orbit.
In the linear orbit where an electron is moving back and forth on the same one-dimensional path, the electron's de Broglie wave interferes with itself destructively, hence, Schrödinger's electron's motion becomes unstable and chaotic, while Bohr's atomic electron's motion is stable.
(Fig.19) Quantum mechanical wavefunction is unreal.
Quantum mechanics is false in hydrogen's wave function.
Because the square of momentum p of Schrödinger's electron is Not equal to p2, so, the equation of p2 = p2 is Not satisfied in quantum mechanics ? ← Why does such an irrational thing happen ?
Schrodinger equation adopted de Broglie relation as "derivative" form.
The first derivative of momentum operator acting on wavefunction gets the momentum p, and the second derivative of wavefunction gets the square p2.
Of course, when momentum p is zero, its square p2 must be zero, too.
But only when a wavefunction has basic " cos" or "sin" form, it holds true.
The point is quantum mechanical wave functions distort original de Broglie relation. Figure above is hydrogen 2p radial wavefunction ( this, this last ).
"2p" wavefunction has unreal negative kinetic energy on both sides.
On these boundaries (= two positions where electron's kinetic energy is zero ), the second derivative is zero ( p2 = 0 ), but first derivative (= p ) is not zero (= the slope of wave function is not zero, which means the momentum p is not zero ) ! This is ridiculous.
It's quite natural that when p is zero, its square p2 is zero, too !
So quantum mechanics distorts original de Broglie relation with wrong math.
(Fig.20) No solution → just "choose" fake solution ! = useless
In Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics, the sum of an electron's kinetic energy and Coulomb potential energy equals total energy E which total energy must be conserved and constant.
Under this total energy conservation (= E is a constant value ) law, Schrödinger equation can be solved only in one-electron hydrogen atom which results happened to equal Bohr model.
In any other multi-electron atoms or molecules, Schrödinger equation can never be solved. = There are No exact solutions or wavefunctions of any multi-electron atoms and hydrogen molecule ion in quantum mechanics.
So quantum mechanics gave up solving Schrödinger equation, and it just chooses and guesses fake solutions (= wavefunction ) called trial function or basis set, and integrates chosen fake solution (= fake chosen wavefunction ) with Schrödinger equation to obtain fake total energy ( this p.6-second-paragraph ).
There is 100% freedom in selecting the form of trial wavefunction or basis sets (= fake solution, this p.22-5.1 ). ← Even these fake chosen wavefunction solutions as the approximate methods for unsolvable Schrödinger equation are too complicated. time-consuming and impractical ( this p.14, this p.11 ), which make quantum mechanics useless in all applied science.
There is No limit to the number of parameters of trial wavefunction.
Variational methods normally try to find the (fake) trial function giving the lowest (= ground-state ) energy, but there are infinite choices of trial wavefunctions, so it's impossible to know the lowest energy based on this dubious variational method.
↑ You can freely choose any arbitrary fake solution and freely-adjustable parameters giving any arbitrary fake energies, which quantum mechanical methods cannot predict any true energies (= called variational methods, which are mainly used in almost-all quantum mechanical approximations with unsolvable multi-electron Schrödinger equations ), hence it's a kind of "art", Not science ( this p.17, this p.7 ).
When textbooks (often misleadingly) say contradictory things such as "solve approximate (unsolvable) Schrödinger equations or Hartree-Fock equations", physicists just artificially choose fake approximate wavefunctions (= called basis set solutions ) and manipulate their coefficients or parameters to get the lowest (fake) energies within chosen limited fake solutions called "variational methods ( this p.4, this p.8, this p.11 )" without actually solving them.
There is No way to know the exact atomic wavefunctions or solutions (= due to unsolvable multi-electron Schrödinger equations ) until physicists compare fake energies calculated from artificially-chosen fake solutions with the experimental energy values ( this p.4-5th-paragraph, this 2nd-last-paragraph, this p.1-last, this 3~5th paragraphs, this p.5-last-paragraph, this 15th-paragraph ).
↑ So it's far better to use the experimentally-obtained atomic energy values from the beginning without wasting time in artificially choosing and calculating fake energies using unsolvable multi-electron Schrödinger equations which can Not predict any atomic or molecular energies, hence quantum mechanical methods are meaningless ( this p.6-1st-paragraph ).
Textbooks often say impractical things; if you take infinite time to pick up some fake solution consisting of infinite freely-adjustable parameters and infinite terms, you may find true solution ( this 12th paragraph ). ← But this is Not true. No atomic true solutions can be found in quantum mechanics.
In larger atoms (such as Lithium ) and molecules with more than two electrons, the quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions become invalid and wrong.
No Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms such as helium or molecules can be solved, so the useless quantum mechanics has to artificially choose fictitious trial wavefunctions with an aribitrary number of freely-adjustable parameters as (fake) approximate solutions using the variational method.
The reason why these artificially-chosen fake approximate wavefunctions give total energies close to experimental atomic energies is they can just freely choose arbitrary convenient fake approximate wavefunctions out of infinite choices, and those chosen (fake) wavefunctions often consist of (irrelevant) one-electron hydrogen atomic wavefunctions ( this p.2, this p.6-upper, this-8.2.12 ). ← Remember that quantum mechanical Schrödinger's hydrogen atomic energy levels completely agreed with Bohr's atomic model
↑ Of course, one-electron hydrogen atomic wavefunctions (= ground-state and excited states ) are Not true solutions of multi-electron Schrödinger equations, and we prove that No multi-electron Schrödinger equations can have exact solutions (= conserving the total energy E in any electrons' positions is impossible in three-body quantum mechanical helium atom, so quantum mechanic is wrong. We have to compute two realistically-moving electrons' behaviors by directly calculating Coulomb forces between two electrons, using computers and realistic helium atomic model to conserve the total energy in any electrons' positions ).
↑ One-electron hydrogen atomic energies of the ground and excited states given by quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations completely agree with the realistic Bohr's successful atomic model.
Because both the successful Bohr's atomic model and the (unrealistic) quantum mechanical Schrödinger equation (= in the only solvable one-electron hydrogen atom ) use the same principle where the total energy is equal to the sum of Coulomb electric energy and electron's kinetic energy expressed as de Broglie wave ( this p.4-5, this p.8, this p.23-29 ).
So the fact that the unsolvable multi-electron Schrödinger equations could seemingly give the atomic energies close to experimental values using the (irrelevant) one-electron hydrogen atomic wavefunctions as (fake) approximate wavefunctions means that all atomic electrons' behaviors are governed by the common principle of Coulomb electric force and de Broglie waves (= both of which are used by realistic Bohr's atom which proved to be right ), and it does Not mean the (fantasy) quantum mechanics is close to reality.
(F.21) One electron exists in both H-atoms a and b at once ?
Quantum mechanical wavefunction always spreads symmetrically as electron cloud, so it cannot give strong Coulomb force for froming covalent bonds.
So quantum mechanics has to rely on unphysical exchange energy by forcing each electron to exist in any different atoms simultaneously.
(Fig.22) ↓ Each electron exists in both atoms. → Pauli principle ?
Pauli exclusion principle is known to generate mysterious powerful repulsive force enough to resist Coulomb force and exclude the 3rd electron of lithium to outer orbit, involving electron spin.
In fact, unphysical quantum mechanics cannot describe this Pauli exclusion principle or repulsive energy (= expressed as unphysical exchange energy ) using any real things or forces ( this-middle Exchange energy ).
So Pauli exclusion principle by quantum mechanics is based on wrong abstract nonphysical physics using fictitious concepts such as "exchange energy" and "antisymmetric wavefunction", which have nothing to do with real world.
Irrational quantum mechanical rule ( causing unphysical exchange energy ) forces all electrons to be indistinguishable, existing in all different atoms simultaneously ( this p.2, this p.3, this p.11 ) by making quantum mechanical wavefunctions take an artificial, unphysical form called "antisymmetric wavefunction" ( this 5th-paragraph, this p.18-(12)(13), this p.4-second-paragraph, this p.9 or p.6, this p.13-14 ).
In antisymmetric wavefunction, when we exchange any two electrons, the sign of the entire wave function is supposed to change ( this p.3 ). ← No more detailed mechanism of Pauli principle is given by quantum mechanics !
As shown in Fig.22 middle, the wavefunction is divided into two parts; electron's spatial part (= Schrödinger equation ) and spin part ( this-8.6.6-8.6.11, this p.16-18, this p.1-3, this p.6, this p.2 ).
In two-electron hydrogen (= H2 ) molecule or helium atom, the spin part is antisymmetric (= one electrons spin is up, the other spin is down, which is called "singlet" ), so their Schrödinger equation's spatial part takes "symmetric" form where a illegitimately-lowered electron's kinetic energy expressed as exchange energy is used as fake molecular bond energy in quantum mechanics ( this p.3-lower, this p.27, this p.3-last-paragraph ).
In antisymmetric wavefunction (= Pauli principle ) between the same spin-up-up or spin-down-down, the sign of this illegitimately-lowered electron's kinetic energy is flipped, which means the electron's "kinetic energy is illegitimately increased" in unphysical quantum mechanical Pauli principle or antibond ( this p.13 2nd-paragraph ).
So the origin of quantum mechanical Pauli exclusion force is nonsense = illegitimately-increased kinetic energy (= without using normal Coulomb repulsion or other forces, instead, using only unphysical "exchange" ) violating energy conservation law, so this unphysical Pauli repulsion can neither be admitted as real force nor given any realistic physical interpretation ( this p.6 ).
And this ad-hoc unphysical quantum mechanical exchange energy cannot give real force or force carrier to Pauli exclusion repulsion, while realistic atomic model with electrons and de Broglie waves can treat Pauli repulsive force as real force generated by real force carrier.
In fact, in atoms or molecules with more than two electrons, this quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions can Not express the mixed wavefunction combining the attractive symmetric wavefunction between the opposite spins and Pauli repulsive antisymmetric wavefunction between the same spin, as shown in the failed Lithium atom.
So physicists have to express multi-electron atoms and molecules as one antisymmetric wavefunction excluding the (molecular attractive) symmetric wavefunction between the opposite spins, as shown in Slater determinants, which just generate only unneeded Pauli repulsion with No molecular attractive exchange energy, which contradicts the original singlet-triplet theory.
↑ As a result, all multi-electron quantum mechanical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions failed, and only the unrealistic one-pseudo-electron approximation called DFT remains as the only quantum mechanical calculation tool, which also failed.
If this quantum mechanical illogical rule describing Pauli exclusion principle rule as nonphysical antisymmetric wavefunction is true, an unreal H3 molecule consisting of three hydrogen atoms is possible (= using three separate energy equations, each of which equation contains two hydrogen atomic symmetric or antisymmetric wavefunctions out of three hydrogens ). ← Quantum mechanics is wrong.
↑ According to this quantum mechanical stupid rule, when three hydrogen atoms (= H1, H2, H3 atoms ) align as H1 (= spin-up ) + H2 (= spin-down ) + H3 (= spin-up), these three hydrogen atoms can attract the neighboring atoms with the opposite spins and form the unrealistic H3 molecule, because the neighboring hydrogen atoms form symmetric wavefunctions (= spin part is antisymmetric with one up-spin and the other's down-spin between neighboring atoms in unreal H3 molecule ).
(Fig.23) Unreal indistinguishable electron → One pseudo-electron DFT approximation in quantum mechanics.
Every electron spreads and exists in all atomic different places simultaneously in fantasy parallel worlds according to quantum mechanical illogical rule where Pauli principle should be expressed by nonphysical antisymmetric wavefunctions without showing any concrete physical mechanism.
According to this stupid quantum mechanical Pauli principle rule, in two atomic molecules, each electron must always exist in two different atoms (= two different orbitals ) simultaneously and unrealistically ( this p.11, this p.7-lower, this p.5 ).
So in three-electron atoms or molecules, each electron must always exist in three different orbitals expressed as nonphysical Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions.
Though the quantum mechanical Pauli principle with more than two electrons suffers serious paradoxes by which physicists have No choice but to adopt the unreal one-pseudo-electron density functional theory (= DFT ), which is the most widely-used quantum mechanical approximation.
As a result, quantum mechanics unrealistically insists in any multi-electron atoms or molecules, each electron must always exist in all different atoms or orbitals simultaneously ( this p.20-21 ) where each electron cannot move or be isolated from other atoms due to all electrons always being trapped by all different atoms by stupid Pauli antisymmetric wavefunctions !
If all electrons are unrealistically existing everywhere (= indistinguishable electrons, this 4th-paragraph ), physicists need to pick only one electron from among many indistinguishable parallel-world electrons in quantum mechanics.
So quantum mechanics outrageously treats the whole many-electron material as unreal one single pseudo-electron model ( this p.2 upper ) called band theory where "successful" quantum mechanics in applied science is completely false and fake news.
Quantum mechanical band theory expresses the whole many-atomic material as unphysical linear bands which represent fictitious electron called quasiparticle with fake (= effective ) mass (= even unreal negative electron mass is possible ) and pseudo-momentum.
In this nonphysical quantum mechanical band model, each particle's position, shape and size are unknown and meaningless, because all electrons are changed into fake electrons or quasiparticles with fake masses, and they must always exist everywhere using parallel worlds.
So unsolvable Schrödinger equation for multi-electron atoms and molecules are useless and meaningless ( this p.3, this p.11, this p.6 ).
To seemingly calculate this fictitious indistinguishable electron spreading over all places, an unrealistic quantum mechanical approximate method called density functional theory (= DFT, or Kohn-Sham theory ) was artificially invented, and the most-widely used as the quantum mechanical approximation.
This DFT approximate quantum mechanical methods outrageously replace useless many-electron Schrödinger equation by "one pseudo-electron model" ( this p.3 ) with fictional effective pseudo-potential ( this p.12-13 ).
The current most popular physical calculation method DFT very roughly replaces the useless multi-electron Schrödinger equation by one-pseudo-electron DFT approximate model ( this p.2, = this pseudo-one-electron DFT has No physical reality, this upper, this p.15 ) with effective pseudo-potential energy ( this p.15, this p.1-lower, this p.3-middle-lower ) and unreal pseudo-kinetic energy ( this p.8-last-paragraph ).
↑ All pseudo-energies and one-pseudo-electron wavefunctions are fake with No physical reality in this DFT quantum mechanical approximation ( this p.27 ), hence No practical application ( this p.1-right-last paragraph ).
This DFT or Kohn-Sham pseudo-potential energy is called "exchange-correlation energy functionals (= irrelevant to real atomic physical energies )" whose exact universal form is still unknown ( this p.8, this p.2 ).
Physicists have to artificially choose arbitrary pseudo-potential or exchange correlation energy functionals (= with artificially-adjustable parameters ) out of infinite choices ( this p.1-left, ).
↑ So quantum mechanics or its most-widely used DFT approximation is Not a successful theory but just an ad-hoc pseudo-model which cannot predict any physical values just by choosing pseudo-potential energies and adjusting artificial parameters ( this p.2, this p.2-last, this 3rd-paragraph ).
No matter what pseudo-potential energies or exchange-correlation functionals physicists choose, there are always cases where those chosen pseudo-potential energies miserably fail or disagree with facts ( this p.17, this p.1-left-last-paragraph, )
This unphysical quantum mechanical approximation called density functional theory (= DFT ) which pseudo-model outrageously replacing all many-electron material by one-electron pseudo-density model is the most widely used in all the latest applied science. ← This is why all the current basic and applied science stops progressing due to quantum mechanical pseudo-model
Sadly, the unphysical pseudo-one-electron approximate quantum mechanical method = Density functional theory or DFT is the only calculation method used in all the current basic and applied science such as physics, solid-condensed matter, quantum chemistry, protein, semiconductor-computer industry, drug development, cancer research (= quantum mechanical biology or medicine is just an impractical pseudoscience, Not a real biology ).
It's impossible for one-pseudo-electron model (= hence, one-pseudo-atom model ) DFT approximate method to describe actual chemical and molecular reactions where multiple different atoms, molecules and electrons are always moving in different directions from one atom to another atom (= for which we should use realistic atomic models dealing with different atoms or electrons differently and separately ), so quantum mechanical methods are useless forever.
The present physicists stop scientific advancement by wasting their time in trying to find (nonexistent) illusory universal pseudo-potentiel energy or dreamlike exact exchange correlation functional using only one pseudo-electron (= allegedly usable in any situations of any arbitrary numbers of electrons and atoms ) in DFT, in vain ( this p.1, this p.2 ).
Because DFT contains only one independent variable representing only one pseudo-electron's position, which is inherently unable to represent actual many-electron materials represented by many independently-changeable electrons' variables (= finding dreamlike universal exact exchange-correlation functional of DFT is impossible forever ).
Actually, this most-popular quantum mechanical approximation = DFT is known to miserably fail in many cases and predictions.
DFT's pseudo-kinetic energy fails to generate the sufficient antisymmetric Pauli repulsion or molecular attraction, because DFT tries to divide its fictitious one pseudo-electron into multiple non-interacting sub-electrons to give each kinetic energy or exchange energy between different atoms, its DFT fictitiously-divided sub-electron (= needed to cause the exchange energies such as molecular attractive bonds and Pauli repulsion ) is unrealistically weaker and more diluted, as the number of atoms they handle increases.
↑ In spite of this useless and defective quantum mechanical methods, physicists never try to escape from this meaningless unphysical quantum mechanical quagmire in order only to protect their academic old vested interests surrounding fantasy mainstream quantum mechanical theory..
↑ This is why all the current applied science miserably stops progressing stuck in the harmful quantum mechanical pseudo-model.
(Fig.24) Exchange, correlation functionals can be "freely" chosen.
Quantum mechanical rough and false approximation called DFT uses only one fictitious electron, so it needs to replace ordinary Schrödinger equation's kinetic and potential energies among many electrons by fictional non-interacting pseudo-electron's kinetic energy and pseudo-potential ( one pseudo-electron in DFT causes unphysical self-interaction ) called exchange-correlation functional.
The problem is there is No universal pseudo-potential or legitimate rule to choose this pseudo-potential = exchange-correlation functional ( this p.4-5 ). It means we can choose any forms of fake potential energy, which cannot predict any real values.
In DFT, we need to artificially choose
No matter what fake potential and solution you choose, you always encounter many cases where DFT calculation is unable to explain experimental values ( this p.17, this p.1, this p.2 ).
Each time DFT calculation fails to predict physical values, physicists have to invent and choose other pseudo-potentials = new exchange-correlation functionals, artificially adjusting free parameters by comparing them with experimental results ( this p.3 ).
So DFT is useless with No ability to predict any physical values ( this p.21 ), though almost all the current condensed matter researches rely on this unphysical DFT as the only quantum mechanical calculation tool and meaninglessly try to find illusory universal pseudo-potential. → Science stops progressing now.
(Fig.25) A single photon of radio wave with 1000 meter wavelength is unrealistically as big as 1000 meter ? ← this photon picture is impossible.
Quantum mechanics ridiculously insists that light can be a particle called a photon and wave at the same time, though this is physically impossible, a particle and wave are completely different things.
Many phenomena such as light interference, diffraction, refraction, and the constant light speed in the same medium (= like sound wave ) clearly show the light is electromagnetic wave, Not a photon particle.
If light was really a photon particle, physicists could have already given the concrete shape and size of a single photon particle, but still Nobody knows what size and shape a single photon is ( this p.1-right ).
For example, if the size of radio wave with more than 1000 meter wavelength is as big as 1000 meter, such a big (illusory) photon can be easily seen and touched, but No such big photons were detected.
Actually, all textbooks can show a photon picture as wave, Not a particle.
Quantum mechanics ridiculously says that a single indivisible photon can interfere with itself by the single photon magically passing though multiple slits simultaneously using (fictional) quantum parallel worlds or superposition (= a dead-and-alive cat state ).
This p.2-2nd-last-paragraph says
"the (single) photon passes through both slits simultaneously and
when the single photon emerges through both slits, it interferes with itself (= impossible )"
↑ Even if a sigle "indivisible" photon can unrealistically split into two ghost photons in different parallel worlds, the (rigid) photon particles just clash into each other without causing interference pattern, which disagrees with experimental observation.
As Lamb said, there is No such thing as a photon particle ( this p.18 ).
Physicists try to misinterpret electrons excited by incident (classical weak) light wave in the photodetector as a sign of the fictitious photon.
↑ When the intensity of the weak light surpasses some (adjustable) detection threshold of causing electronic current in the photodetector, this excited electrons are treated as a (fictional) photon (= an illusory photon itself is unobservable ).
This illusory photon particle, which is just light wave whose power surpassing the photodetector's detection threshold, causes unscientific quantum mechanical phenomena such as a single photon interference, superluminal entanglement, delayed choice quantum eraser, all of which can be naturally explained by classical light wave.
Even the current mainstream quantum field theory and quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) can only show a photon particle as nonphysical math symbols without concrete shapes nor sizes ( this p.4, this p.6-left ).
As a result, there is No such thing as a photon particle.
All observed phenomena show Light is just wave traveling through the medium.
(Fig.26) Light wave interacts with electron's de Broglie wave in real photoelectric effect, which can explain the light-frequency-dependent energy.
In fact, photoelectric effect (= electrons absorbing light energy are ejected from atoms ) and Compton scattering can be perfectly explained by classical light wave, Not by a (contradictory) quantum photon particle.
Textbooks often say the wrong explanation where the photoelectric effect showing the light energy is proportional to light frequency f indicates a photon particle, and if light is wave, it takes too much time for a tiny electron to absorb the light wave spreading over large area to cause photoelectric effect.
But first of all, the light frequency f is equal to c/λ where λ is light wavelength, which means light wave is related to photoelectric effect.
Furthermore, if a quantum mechanical photon is related to the photoelectric effect, an electron can absorb and emit only an unreal virtual photon with imaginary mass when the total energy and momentum are conserved ( this p.15, this p.10, this p.18, this p.3-5 ).
This means the quantum mechanical photoelectric effect dealing only with paradoxical virtual photons is unreal and wrong.
Light or electromagnetic wave interacts with electron's de Broglie wave that spreads over large area, as seen in de Broglie wave interference and each electron's electric field spreading over large area.
↑ This light wave interacting with electron's de Broglie wave (or electric field around an electron ) is perfectly compatible with the observed photoelectric effect where the spreading de Broglie wave (= or electric field around an electron ) can absorb or emit the light wave quickly, and de Broglie wave's frequency is proportional to the energy like the light energy (= light energy proportional to frequency is related to electron's de Broglie wave frequency ).
Of course, the light wave interacting with electron's de Broglie wave does Not need the unreal quantum mechanical virtual photon, because the light wave's oscillating energy is absorbed into the medium (= electron's de Broglie wave ) instead of being absorbed into the tiny electron's particle itself (= each electron should be considered as the spreading Coulomb electric field causing de Broglie wave over large area in the medium ).
↑ If light wave (oscillating) energy is absorbed into the electron's de Broglie wave (= oscillating wave proportional to frequency ) and medium around the electron and nucleus (= total momentum of the orbiting electron and nucleus is almost zero compatible with small light's momentum ), No unreal virtual photon is needed, conserving total momentum and energy between light and the whole system of an electron orbiting around the nucleus (= light has large energy needed for separating an electron from a nucleus and small momentum ).
In Compton effect, light wave scattered by an electron and slightly losing its energy is known to elongate its light wavelength.
If light is a photon particle, the photon losing energy must slow down instead of the (non-existent) photon's wavelength being longer (= a rigid photon particle should Not have changeable wavelength, which photon picture disagrees with the observed Compton effect ).
Classical Maxwell equation showed light wave had momentum pressure ( this p.22 ). ← Light wave's momentum and pressure (= based on classical Maxwell theory ) could explain Compton scattering.
As a result, all experimental results including photoelectric and Compton effects proved light is electromagnetic wave, Not a photon particle.
(Fig.27) Photodetectors can detect electrons, Not photons.
In fact, a single photon detector or a photodetector such as avalanche photodiode (= APD ) and photomultiplier can detect only electrons excited by light wave, and can Not detect a (fictional) photon particle itself.
When the incident weak light wave's energy (= E = hf ) and power is above some detection threshold of the photodetector, the light can induce electric current (= flow of excited electrons, Not a photon ), which is (mis)interpreted as a (fictional) photon particle ( this p.2-Fig.1, this-introduction-2nd-paragraph ).
The detection threshold of photodetectors can be artificially adjusted as bias voltage (= the bigger the bias voltage, the more electric current is generated by the incident light wave, which was detected as a photon ).
When the light intensity is strong, even the photodetector with low bias voltage (= not only high bias voltage ) can detect the incident light.
This p.8(or p.6)-1st-paragarph says
"for the light counts we see increasing counts as the (reverse) bias voltage is raised. Once
again, we expect this, because a greater bias voltage creates a greater avalanche effect (= more fictional photons are detected as electronic current, this p.3-APD
)"
When the light intensity is very weak, the bias voltage must be increased (= over breakdown voltage, or increasing overvoltage ) to detect the weak light wave as (fictional) photon ( this p.6-Fig.3 shows detecting weak light needs higher (reverse) bias voltage ).
↑ This photodetector is the trick of a single photon's interference where the weak light can split into two weaker lights at two slits, which split lights are too weak to detect at phodetectors simultaneously (= so it looks like only a single photon appears, but actually, the other weaker light, which is too weak to detect at the photodetector, exists in two slit experiments ), and after constructive interference, the final light wave can be detected as (fictional) photon at the photodetector.
↑ So photodetectors just detecting electrons' current excited by (classical) light wave whose power surpassing the detection threshold (= adjustable by bias voltage ) of the photodetectors can explain a (fictional) single photon interference at double slits, entanglement, delayed choice quantum eraser, quantum information even without using unphysical quantum mechanical parallel worlds.
(Fig.28) An orbiting electron does Not lose energy.
Bohr's realistic atomic model could successfuly explain all experimental energy levels of hydrogen-like atoms and ions perfectly ( this last ).
You may often see the (false) cliche "all accelerating electrons radiate and lose energy in classical orbits", so Bohr's hydrogen could be unstable.
This logic is completely unscientific and wrong. So Bohr's orbit is stable, Not radiating energy, as long as an electron is orbiting around a nucleus in a normal orderly way.
To be more specific, "a single accelerated electron ( like in Bohr's hydrogen ) does Not radiate or lose energy."
Only when many electrons are accelerated and colliding with each other in a disorderly way, as seen in alternating currents, they radiate and lose energy.
So the misconception that "accelerating" electron losing energy does Not apply to the successful Bohr model, as long as its electron is moving in an orderly and stable way conserving total energy between a nucleus and an electron, avoiding destructive interference of electron's de Broglie wave.
Actually, Bohr model won the most prestigious Nobel prize, after its scientific legitimacy was admitted as correct by the then academia. ← The misconception that Bohr's atom losing eneregy was just an excuse made up later to justify unrealistic quantum mechanics.
If the textbook's explanation that every accelerating electron becomes unstable losing energy is right, even quantum mechanical electron which also has kinetic energy (= so quantum mechanical electron is also moving around accelerated by a nucleus ! ) becomes unstable radiating energy. ← self-contradiction.
Quantum mechanical atoms allegely having unrealistic negative kinetic energies, can never be stable, because its s orbital with zero orbital angular momentum always crashes into a nucleus, and causes destructive interference of de Broglie wave in its linear orbits.
(Fig.29) Bohr model electron is Not falling into nucleus.
In fact, if a single accelerating electron loses energy, the single electron must consist of many smaller fictitious charges as seen in a spherical conductor in the upper figure.
So Bohr's atomic electron which is an indivisible negative charge does Not radiate or lose energy just by moving around the nucleus in an orderly and periodic way.
The theory of an accelerated charge radiating energy uses "electric energy density field" (= energy = 1/2εE2 ) stored in vacuum around spherical conductor packing many smaller repulsive charges ( this p.4, this p.2 ).
This energy density in electric field equals the amount of energy required to pack many repulsive smaller charges into the same spherical conductor.
So if a single accelerated electron really radiates and loses energy while it orbits around a nucleus, this single electron must be like a fictitious spherical conductor which collects and packs many smaller negative charges into a single electron's tiny body (= whose electric energy density around a fictitious electron consisting of many smaller charges becomes 1/2εE2 ). ← It's imossible and inconsistent with the fact that a single electron is very stable and unbreakable.
A single electron is an indivisible charged particle, which is Not like a spherical conductor packing many smaller illusory negative charges inside a single electron.
As a result, the idea that Bohr's atomic accelerated electron radiating energy is untrue, based on the false assumption.
(Fig.30) ↓ A electron radiates a virtual photon with imaginary mass !?
In the current mainstream quantum field theory, all interactions between elementary particles are expressed using unphysical abstract lines called Feynman diagrams which tell us nothing about detailed mechanisms of how particles actually touch or interact with each other.
Quantum mechanics says an electron can interact only with unreal unobservable virtual photons (= Not real photons ! ) with unphysical imaginary mass, when electrons emit, absorb (virtual) photons, or apply electromagnetic forces to other charged particles ( this p.16, this 6,10 paragraphs ).
Why cannot each electron interact with a real photon (= light ) for explaining light absorption or force interaction according to unrealistic quantum mechanics ( this p.7,8 ) ?
Because the ratios of energy (= E ) to momentum (= p ) are different between an electron and light (= a photon ? ) due to different masses of an electron and a photon (= an electron is much heavier than a photon ).
So if Einstein relativity is right (= if there is no space "medium" mediating forces ), the physics needs unreal virtual particles or virtual photons interacting with real electrons with unreal imaginary masses (= if total energy and momentum are conserved between a electron and an emitted photon ) which violate Einstein's mc2 mass-energy relation ( this p.6, this p.4-last-paragraph, this p.3 ) or violating energy conservation law ( this p.10, this p.3 ) against the fact that all real particles must always conserve total energies and momentums ( this 5th-paragraph, this 5th-paragraph ) !
↑ QED unreal virtual particles or virtual photons with imaginary masses ( this p.17 ) could paradoxically move faster-than-light ( this 1-5th paragraphs, this 9th-paragraph ), which clearly contradicts another mainstream theory of Einstein relativity prohibiting superluminal motion.
↑ The current mainstream quantum field theory includes self-contradiction, so false ( this 10th-paragraph, this p.9-10 ).
Quantum field theory or quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) are just unphysical theory whose unreal virtual particles with impossible imaginary masses ( this p.18 = negative mass squared, this p.2-lower-footnote, ) or negative kinetic energies are also nonphysical math symbols with No concrete physical shapes which pseudo-quantum theory tells us nothing about the detailed physical mechanism, so completely useless and No relation to our real world ( this p.6-lower, this p.13 ).
Actually, No scientists are using this useless quantum field theory for our daily-life application.
↑ The present relativistic quantum field theory and QED requiring unreal virtual particles for explaining physical forces are self-contradicotry (= virtual particles contradict Einstein famous relativistic mc2 mass-energy relation, this p.10-11, this p.4-2nd-last-paragraph, this p.4 ), hence wrong theories.
(F.31) Coulomb, Higgs depend on fictional virtual particles.
See this page in detail.
(Fig.32) Quantum mechanics cannot handle multi-electron material.
Due to the current unrealistic impractical basic atomic theory called quantum mechanics, all applied science miserably stops progressing which important facts are hidden from ordinary people by the media and academia for protecting their old vested interests around the "(deadend) mainstream science".
Physicists are obsessed only with unscientifically explaining all observed phenomena such as electric conductance and magnetic properties by unreal pseudo-particles called quasiparticle model ( this 2nd paragraph, this 6th-paragraph ).
Quantum mechanical quasiparticle's pseudo-models, which physicists have heavily relied on for as long as 100 years ( this p.4-6,22 ), are Not even real particles ( this 1st-paragraph, this 3rd-paragraph ), hence, these unrealistic quasiparticles can never be isolated or utilized as real particles. = so quasiparticles are useless forever.
Ridiculously, these unrealistic quasiparticles are still being used as one of the most popular quantum mechanical pseudo-models even in the latest physical researches such as semiconductor industry (= using fictional effective masses of band theory, which quantum mechanical pseudo-model has never been useful for modern computer technology contrary to the media-hype ), nanotechnology, superconductor, molecular machine learning, solar energy technology (= ex. exciton quasiparticle, this p.16 ), quantum biology, even imaginary fake-antiparticles and dark matter field,
You can understand these quasiparticles contradict reality by seeing quantum mechanics illogically claim these quasiparticles could have the impossible negative mass and fractional-charges (= e/3, e/5 called 'anyon' or Majorana quasiparticle, against the fact that the elementary smallest charge "e" is unbreakable, this ) in quantum Hall effect that can be explained classically (= quantum mechanical pseudo-model or quasiparticle is unnecessary ).
And they ridiculously insist even the elementary smallest particle = electron could be magically split into multiple (illusory) quasiparticles (= an electron splits into holon quasiparticle carrying charge, and spinon quasiparticle carrying spin ) according to these pseudo-quantum mechanical model.
↑ Of course, these unrealistic quasiparticles with fictional fractional charges, the separate spin-charge are directly unobservable.
Physicists just "imagine" these fictional quasiparticles when they (mis)interpret the observed electric conductance and magnetic properties ( this p.5-11, this p.7 ).
Unscientific quantum mechanics argues that the superconductor with zero resistance is caused by two repulsive electrons magically attracting each other via fictitious phonon quasiparticles forming Cooper pairs, which eventually break into other fictitious quasiparticles called Bogoliubov quasiparticles ( this 2nd-paragraph ) with fictionally changeable charges ( this p.1-left ).
And they paradoxically say the fictitious quantum particle of light wave called photon could acquire the (effective) mass against another mainstream Einstein relativity which states a photon is massless, in order to explain Meissner effect where the external magnetic field cannnot enter the superconductor due to this imaginary massive photons which makes the electromagnetic interaction a shorter range force ( this lower, this p.2-right-lower ).
This unscientific quantum mechanical model about the superconductor is called BCS theory which just expresses each fictitious quasiparticle as nonphysical math symbols without giving any real detailed physical mechanism.
According to quantum mechanical ridiculous logic, even unrealistic magnetic monopole (= only north or south magnetic pole ) could exist as fictitious quasiparticles to falsely explain some complex magnetic field and atomic orientations inside some materials called spin ice ( this 5th-last paragraph ).
↑ Those fake mangetic monopole quasiparticles are Not real fundamental particles ( this p.1-middle ), so meaningless and useless pseudo-models.
This quantum mechanical pseudo-quasiparticle model makes another paradoxical claim that massless quasiparticles could be slower than light speed contradicting another mainstream theory = Einstein relativity ( this abstract ), without showing the detailed physical mechanism except for unphysical abstract math concepts ( this p.4 ).
Of course, these unrealistic and contradictory quasiparticles themselves can Neither be directly observed nor isolated, hence quasiparticles are useless and meaningless concepts unusable for any applied science such as medicine.
But physicists have had No choice but to try to "imagine" these illusory particles as an ad-hoc means to model and explain observed macroscopic phenomena in vain within the current impractical quantum mechanical atomic model which clarifies No reality.
Even in the recent researches, physicists try to explain some magnetic properties or fictitious spintronics using new fictitious quasiparticle model called Hopfion ( this p.1-right-2nd-paragraph ) related to quasiparticle skyrmion, giving up using real particle model.
↑ This is why our scientific progress has stopped for more than 100 years, as long as quantum mechanical pseudo-model is used as (fictitious) underlying atomic model, and physicists never try to replace these pseudo-quasiparticle model by real particles such as electrons, because the contradictory quantum mechanics is unable to deal with any multi-electron atomic phenomena.
Most ordinary people may Not have heard about the terrible fact that even the latest physics actually makes No progress, stuck in unrealistic quantum mechanical quasiparticle pseudo-model, because the media is flooded with a lot of misleading science news desperately trying to hide this important fact.
If you see some original scientific papers, you can easily find most of the present researches rely on these fictitious quasiparticle model with fake effective mass (= these fictitious masses are freely adjustable parameters, hence No ability to predict any physical values ) where each particles are just expressed as nonphysical math symbols which abstract meaningless expressions tell us nothing about detailed underlying physical mechanisms ( this p.2, this p.6, this p.7 ).
The present unphysical mainstream condensed matter physics tries to describe the whole many-electron material as fictitious band containing only one pseudo-electron with fake effective mass and quasi-momentum expressed as one-pseudo-electron DFT approximation. ← No progress in atomic phyiscs.
(Fig.33) Observe phenomena → Fake quasi-particles model ?
The current condensed matter physcs based on quantum mechanics is filled with fictional concepts such as quasiparticles with negative mass, fractional-charge, magnetic monopole, massless fermion, charge-orbit separation ..
Quasiparticle is a fictitious ghost-like particle which can neither exist nor be isolated from material.
How could physicists conclude that such illusory quasiparticles were found ? ← impossible !
In fact, all physicists can measure is just realistic phenomena such as classical electromagnetic fields and light absorption. ← When they try to explain underlying physical mechanicm behind it, the current only atomic theory = quantum mechanics deliberately misinterprets such real macroscopically-observed phenomena as ones caused by unreal quasiparticles or fictitious negative ( effective ) mass.
For example, they just misinterpreted some measured "electric conductance" as a result of fictitious "fractional-charge quasiparticles."
And by illuminating various materials with classical laser lights and measuring the optical response, physicists jumped to the wrong conclusion that they might have found (unreal) negative mass, charge-orbit separation ( this 4th paragraph ), massless pseudo-particle ( this p.2-right ), and solar cells driven by illusory quasiparticles..
So all quantum mechanical researchers are doing now is just measure classical electromagnetic properties such as electric conductance, resistance and absorption of light, and intentionally try to associate those actually-observed physical phenomena with fictitious quantum mechanical model such as quasiparticles with unreal mass or charge. ← nonsense.
Because quantum mechanics has No ability to describe microscopic underlying mechanism using real electrons with real fixed mass and charge from the beginning. → Quantum mechanics had No choice but to rely on "illegitimate cheating", as seen in unphysical exchange energy or virtual particles.
(Fig.34) Quantum mechanical particles (= a†, b†, c† .. ) are just nonphysical symbols with No shape or size.
The present mainstream quantum mechanics and quantum field theory can only describe each electron, (fictitious) photon and quasiparicles as nonphysical math symbols with No concrete figure and shape ( this p.3 ), which is unable to explain real physical mechanism forever.
For example, in the famous BCS theory of superconductor, quantum mechanics uses only unphysical meaningless math symbols to express electrons and fictitious quasiparticles such as phonons, Cooper pair, Bogoliubov quasiparticles ( this p.4, this p.9, this p.4 ).
↑ Actually, this BCS theory failed to explain various (high temperature) superconductivity.
(Fig.35) Multiple computations using parallel worlds ?
Quantum computer research is deadend with No progress.
(F.36) No evidence of faster quantum computer
All types of qubits are hopeless.
(Fig.37) ↓ Electron, photon are just meaningless math symbols.
The impractical quantum mechanics can only express particles and electrons as nonphysical math symbols (= each particle = a†, b†, c†,.. with No detailed shapes or sizes ) with No concrete physical shapes in all physics ( this p.2 ), condensed matter fields such as semiconductors ( this p.2 ), superconductors ( this p.3 ), band theories ( this p.2 ) with unreal effective mass ( this p.9-right ).
Unscientific quantum mechanics can also only describe fictitious photon particles as nonphysical meaningless math symbols (= each photon = a†, b†,.. = giving No detailed figures of photons, this p.16, this p.8, this p.2-right )
The useless quantum mechanical condensed matter physics has to rely on unreal quasiparticle model such as phonons ( this p.13-lower ) to explain various phenomena such as superconductors by using only the abstract nonphysical interaction term between electrons and unreal phonon quasiparticles (= ex. phonon's creation oeprator b† ) expressed as meaningless math symbols ( this p.4, this p.6 ).
In these nonphysical quantum mechanical particle description, Pauli exclusion principle is also described as nonphysical math description called anticommutation of nonphysical electron particles. which abstract forms give No detailed physical mechanism of Pauli principle, so completely useless ( this p.6-upper (or p.8 ), this p.7 ).
(Fig.38) ↓ Anticommutation = Pauli exclusion principle ?
Relativistic quantum mechanics or quantum field theory allegedly combining quantum mechanics and Einstein special relativity becomes more unrealistic and unphysical.
Quantum mechanics refuses to give concrete physical mechanism of Pauli explusion principle, except for just saying Pauli principle was expressed just as nonphysical antisymmetric wavefunction where exchanging two electrons are supposed to flip the sign of the whole antisymmetric wavefunction (= which was proved to be false ).
In quantum field theory using relativistic Dirac equation which expresses each electron as a mere abstract math symbol, the mechanism of Pauli exclusion principle is also expressed just as meaningless abstract math relation called anticommutation ( this p.3, this p.7, this p.2 upper, this p.5-lower, this p.4, this p.52-53 (or 45-47)-(3.53), this-(8.2.14),(8.2.22), this 3-5th-paragraphs, this p.6 )
In anticommutation relation allegedly denoting Pauli principle, when two electrons (= c1 ↔ c2 ) are exchanged, the sign is changed. ← That's all. No more detailed explanation of Pauli exclusion repulsion is given by quantum mechanics.
↑ So in this abstract quantum field theory's Pauli principle description, if two electron particles (= expressed as nonphysical math symbols c1 and c2 ) are the same ( c1 = c2 ), those electron particles vanish ( c1c2 = - c2c1, → when c1=c2, → c1c1= - c1c1 → 2(c1)2 = 0 → c1 (and c2 ) = 0, = Pauli exclusion principle !? this p.6 or p.8-upper, this p.6, this p.1-2, this p.9 ) ← Nonsense.
What causes Pauli principle is unknown forever, as long as unphysical quantum mechanics continues to be the mainstream theory.
As you see, unscientific quantum mechanics has given up pursuing deeper physical mechanism for a long time, fearing many self-contradictions and unrealistic aspect inherent in quantum mechanics will be exposed, when we start to look into true underlying mechanism.
(F.39) All Einstein relativity, quantum mechanics, relativistic quantum field theory, QED, particle physics lack reality.
See this page in detail.
(F.40) ↓ Unrealistic picture of quantum field theory
See this page in detail.
(F.41) Unseen fractional-charge quark, Higgs, W,Z bosons are unobservable, unreal and useless forever.
See this page in detail.
See this page in detail.
See this page in detail.
See this page in detail.
(F.42) "Symmetry" has NO physical meaning, Higgs is unreal.
The present particle physics or standard model relies on unphysical meaningless symmetry irrelevant to real world's phenomena.
(F.43) QED infinite virtual particles and bare (= real ? ) charge.
Quantum electrodynamics (= QED ) is an unsuccessful theory just artificially manipulating infinite bare charge, mass parameters to cancel virtual particle's infinite energies to illegitimately obtain tiny,tiny Lamb shift and anomalous magnetic moment, so an unreal and useless theory
(F.44) Positron (= antiparticle ) emission is impossible.
See this page in detail.
See this page in detail.
See this page in detail.
See this page in detail.
See this page in detail.
See this page in detail.
See this page in detail.
(F.45) Light medium moving "with" the earth can perfectly explain the constant light speed c detected by Michelson-Morley experiment.
See this page in detail.
(F.46) Different clock times in different positions.
See this page in detail.
(F.47) "Block" changes the rod "future" direction.<
See this page in detail.
(F.48) A stationary observer K sees the neutral wire (= charge density ρe = 0 ) with electric current Jx generating magnetic field B, which is magically seen as the electrically-charged wire (= whose charge density ρe' is Not zero ! ) generating the electric field Ez' from the viewpoint of a moving observer K' !
See this page in detail.
(F.49) An external negative charge (= - ) is Not attracted toward the neutral wire seen by the stationary observer K, but the same negative charge appears to be attracted and moved closer to the same wire magically transforming from the electrically-neutral to positively-charged seen by the moving observer K' = this is true unsolvable paradox
See this page in detail.
(F.50) Mass (= energy ) change is "relative", NOT absolute
See this page in detail.
(F.51) Electron's de Broglie wave vanishes !?
See this page in detail.
(F.52) Which satellite clock ticks more slowly ? = paradox.
See this page in detail.
(F.53) Time stopping on black hole prevents its formation
See this page in detail
(F.54) Driving force to expand universe is dark energy ← NOT diluted ? Unreal negative pressure ?
See this page in detail
(Fig.54') Black hole, gravitational wave are illuson.
See this page in detail.
(F.55) Weak light is destroyed = eavesdropping is detected ?
Quantum information, internet, cryptography and key distribution are all useless forever, and their photons are just very weak classical light wave. No quantum mechanics
(Fig.56) ↓ Entanglement is nonsense, Not science !
Quantum entanglement or spooky action is said to be faster than light.
But this is untrue.
Quantum entanglement is a meaningless and unnecessary concept Not worth "science".
Quantum entanglement or spooky action can never have any practical application such as communication.
Because quantum entanglement or teleportation can Not do any real work (= these illusory quantum mechanical concepts such as entanglement and teleportation can Not send any real information, so useless, this 6th paragraph ).
Physically-meaningless quantum entanglement cannot send any real informations, much less send faster-than-light information.
Bell inequality violation did Not prove this "fictional superluminal entanglement link" at all.
Quantum teleportation (= which is equal to the meaningless entanglement ) is also a useless concept which can neither send real objects nor transmit information faster-than-light.
For example, even when a classical light is just split by some crystal into two lights with two polarizations, they call it "two entangled lights (= or photons )", though there is No quantum mechanics here.
Suppose we split classical light into two lights with the same polarizations (= whether those two lights have vertical-vertical (= VV ) light polarization or horizontal-horizonal (= HH ) polarization is unknown ).
When we measure one of light and confirm this light is vertically-polarized (= V ), it instantly (= faster-than-light entanglement ? ) determines that another light is also vertically-polarized ( this 6th-paragraph, this p.3-4, this p.4-(c) ).
When we prepare two light waves (= or fictitious photons ) to have the perpendicular (= orthogonal ) polarizations in advance, if one light (= or photon ) is measured as horizontally-polarized (= H ), it instantly determines (= superluminal entanglement action ? No ! ) that the other photon is vertically-polarized ( this 3rd-paragraph, this 2nd-paragraph, this 2-6th paragraphs ).
So quantum entanglement is just about "measurement" of two light states (= ex. light polarization ) whose states are manipulated and prepared artificially in advance, Not about sending any information faster-than-light ( this p.2-3rd-paragraph, this 2-3rd paragraphs, this 3rd-last paragraph, this 4th-last paragraph ).
Quantum entanglement or spooky action, which can neither send real information nor do any work, is a completely useless and meaningless concept.
Quantum teleportation, Bell inequality violation, and delayed choice quantum eraser use the same meaningless trick intentionally misinterpreting classical light as a fictitious photon.
So all (pseudo-)science researches, which claim spooky quantum entanglement effect was exploited, are just useless and impractical forever.
(Fig.57) Two de Broglie waves cross perpendicularly = stable Helium orbits.
Bohr's atomic model successfully explained energy levels of all hydrogen-like atoms and ions, but it could not explain two-electron Helium atom. Why ?
Many experiments showed an electron causes de Broglie wave whose wavelength was determined by observing its interference (= pattern of constructive and destructive interference ).
↑ So we have to naturally consider the electron's de Broglie wave interference (= destructive and constructive interference ) in true atomic electron's orbits.
Realistic Bohr's atomic model could successfully explain the exact energy levels and spectral lines of all hydrogen-like atoms ( this p.2, this p.4, this 3rd-last-paragraph ) by using this de Broglie wave interference (= avoiding destructive interference of the electron's de Broglie wave in its quantized orbit ).
Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations also use this de Broglie wavelength, and agree with Bohr's atomic energies. ← But the quantum mechanics must include unreal zero orbital angular momentum where the unrealistic electrons always crash into nuclei in linear orbits, and its unphysical wavefunctions (= representing quantum mechanical de Broglie waves ) are likely to cause destructive interference and become unstable.
↑ Quantum mechanical atomic model contradicts the experimental observations of de Broglie wave destructive and constructive interference, so depends on the wrong useless calculation method.
The contradictory quantum mechanics, which is also using de Broglie wave relation but ignoring de Broglie wave interference inside atoms, has to rely on nonphysical exchance energies (= lack physical forces ) as a fictional source of Pauli exclusion principle which Pauli repulsion can be naturally explained by electron's de Broglie wave destructive interference in realistic atomic model.
Hydrogen and Helium atoms are the smallest atoms which are known to have up to two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits ( which correspond to Schrödinger equation 1s orbital giving the same energies as Bohr model, this p.3-last ).
1 × de Broglie wavelength contains a pair of opposite phases of wave crest (= containing an electron particle ) and trough which part contains no electron (= to be correct, de Broglie wave is a kind of longitudinal wave through medium ).
If the opposite wave phases = the crest part and trough part of an electron's de Broglie wave overlap each other out of phase, it causes destructive interference and kicks out the electron from destrucive wave, and its electron orbit becomes unstable.
So, when two 1 × de Broglie wavelength electron orbits overlap in the same circular orbit on the same plane (= upper figure, old Helium model ), opposite phases of two electron's de Broglie waves cancel each other, hence, this unstable old circular Helium atomic model is broken and impossible.
This is the consequence of destructive interference between two electrons' de Broglie waves out of phase, which was confirmed in many experiments.
To avoid this cancellation, two electrons' orbits have to be perpendicular to each other, which forms a realistic and stable Helium atom.
This new Helium model with two orbits crossing perpendicularly gives surprisingly accurate experimental energy values, hence, it proves to be a right Helium atomic model.
Unlike the old circular orbit model, the calculation of two perpendicular Helium orbits is extremely complicated, so it needs modern computer (= Coulomb force and de Broglie wavelength are Not the same in any different electrons' positions ), which could Not be done in 1920s when they chose wrong theory = quantum mechanics.
We proved that quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations for multi-electron atoms such as helium can never have true solutions due to its obvious violation of total energy conservation in different electrons' positions, so quantum mechanics is wrong.
Only this realistic helium atom can give true electrons' behavior (= which exact electron's behavior remains uncertain and paradoxical in unrealistic quantum mechanical atoms forever ), perfectly conserving the total energy in any electrons' positions due to its realistic method of directly computing precise changeable Coulomb forces at each electron's position and moving electrons obeying the basic physical principle.
(Fig.58) Old Bohr's circular helium = electrons are expelled, so wrong.
In Old Bohr's circular helium, electrons are kicked out from orbits due to destructive interference between opposite de Broglie wave phases.
Actually, this old Helium model with a single circular orbit containing two electrons gives wrong ground state energy (= -83.33 eV, this table.3 ) which is lower than true Helium ground state energy = -79.005 eV = the sum of 1st (= -24.5873 eV ) and 2nd (= -54.4177 eV ) ionization energies of helium.
Two 1 × de Broglie wavelength electron orbits must cross each other perpendicularly to avoid cancellation by destructive interference.
No more electron orbit can enter this new Helium, so it can explain Pauli exclusion principle using de Broglie wave interference.
(Fig.59) Hydrogen and Helium atoms.
All these orbits are one de Broglie's wavelength.
In this new helium, the two symmetrical orbits crossing perpendicularly are wrapping the whole helium atom completely.
This new helium model is just consistent with the fact of the strong stability and the closed shell property of helium.
Quantum mechanics needs unrealistic electron spin (= faster-than-light spinning ), which electron spins failed to explain strong Pauli exclusion repulsive energies, hence quantum mechanics artificially created unreal "exchange energies" lacking physical exchange force or force carriers.
↑ True Pauli exclusion principle and its strong repulsion need some "real tangible physical objects" as the force's origin besides Coulomb forces, which is possible in this realistic Bohr's helium model perfectly compatible with actually-observed de Broglie wave destructive and constructive interference.
Helium atom is known to produce small magnetic field (= Helium has magnetic field called diamagnetic ).
Of course, helium's two orbits are constantly changing their directions, so unable to produce as stably-strong magnetic field as ferromagnet where two neighboring electron orbits in some materials with many orderly aligned atoms are meshing and synchronizing with each other by strong Coulomb force Not by unreal spin.
So Helium has magnetic moment (= spin up + spin down = no magnetic moment ? ) = diamagnetic means quantum mechanical Helium with No angular momentum disagrees with actual Helium producing magnetic moment, so quantum mechanical helium model with unreal spin is wrong and disagrees with experimental facts.
(Fig.60) Two same-shaped orbits are perpendicular to each other.
Next we calculate the new helium's orbits using simple computer program.
Fig.60 shows one quarter of the whole orbits.
We suppose electron 1 moves on the xy plane after starting at the position of ( r1, 0, 0 ) in x-axis until it reaches y-axis, while electron 2 moves on the xz plane after starting at ( -r1, 0, 0 ) in x-axis until it reaches z-axis.
Because as I said, two electrons' orbits of helium must be perpendicular to each other to avoid destructive interference of two de Broglie waves.
This computing of Helium atom with two perpendicular orbits is complicated three-body problem which cannot be calculated without modern computers in old 1920s. ← This is why physicists had to give up this realistic and reasonable Helium model, and instead, accepted unrealistic quantum mechanics 100 years ago.
In this computation, first, we input two arbitrary values: total energy of Helium and the starting x-coordinate of the electron-1 (= r1, this starting x-coordinate will be increasing gradually and automatically, until +100 ), which will output the total de Broglie wavelength and the last electron's velocities after the electron has moved one-quarter of the orbit, which results will tell us this helium model with two perpendicular electron orbits is right or not.
Two electrons keep moving until they move one quarter of an orbit (= until one electron reaches y-axis, and the other electron reaches z-axis ).
After each electron has moved one quarter of its orbit, we get the output information about what de Brolgie wavelength one-quarter of the electron's orbit becomes, and the last velocity of each electron at the last point (= when the electron-1 moves one quarter of its orbit and arrives at the y-axis, this electron's last velocity must be perpendicular to y-axis for its orbital shape to be symmetrical around the nucleus ).
When one quarter (= 1/4 ) of the electron's orbital length becomes just 1/4 times de Broglie wavelength, it means one orbit is just one (= an integer ) times de Broglie wavelength, avoiding destructive interference, we compare the input helium total energy and the experimental helium total energy (= -79.005 eV ), and can judge whether this new Helium model is right or not.
If you actually compute it using the program below, you will surely find this Helium model with two perpendicular orbits will perfectly and successfully agree with the experimental ground state energies of not only helium but also all two-electron ions and three-electron lithium-like atoms.
↑ If the Helium energy value we input first gives just one times de Broglie wavelength equal to circumference of one orbit (= as the output result ) and simultaneously agrees with experimental Helium ground state energy value, this Helium model with two perpendicular orbits proves to be right. ← This will happen in this computation.
(Fig.61) Right r1 → electron-1 crosses y-axis perpendicularly
For an electron to return to its original position, the electron-1 orbit ( or electron-2 orbit ) must be symmetrical on the left and right sides of the nucleus.
So the electron-1 needs to cross y-axis at a right angle, and the electron-2 needs to cross z-axis at a right angle (= which can be judged by seeing the output results of the last electron's velocities ), after each electron moves a quarter (= 1/4 ) of its orbit.
Depending on the initial x-coodinate (= r1 = input value ) of an electron-1, whether the electron-1 can cross y-axis perpendicularly or not is determined (= there will be only one right input initial x-coordinate value which can give the right electron's last velocities where a electron-1 should cross y-axis perpendicularly after moving one quarter of a orbit in each helium total energy, hence, all other input values must be discarded ).
So after inputting initial r1 value, and confirming the electron-1 moves one quarter of its orbit and crosses y-axis perpendicularly (= the electron-1's velocity is in the -x-direction, when the electron-1 passes y-axis perpendicularly ), we pick up this remaining only one r1 value giving symmetrical orbits with the right electron's last velocity (in each different input helium total energy ) as the legitimate initial x-coordinate of the electron-1.
↑ When the output result of de Broglie wavelength becomes just 0.250000 (= just one quarter of a 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbit ), we can compare the input Helium total energy and the experimental Helium total energy (= -79.005 eV ), and judge whether this new Helium model with two perpendicular orbits is right or not.
When the input Helium total energy giving just 0.250000 × de Broglie wavelength of a quarter of a orbit agrees with the experimental Helium ground state energy (= -79.005 eV ), this new Helium model' prediction of Helium energies proves to be correct, and this will happen below by using simple computer programs.
This input initial x-coordinate (= r1 ) of electron-1 is automatically increased by one per calculation of 1/4 orbit, until r1 becomes r1+100 for screening.
In any r1, this program computes values, and we can check all those values, so the first inputted r1 value needs not to be right one. As r1 automatically increases, you can find the only one right r1 (= when electron-1 crosses y-axis perpendicularly ) in each different input Helium total energy.
In this computer program, after we input two values; the initial x-coordinate (= r1 ) of electron-1 and total energy of helium, two electrons start to move, interacting with the other electron and a nucleus through Coulomb force, which Coulomb acceleration is computed at extremely short time intervals to gradually change electron's velocity and position until the electron moves one quarter of an orbit.
We prepared three types of computer programs to do the same caculation of Helium orbits; JAVA ( version 1.5.0 ), simple C languages and Python ( 2.7 ), as shown in the link below.
Sample JAVA program
C language program
Python program.
As shown in Fig.60 and Fig.61, the helium nucleus is at the origin.
The electron 1 initially at ( r1, 0, 0 ) moves one quarter of its orbit and arrives at y-axis, while the electron 2 initially at ( -r1, 0, 0 ) moves until it arrives at z-axis.
As meter and second are rather large units for measurement of these electron's motion, so we use new convenient units
(Fig.62) New units of time and length.
From Fig.62, convert the old acceleration unit to new acceleration unit (= m/s2 → MM/SS2 ) like
(Fig.63)
If you copy and paste the above program source code into a text editor, you can easily compile and run this.
When you run this program ( for example, JAVA ) in command prompt, the following sentences are displayed on the screen.
(Fig.64)
First we input the initial x-coordinate r1 = r (in MM) of electron 1 (see Fig.64 ), and press "enter" key.
For example, in Fig.64, we input "3060", which means the initial x coordinate of electron 1 is 3060 MM = 3060 × 10-14 meter. The initial x coordinate of electron 2 becomes -3060 MM, automatically (= because, two electrons are symmetrical around the helium nucleus ).
Next we input the absolute value of the total energy |E| (in eV) of helium.
In Fig.64, when we input "79.0", and press enter key, it means total energy of this helium is -79.0 eV.
↑ This -79.0 eV is close to actual helium ground state energy = -79.005 eV (= this p.4, this p.9 ) where unphysical Schrödinger equations, which are unable to solve Helium atom, just artificially choose fake Helium wavefunctions which proved to be illegitimate because of Not conserving total energy of Helium.
↑ The Helium total energies by choosing fake solutions for unsolvable Schrödinger solutions are different in different electrons' positions (= unsolvable quantum mechanical helium is false ), while this new realistic Helium model can surely conserve the total energy, so legitimate, because the electron's velocity at each point is changed based on actually computing real Coulomb electric forces among two electrons and a nucleus. (= three body problem of Helium can finally be dealt with using computer's power which was impossible in 1920s when paradoxical quantum mechanics was born )
True helium ground state energy is obtained by putting minus to the sum of 1st (= 24.5873 eV ) and 2nd (= 54.4177 eV ) ionization energies of helium = -24.5873 - 54.4177 = -79.005 eV. ← this is experimental value of two-electron helium ground (= the lowest total ) energy.
(Fig.65) Initial states. "r" is initial x coordinate of electron 1.
From the inputted values of total energy of helium and initial x-coordinate of electrons (= initial Coulomb potential energy can be obtained ), we can know initial kinetic energy (= total energy - potential energy ) and initial velocity of the electron 1 in y direction and the electron-2's initial velocity in z direction.
For example, initial Coulomb potential energy (= V ) of the initial electrons' state of Fig.65 becomes
(Fig.66) Initial total Coulomb potential energy V.
The first term of right side in Fig.66 is Coulomb attractive potential energy between two electrons and 2e+ helium nucleus (= distance between each electron and nucleus is "r" ).
The second term is Coulomb repulsive potential energy between two electrons in the initial state (= distance between two electrons is "2r" ).
(Fig.67) ↓ Program calculates electron's initial velocity "v" from input values.
Total kinetic energy of two electrons is given by total energy (ex. -79.0 eV ) minus potential energy (= V ).
So from input values of Fig.64, we can get the initial kinetic energy and velocity of each electron.
The initial velocity of electron 1 ( 2 ) is in y ( z ) direction.
(Fig.68) Change unit of velocity.
Using the new unit of Fig.62, this program changes "m/s" into "MM/SS" in the initial velocity.
Because it is convenient when calculating each acceleration and de Broglie wave at intervals of very short 1 SS (= 10-23 seconds ) instead of very long 1 second.
(Fig.69) Positions of two electrons (= perpendicular and symmetric )
At intervals of 1 SS (= 10-23 seconds ), we compute the Coulomb force among the two electrons and the nucleus based on their positional relashionship.
When the electron 1 is at ( x, y, 0 ), the electron 2 is at ( -x, 0, y ) due to their symmetric positions ( see Fig.60 ).
So the x component of the acceleration ( m/sec2 ) of the electron 1 by Coulomb force between electrons and nucleus is,
(Fig.70) x component of electron-1's acceleration by Coulomb force.
where the first term is the Coulomb force between the nucleus and the electron 1, and the second term is the force between the two electrons.
(rm) is an electron's reduced mass.
(Fig.71) Distances among two electrons and nucleus.
Due to symmetric positions of two electrons, when electron 1 is at ( x, y, 0 ), the electrons 2 is at ( -x, 0, z ), in which z = y.
As a result, the distance between electron 1 and nucleus is given by the first relation of Fig.71.
The second relation is the distance between two electrons.
Considering the finite helium nuclear mass (= alpha particle), we use here the reduced mass (= rm ) except when the center of mass is at the origin.
( Of course, even if you use the ordinary electron's mass instead of slightly-modified reduced mass, you can get almost the same exact helium ground state energy. )
(Fig.72) Reduced mass (= rm ) of one electron.
where me is electron's original mass = 9.10938 × 10-31 kg
See also reduced mass of three-body helium.
In the same way, the y component of electron-1's acceleration (m/sec2) by Coulomb force between nucleus and electrons is,
(Fig.73) y component of the acceleration by Coulomb.
The 1st term of Fig.73 is Coulomb attraction between electron-1 and nucleus, the 2nd term is Coulomb repulsion between two electrons at each position.
Based on calculation of Coulomb force in each position, we slightly change the electron's velocity vector and position at intervals of 1 SS (= 10-23 seconds ) until the electron moves one quarter of its orbit.
We suppose electron-1 (or electron-2 ) moves only on the XY-plane (or XZ-plane ) (= two electrons' orbits must be perpendicular to each other for avoiding destructive interference of two electrons' de Broglie waves ), so the z component of the acceleration (= blocked by two de Broglie waves' destructive interference ) of the electron-1 is not considered.
(Fig.74) de Broglie waves in each short segment of an orbit.
We also calculate de Broglie wavelength (= λ = h/mv ) of the electron from electron's velocity (= v ), mass (= m ) and Planck constant (= h ).
An electron's velocity is gradually changing in its different positions, as the electron is moving in its orbit, so the electron's de Broglie wavelength is also changing in different positions. ← This gradually changing velocity and de Broglie wavelength could Not be calculated in 1920s without computers.
Therefore, we need to divide the electron's orbit into many smaller segments where each short segment equals the distance an electron moves for extremely a short time 1 SS (= 10-23 seconds ).
Then, we compute the acceleration by Coulomb force, change the electron's velocity, obtain de Broglie wavelength and what de Broglie wavelength equals each short segment at intervals of 1 SS.
The number (= wseg ) of electron's de Broglie waves contained in each short segment (= each short segment is wseg × de Broglie wavelength ) is,
(Fig.75) Number of de Broglie wavelength in the short segment.
where (VX, VY) are x and y components of electron-1's velocity ( unit 1 MM/SS = 109 meter/sec ), the numerator of the right side of above equation Fig.75 means the moving distance (in meter) for 1 SS. the denominator is electron's de Broglie's wavelength (= h/mv, in meter ).
In the numerator, we change length unit from MM into meter using the relation 1 MM = 10-14 meter.
Here, the estimated electron's orbit is divided into more than one million short segments (= each short segment is moving distance for 1SS ) for this calculation.
When the electron 1 has moved one quarter of its orbit and reached y-axis, this program displays electron-1's last velocity (= VX, VY ) at the last point
(Fig.76) Computing results, when we input 79.0 eV, r1 = 3060 MM.
After moving a quarter of the orbit, the program displays the above values on the screen. The initial r1 automatically increases per each calculation of 1/4 orbit.
VX and VY are x and y components of the last velocity of electron 1 ( unit: MM/SS ). ← The last electron-1's velocities (= VX,VY ) are x and y components of the electron-1's last velocities after electrons have moved one quarter of their orbits (= electron-1 should cross y-axis perpendicularly, so its last VY velocity should be close to zero ).
preVY is y component of the last velocity 1ss before VY ( so preVY is almost the same as VY ).
We pick up the values when this last VY is the closest to zero = meaning electron-1 crosses y-axis at right angles, which condition is necessary for the electron-1's orbit to be symmetrical on both sides of y axis around the nucleus. = Symmetrical orbit (= energetically equilibrium ) gives the lowest total energy, and the symmetrical orbit's total de Broglie wavelength simply becomes 4 × one quarter of de Broglie wavelength.
(mid)WN means the output result of the total number of de Broglie wavelength in one quarter of the orbit. So, one quarter (= 1/4 ) of this electron's orbit becomes WN × de Broglie wavelength.
When one orbit is an integer = 1 × de Broglie wavelength, the 1/4 of the orbit has to be 1/4 (= midWN is close to 0.25000 ) × de Broglie wavelength.
↑ When the output result of one quarter of de Broglie wavelength becomes just 0.250000 (= just 1/4 ), and its input Helium total energy just agrees with experimental Helium total energy (= -79.005 eV ), this new Helium atomic model proves to be right.
(Fig.77) When helium total energy is just -79.0 eV, 1/4 electron's orbit is 0.250006 × de Broglie wavelength. ← so close !
Each time an electron has moved 1/4 orbit and calculated the total de Broglie wavelength included in the 1/4 of the orbit and the electron's last velocities, this program returns the electron back to the starting x-axis, and increases r1 (= initial x-coordinate of electron-1 ) by 1, until r1 changes from input initial x-coordinate value (ex. 3060 MM ) to +100 (= 3160 ).
As shown in Fig.76, when r1 is 3074 MM, last VY velocity of electron 1 becomes the smallest ( VY = 0.000000 ), which means electron-1 passes y-axis perpendicularly = symmetrical stable orbit.
This means when r1 ( initial x coordinate ) = 3074 × 10-14 meter, these electron's orbits become just symmetric around the nucleus (= so, only this initial x-coordinate 3074 MM value of electron-1 remains as a legitimate one in this case ), and we can know one orbit is 4 × WN (= 0.250006, when energy is -79.0 eV ) = 1.000024 de Brolgie wavelength.
In this case where we input -79.0 eV as helium ground state energy, the number of de Broglie wavelength contained in a quarter of its orbit becomes 0.250006.
So, one orbit is 0.250006 × 4 = 1.000024 de Broglie wavenlength. ( ← so close ! but NOT just 1.000000 )
As shown in Table 1, when input energy is -79.0037 eV, de Broglie wave becomes just 1.000000.
So we can get the final value of -79.0037 eV as calculated ( predicted ) Helium ground state energy, when Helium has two perpendicular orbits of just 1.000000 × de Broglie wavelength.
The experimental value of Helium ground state energy is -79.005 eV (= sum of 1st and 2nd ionization energies of helium ), which just agrees with the computed ( predicted ) energy value of -79.0037 eV, proving this new Helium model is correct.
Table 1 shows the results in which the last VY (= y component of electron-1's last velocity ) is the closest to zero (= electron-1 crosses y-axis perpendicularly to be symmetrical orbit around the nucleus ) in different input total helium energies E.
This result shows when the total energy of new Bohr's helium is -79.0037 eV, each orbital length is just one de Broglie wavelength.
This excellent agreement between calculated results (= predicted by this model = -79.0037 eV ) and experimental helium ground state energy (= -79.005 eV ) proves this new Helium model with two perpendicular orbits correctly considering destructive interference of two electrons' de Brolgie waves is right with No contradiction unlike unrealistic quantum mechanics.
| Prediction (eV) | r1 (MM) | 1/4 wavelength | one wavelength |
|---|---|---|---|
| -78.80 | 3082.0 | 0.250323 | 1.001292 |
| -79.00 | 3074.0 | 0.250006 | 1.000024 |
| -79.003 | 3074.0 | 0.250001 | 1.000004 |
| -79.0037 ← | 3074.0 | 0.250000 | 1.000000 |
| -79.005 | 3074.0 | 0.249998 | 0.999992 |
| -79.01 | 3074.0 | 0.249990 | 0.999960 |
| -79.20 | 3067.0 | 0.249690 | 0.998760 |
WN × 4 is the total number of de Broglie's wavelength contained in one round of the orbital. This computed helium ground state energy value (= predicted energy values by this new helium model ) is -79.0037 eV.
The experimental value of helium ground state energy is -79.005147 eV (= 1st + 2nd ionization energies, Nist, CRC ). ← almost perfect agreement between the prediction and experimental values !
So we can conclude this new Helium model with two electrons' perpendicular orbits giving just the same ground state energy as experimental values, proved to be right.
Surprisingly, all experimental ground state energies of all other two-electron atoms and ions just agree with computed results predicted by this Helium-like model with two perpendicular orbits, proving this new helium atomic model is real.
What is the very small difference between them ( -79.005147 - 79.0037 = -0.001447 eV ) ?
This tiny, tiny energy difference is said to be caused by "relativistic effect" of seemingly increasing electron's mass when the electron moves faster.
↑ But this name of "relativistic effect" is wrong.
Because the effect of electron's mass increase (= though it's impossible ) by increasing kinetic energy was first proposed by classical Maxwell theory ( energy = mc2 was first proposed by Maxwell, Not Einstein ). Einstein just copied this seeming mass increase effect in the wrong way called "relativistic".
↑ In Einstein relativistic world, all physical values are "illusory relative values" paradoxically changed, seen by differently-moving observers, so it's impossibe for such an unrealistic relativistic theory to determine or predict only one definite absolute physical energy value.
Instead of accepting Einstein ridiculous idea that electron's mass can increase without absorbing anything (= violate mass conservation, and Einstein relativity needs unreal virtual particles with imaginary mass as force mediators ), we can say, as an electron moves faster, it faces more resistance from surrounding medium, and becomes harder to move, which increasing resistance from surrounding medium is detected as a seeming increasing electron's pseudo-mass effect.
Thinking commonsensically, it's impossible to increase the electron's original mass without adding anything to it, as Einstein irrationally claimed.
So we call the tiny, tiny energy difference between experimental value and computed value ( -79.005147 - 79.0037 = -0.001447 eV ) "pseudo-relativistic effect" ( which is multi-electron effect, so neither Schrödinger equation nor Einstein relativity can get analytical value for it, so it has nothing to do with Einstein relativistic effect ) from here.
The theoretical ground state energy value of the helium ion (He+) can be obtained from usual Bohr model or Schrodinger equation ( Z = 2 ) using the reduced mass.
This value is -54.41531 eV.
And the experimental value of He+ ground state energy is -54.41776 eV (Nist).
So pseudo-relativistic correction to the energy in He+ ion is -54.41776-(-54.41531) = -0.00245 eV.
The theoretical ground state energy value of the hydrogen atom (H) can be obtained from usual Bohr model or Schrodinger equation using the reduced mass, too.
This value is -13.5983 eV.
And the experimental value of H ground state energy is -13.59843 eV (Nist).
So pseudo-relativistic correction to the energy in hydrogen atom is -13.59843-(-13.5983) = -0.00013 eV.
This new Bohr model Helium can explain and predict all two-electron atoms and ions perfectly.
Go back to tiny, tiny pseudo-relativistic effect.
The electron's velocity of the neutral helium atom is slower than helium ion, but faster than hydrogen atom.
So the pseudo-relativistic correction in neutral helium atom should be between -0.00245 eV and -0.00013 eV.
The above calculation value of -0.001447 eV is just between them ! ← The predicted helium total energy value -79.0037 eV by this new helium model proves to be perfectly right !
As a control program, we show the program of hydrogen-like atoms ( H and He+ ) using the same computing method as above. Try these, too.
JAVA program ( H or He+ )
C language ( H or He+ )
Here we use the new unit ( 1 SS = 1 × 10-23 second ) and compute each value at the intervals of 1 SS.
If we change this definition of 1 SS, the calculation results of the total energy (E) in which the orbital length is just one de Broglie's wavelength change as follows,
| 1 SS = ? sec | Result of E(eV) |
|---|---|
| 1 × 10-22 | -79.00540 |
| 1 × 10-23 | -79.00370 |
| 1 × 10-24 | -79.00355 |
| 1 × 10-25 | -79.00350 |
This means that as the orbit becomes more smooth, the calculation values converge to -79.00350 eV.
The programs based on other 1 SS definition is as follows,
Sample JAVA program 1 SS = 1 × 10-25 sec, calculation takes much time.
Old sample JAVA program 1 SS = 1 × 10-22 sec--fast but the results are a little different
(Fig.78) Two-electron Atomic Model ( He, Li+, Be2+, B3+, C4+ ... )
Surprisingly, this new atomic structure of Bohr's helium is applicable to all other two and three electron atoms ( ions ).
JAVA program to compute two-electron atoms. ← After stating this program, we are asked to input atomic number Z.
If you pick Z = 2, this program starts to compute ordinary Helium atom in the same way as above
If you pick Z = 3, this program computes Lithium ion (= Li+ = 3e+ nucleus and two electrons )
If you pick Z = 4, this program computes Beryllium ion (= Be2+ = 4e+ nucleus and two electrons ).
So this program method computing all two-electron atoms and ions is almost the same as upper Helium program, except you should input another information = atomic number (= Z ) after running this program.
Computing ( predicted ) results of all two electron atoms and ions agree with experimental ground state energies !
See detailed computing method.
| Atoms | r1 (MM) | one wavelength | Predicted results (eV) | Experimental values (eV) | Error (eV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| He | 3074.0 | 1.000000 | -79.0037 | -79.0051 | 0.001 |
| Li+ | 1944.5 | 1.000000 | -198.984 | -198.094 | -0.89 |
| Be2+ | 1422.0 | 1.000000 | -373.470 | -371.615 | -1.85 |
| B3+ | 1121.0 | 1.000000 | -602.32 | -599.60 | -2.72 |
| C4+ | 925.0 | 1.000000 | -885.6 | -882.1 | -3.50 |
| N5+ | 788.0 | 1.000000 | -1223.3 | -1219.1 | -4.20 |
| O6+ | 685.3 | 1.000000 | -1615.44 | -1610.70 | -4.74 |
| F7+ | 607.3 | 1.000000 | -2062.0 | -2057.0 | -5.00 |
| Ne8+ | 544.5 | 1.000000 | -2563.0 | -2558.0 | -5.00 |
↑ The experimental ground state energy of each two-electron atom or ion can be obtained from this this or this ionization energies (= the sum of the first and second ionization energies from the right = two most inner 1s electrons' energies ).
For example, the experimental ground state energy of Li+ ion with two electrons is the sum of the 2nd (= 75.64 eV ) and 3rd (= 122.454 eV ) ionization energies from this or table, hence -(75.64+122.454) = -198.094 eV.
Table 4 shows three-electron atoms and ions such as lithium, Be+, B2+, C3+, N4+ ..
See detailed computing method.
| Atoms | r1 (MM) | one wavelength | Predicted result (eV) | Experimental values (eV) | Error (eV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Li | 1949.0 | 1.000000 | -203.033 | -203.480 | 0.47 |
| Be+ | 1427.0 | 1.000000 | -388.785 | -389.826 | 1.04 |
| B2+ | 1125.0 | 1.000000 | -635.965 | -637.531 | 1.56 |
| C3+ | 928.0 | 1.000000 | -944.46 | -946.57 | 2.11 |
| N4+ | 790.5 | 1.000000 | -1314.25 | -1317.01 | 2.76 |
| O5+ | 688.0 | 1.000000 | -1745.70 | -1748.82 | 3.12 |
| F6+ | 609.4 | 1.000000 | -2237.60 | -2242.21 | 4.61 |
| Ne7+ | 546.0 | 1.000000 | -2791.15 | -2797.12 | 5.97 |
As shown here, we prove when two electron orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength cross each other perpendicularly, they give surprisingly accurate energy results in all two-electron atoms and ions !
(Fig.79) ↓ Helium two electrons e1,e2 orbits must be perpendicular to each other for avoiding destructive interference between two de Broglie waves.
Many experiments such as Davisson-Germer, diffraction and electron's microscope confirmed that an electron actually causes de Broglie wave and interference.
↑ The interference of all light and matter wave consists of destructive and constructive interference. ← The destructive interference (= canceling out wave ) excludes the electron from the place, hence, No electrons are found in the regions where the destructive interference of de Broglie wave occurs in two-slit experiments.
Realistic Bohr's atomic model could successfully predict the exact energy levels of all hydrogen-like atoms ( this p.3-4 ) by incorporating this electron's de Broglie wave interference and using the idea that each electron's orbit must be an integer multiple of de Broglie wavelength to avoid its destructive interference.
Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equation also used this de Broglie wave idea and accidentally got exactly the same atomic energy values as Bohr's atomic model.
Quantum mechanics is unrealistic and self-contradictory, so false, because the quantum mechanical atoms must always include unreal zero orbital angular momentum where electrons always crash into nuclei (= like the earth crashes into the Sun ! ) and become unstable with its electrons causing de Broglie wave destructive interference in its unrealistic linear orbits (= due to zero orbital angular momentum ).
↑ So we can naturally conclude two electrons' de Broglie waves in a helium atom cause their interference, and this electrons' de Broglie wave interference plays a main role in the strong Pauli exclusion principle and its mysterious Pauli repulsion kicking out the 3rd electron from the inner 1s orbit into the outer 2s orbit ( this 5th paragraph ) against strong Coulomb attraction of a nucleus.
After ignoring the experimentally-verified de Broglie wave destructive interference, quantum mechanics artificially created the unrealistic concept called spin to wrongly explain Pauli principle.
The detailed physical mechanism of how such unphysical spins cause strong Pauli repulsion is unknown and still Not explained by quantum mechanics.
↑ The unphysical electron spin was originally proposed to explain the electron's magnetic field as a fictitious electron's spinning or rotation.
But this idea of the electron spin as "actual electron's spinning" turned out to be false, because a tiny electron must be spinning much faster than light (= forbidden by Einstein relativity, this 3rd paragraph ).
So quantum mechanics started to say contradictory things "each electron has spin angular momentum and magnetic moment, but the electron is Not actually spinning !" ← nonsense.
Physicists have stopped trying to understand such a paradoxical quantum mechanical world.
Though the concept of the electron's spin was introduced to explain electron-generating magnetic field ( this p.2 ), its electron spin-spin dipole magnetic interaction turned out to be too weak ( this p.5 ) to explain strong Pauli exclusion energy and ferromagnet.
So the already-contradictory quantum mechanics tried to create another contradictory concept called "exchange energy" to explain strong Pauli exclusion repulsion.
↑ This ad-hoc "exchange energy" is Not a real energy, because there is No such thing as "exchange force", hence quantum mechanical Pauli exclusion repulsion is neither explained by any real objects ( this p.6, this p.8-lower ) nor admitted as real forces ( this p.10, this p.5, this last-paragraph ). ← Unscientific exchange energy is unnecessary, useless, even harmful (= preventing innovation ) for us, because we cannot explain it using real things.
This quantum mechanical "unphysical Pauli exchange energy" not only failed to explain the real origin of mysterious Pauli repulsion but also prevents our scientific progress or innovation forever due to its nonphysical antisymmetric wavefunctions which cannot distinguish different electrons or atoms in different places by unrealistically forcing each electron to exist in all different atoms simultaneously ( this p.11 ) as if each electron exists in fantasy parallel world.
In order to explain the real origin and repulsive force of mysterious Pauli exclusion principle, we have to use the experimentally-verified de Broglie wave interference.
↑ To admit Pauli exclusion repulsion as real forces caused by some "real tangible objects" and explain a single electron's interference without relying on fantasy quantum mechanical parallel worlds, we definitely need the existence of some "real medium" filling the space around an electron particle compatible with successful Bohr's realistic atom.
Accepting the experimentally-confirmed electron's de Broglie wave as "real tangible wave or objects" needs the real medium (= Not denied by Michelson-Morley experiment ), which contradicts Enstein paradoxical relativity which needs unreal virtual partices as fictitious force mediators.
As shown above, using electrons' de Broglie wave interference and considering helium's two orbits crossing perpendicularly to avoid the destructive interfeference of two de Broglie waves, our new helium model perfectly and successfully predict the exact experimental energy values of all two-electron atoms, ions and even all three-electron atoms, which fact proves that real Pauli repulsion by de Broglie wave destructive interference is right.
We can successfully extend this realistic Pauli exclusion principle explained by the experimentally-verified electron's de Broglie wave interference to all other larger atoms and molecules.
(Fig.80) ↓ Midpoint of de Broglie wave doesn't expel another electron.
In realistic Helium atom with two electrons' orbits, each electron has to pass through another closest electron's orbital de Broglie wave (= opposite phase ) perpendicularly to avoid destructive interference of two de Broglie waves whose interference were confirmed experimentally.
The fact that two de Broglie waves crossing each other perpendicularly can avoid destructive interference is also shown in the fact that two light waves polarized orthogonally do Not (destructively) interfere with each other ( this p.1-last-paragraph ).
An electron moving around the nucleus has to do a "U-turn" at some point to return to its original point. Of course, also when the electron does a U-turn (= ex. when the electron-1 has moved 1/4 orbit and arrived at y-axis in Fig.60 ), it has to avoid destructive interference from another electron's de Broglie wave.
In this Helium model with two perpendicular 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits, electrons do a U-turn when another closest de Broglie wave phase becomes the safe "midpoint phase" between opposite phases (= midpoint is just like this node between wave crest and trough ), as shown in lower orbits in Fig.80.
This midpoint is neutral phase (= just between trough and crest ± opposite phases ), so it does not affect or destroy another electron's de Broglie wave.
So electrons can do a U-turn smoothly and safely when the closest de Broglie wave phase is gradually changing into the neutral midpoint phase, which does not cause destructive interference in this Helium model.
The electron is repelled by the other negative electron by Coulomb electric repulsion, so the electron tends to move towards the opposite phase (= destructive interference area ) of the other electron's de Broglie wave by Coulomb repulsion, hence, the electron automatically needs to cross this opposite phase of the other de Broglie wave perpendicularly to avoid destructive interference ( experiencing Coulomb electric repulsion from other electron negative charges simultaneously ).
(Fig.81) ↓ An example of real Pauli principle by de Broglie wave's destructive interference. When there are four 1 × wavelength orbits in a atom, an electron is expelled by destructive interference from more than one other de Broglie waves' opposite phase.
Bohr's realistic atom could successfully explain energy levels of all hydrogen-like atoms using the condition that the circumference of the electron's orbit is just equal to an integral number of de Broglie wavelength to avoid destructive interference between de Broglie waves.
The exact ground state energies of the smallest atoms such as Hydrogen and Helium atom could be obtained when the the electron's orbit is 1 × de Broglie wavelength (= corresponds to principal quantum number n = 1, as shown in this p.3 )
Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations also used the same de Broglie wave condition and obtained exactly the same hydrogen energy levels as Bohr's atomic model designated by the quantum number n (= meaning the total orbital length is n × de Broglie wavelength ), though only quantum mechanical atoms include unrealistic zero orbital angular momentum whose linear orbits (= like the earth crashes into the Sun ) are chaotic and unstable by destructive interference within its own de Broglie wave.
As shown in the ionization energies and periodic table, the ionization energy of the Lithium (= Li ) suddenly becomes smaller than the former Helium atom (= He ), which means the valence electron of the Lithium enters the outer orbit (= n=2 or 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbit which is farther away from the nucleus, as shown in good agreement between prediction and experimental Li ground state energy, this 5th-paragraph ) instead of the inner smaller orbit (= n=1 or 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbit which is closer to the nucleus ).
This change seen in the first ionization energies in various atoms shows the maximum number of electrons entering the smallest 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits (or n = 1 ) is two (= Hydrogen and Helium ).
Actually quantum mechanics also claims only two electrons as seen in Hydrogen or Helium atoms can enter the innermost 1s orbitals (= n= 1 ), and the 3rd electron of Lithium must be excluded from the inner n=1 orbit and instead, enter the outer 2s orbital due to Pauli exclusion principle.
Here we explain why the maximum number of 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits contained in an atom is two using realistic Pauli exclusion principle.
Each 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbit contains only one electron, so each atom can contain up to two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits with up to two electrons.
When the total number of orbits is unsymmetrically odd number ( ex. three electrons in three orbits, which cannot form the stable symmetrical orbits, hence must change into the even-number two or four orbital atoms, as seen in Not symmetrical electrically = Not equilateral triangular positions of three electrons ).
In these unsymmetrical three electron's orbits, satisfying two conditions of electrically-symmetrical positions of three electrons' orbits balancing Coulomb repulsion among three electrons and three orbits perpendicular to each other is impossible, so the odd number electrons' orbits become unstable and destroyed (= by destructive interference among three electrons' de Broglie waves )
So we think about the case of the symmetrical even number = four electrons in four 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits, and explain why this four-electron case is impossible (= fictitious Beryllium with four electrons in four 1s or 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits is impossible ) with respect to real Pauli exclusion principle based on de Broglie wave destructive interference.
When a fictitious atom contains four 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits, each electron (ex. e3 ) is surrounded by opposite wave phases of other two orbits (= opposite phase thick lines of e1, e2 surrounds and expels electron e3 ) as shown in lower figure of Fig.81.
When an atom contains only two orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength like the real helium atom (= an electron crosses the other one electron's opposite de Broglie wave phase perpendicularly and safely ), an electron is never surrounded by two opposite-phase de Broglie waves of other two electrons like Fig.81 lower figure of a 4-orbit fictitious atom.
When an electron does a U-turn (= when an atom consists only of two orbits, it's OK ), in a fictitious atom of four 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits, the electron is expelled by destructive interference surrounded by other two opposite de Broglie wave phases (= resultantly, cannot do U-turn at safe midpoint in this fictitious four 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits ).
↑ When more than one orbits of the opposite de Broglie wave phase are near an electron, this electron cannot pass just one orbit of the opposite phase perpendicularly. (= an electron crossing two other orbits of opposite phase in two different directions perpendicularly at the same time is impossible ) = realistic Pauli exclusion principle mechanism.
So the 3rd electron of Lithium and the 3rd, 4th electrons of Beryllium are unable to enter the innermost 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits due to destructive interference between opposite phases of de Broglie waves..
The maximum number of 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits contained in a single atom proves to be up to two like Helium atom.
This is a realistic mechanism of Pauli exclusion repulsion based on real force and force carrier (= surrounding "medium" causing destructive interference between multiple de Broglie waves corresponds to force carrier, which is lacking in unrealistic quantum mechanical Pauli principle's "exchange energy" ).
As a result, we can successfully explain real Pauli exclusion principle using the destructive interference of real electron's de Broglie wave (= real objects exerting real forces ) without unreal spin.
(Fig.82) ↓ Electrons cross the opposite phases of another electron's orbit perpendicularly like Helium without destructive interference.
Like Helium, another noble gas = Neon with eight valence (= outer ) electrons can be explained by the same principle based on avoiding destructive interference of other electrons' de Broglie waves.
In periodic table, Neon is in the 2nd horizontal row which corresponds to 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits in energy levels ( = n = 2 ).
There are clear ionization energy gaps between atoms of different rows in periodic table, which sudden change of ionization energies shows H and He atoms in the 1st row of periodic table belong to 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits (= n = 1 ), and Li-Ne in the 2nd row belong to 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits (= n = 2 ).
Neon has eight valence electrons.
And one orbit of 2 × de Broglie wavelength (= two pairs of crest and trough wave phases ) can contain up to two electrons.
So we can assume Neon consists of four 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits, each orbit contains two electrons, therefore the total number of Neon valence electrons is 4 orbits × 2 electrons = 8 electrons, which agrees with the fact.
As shown in above figure, all electrons cross the opposite de Broglie wave phase of other electrons perpendicularly at vertices of hexahedron (= Coulomb electrically symmetrical, hence stable electrons' distribution ).
So Neon's electrons can avoid destructive interference of de Broglie waves just like Helium.
An orbit of 2 × de Broglie wavelength contains more pairs of wave crest (= electron ) and trough (= opposite phase ) than an orbit of 1 × de Broglie wavelength, so Neon can contain as many as four orbits ( without destructive interference ), such four orbits were impossible in Helium of two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits.
(Fig.83) ↓ Electrons safely do a U-turn at midpoints of other electron's de Broglie waves without destructive interference in four 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits (= each orbit contains up to 2 electrons ).
When Helium contains up to two orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength, electrons can avoid destructive interference with other electrons' de Broglie wave of opposite phases and do a U-turn safely at the closest electron's neutral midpoints (= a point just between crest and trough of one de Broglie wavelength orbit, this midpoint between the opposite phases does Not affect or destroy other electron's waves ).
But when the fictitious ( Beryllium ) atom contains four orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength, electrons are expelled , surrounded by more than one other opposite wave phases (= encounter several opposite wave phases in more than one different directions, hence cannot avoid destructive interference unlike the helium case where each electron encounters only one another electron's opposite wave phase and crosses it perpendicularly ), which is a realistic mechanism of Pauli exclusion principle.
In case of 2 × de Broglie wavelength (= more pairs of crest and trough of wave than 1 × de Broglie wavelength ), it can contain four orbits without destructive interference from other electons, enabling electrons to move and do a U-turn smoothly and safely at other electron wave's neutral midpoint.
This midpoint in de Broglie wave is the point just between opposite wave phases (= between crest and trough ), so this midpoint wave phase is neutral, which neither affects other electrons' de Broglie waves nor causes destructive interference, as seen in Fig.83 lower.
This is why 2 × de Broglie wavelength allows up to four orbits (= total electron number is up to eight compatible with Neon's eight valence electros, in comparison to just two orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength in Helium's two valence electrons. )
(Fig.84) ↓ An orbit of 2 × de Broglie wavelength can contain up to two electrons = two pairs of crest (= a part containing an electron) and trough (= opposite phase to the crest wave phase )
An atom such as Neon can contain four orbits of 2 × de Broglie wavelength where each electron can cross another electron's opposite de Broglie wave phase perpendicularly without destructive interference like Helium consisting of two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits.
This is a realistic mechanism of Pauli exclusion principle.
(Fig.85) Orbits of Neon cross each other "perpendicularly".
As shown on this page, we can show the appropriate new Neon model, in which orbits can cross each other "perpendicularly" one to one.
Crossing perpendicularly (= Not parallel ) means they can avoid "destructive" interference between two de Broglie wave opposite phases.
Neon consists of four 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits ( total 4 orbits × 2 electrons in each 2 × de Broglie wavelength = 8 electrons )
(Fig.86) Maximum orbits = midpoint lines + 2 (= two perpendicular orbits )
We can prove all atoms use the same principle as Helium where two de Broglie waves cross perpendicularly to avoid destructive interference of electrons' de Broglie waves.
As the number of de Broglie wavelength in each orbit is higher (= more pairs of crest and trough of electron's de Broglie wave ), more orbits and more valence electrons can be contained in each atom.
For example, an atom can contain up to two orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength (= total two electrons ), as seen in Helium, and can contain up to four orbits of 2 × de Broglie wavelength (= total eight electrons ), as seen in Neon.
If an atom tries to contain more than two orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength, multiple electrons' de Broglie waves interfere with each other destructively, hence impossible.
An atom can contain 6 orbits of 4 × de Broglie wavelength, as seen in Krypton. Coincidentally, Krypton has 18 valence electrons (= based on experimental ionization energy change in periodic table ), 18 is a multiple of 6.
↑ In the 4 × de Broglie wavelength, the maximum is 6 orbits where every single crest phase of de Broglie wave can find and cross its partner = trough opposite phase in one of other electrons' de Broglie waves perpendicularly in Coulomb electrically symmetrical stable position.
If an atom tries to contain more than 6 orbits of 4 × de Broglie wavelength orbits, it destroys the symmetrical positional relation of a pair of trough and crest opposite de Broglie wave phases crossing perpendicularly. → destructive interference like more than 2 orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength
So as the number of de Broglie wavelength (= number of de Broglie wave's crest and trough ) increases, each orbit can cross more other orbits perpendicularly (= opposite wave phases cross each other perpendicularly ), avoiding destructive interference.
As a result, this new atomic model not only agrees with experimental results, but also explains real Pauli exclusion principle based on experimentally-verified de Broglie wave interference, without relying on unreal spin or unphysical exchange interaction.
(Fig.87) The opposite de Broglie wave phases cross perpendicularly.
Electrons spin is unrealistic and can explain neither the maximum valence electrons' number nor real mechanism of strong Pauli exclusion principle.
The maximum numbers of valence electrons by quantum mechanics and its unrealistic spin description are false and inconsistent with experimental facts.
According to quantum mechanical rule, the maximum numbers of valence electrons in different energy levels or principal quantum number (= n ) must obey 2n2, so ↓
n = 1; maximum valence electron = 2 (= actual number = 2)
n = 2; maximum valence electron = 8 (= actual number = 8)
n = 3; maximum valence electron = 18 (= actual number = 8) ← disagree !
n = 4; maximum valence electron = 32 (= actual number = 18) ← disagree !
↑ But the actual maximum valence electron numbers are 2 (= n = 1 ), 8 (= n = 2 ), 8 (= n = 3), 18 (= n = 4 ) as shown in the way of the ionization energy change and atomic sizes in periodic table, which contradicts quantum mechanical prediction of 2n2 valence electron's numbers.
So irrational quantum mechanics started to make a contradictory claim that electrons of 3d orbital (= n = 3 ) should exist in the 4th row (= n = 4 ), and the 3d orbital energy levels should be magically higher than 4s orbital (= n = 4 ).
Quantum mechanics can neither predict these contradictory energy levels nor explain why 3d orbital energy is higher than 4s using its useless Schrödinger equations ( this p.1-left ).
Useless quantum mechanics just vaguely says the approximate effective central positive charge (= Zeff ) is higher in 4s orbital (= then, Coulomb energy is lower ) than 3d orbital due to 4s electrons' penetrating inner electrons without showing any exact analytical solutions or energy values.
Because quantum mechanics is unable to solve any mutli-electron atomic Schrödinger equations ( this p.7 ), it just chooses fake solution (= called variational method, this last-paragraph ) by adjusting free parameters such as effective central charge Zeff to fit empirically-obtained energy values ( this p.2, this 4th-paragraph ) instead of obtaining physical values from quantum mechanical theory ( this middle-effective nuclear charge, this p.7 )
So quantum mechanics is useless and unable to predict any experimental physical values which disagree even with approximate vague quantum mechanical description.
Using the experimentally-verified de Broglie wave interference, we can naturally explain Pauli principle and valence electrons' number without unreal spin and nonphysical exchange energy.
Each orbit crosses another orbit perpendicularly in the center line P as shown in Fig.87 (= 2 orbits ).
An orbit of 1 × de Broglie wavelength contains a pair of wave crest (= includes an electron ) and trough (= opposite phase of crest ).
And an orbit of 2 × de Broglie wavelength contains two pairs of wave crest and trough (= so, including two electrons ).
In Neon with outer 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits in Fig.87, both upper and lower parts of each orbit include 2 nodes (= crest or trough ) on the right and left sides (= total is four nodes = two pairs of crest and trough ), each orbit can cross other 2 orbits perpendicularly in a cruciform way (= wave crest crosses another wave's trough perpendicularly, one to one of opposite wave phases ).
So the total number of orbits ( where each wave crosses another wave's opposite wave phase perpendicularly one to one ) becomes 2+2 = 4 orbits, which is Neon containing 2 × 4 orbits = 8 valence electrons.
Neon (= Ne, 2 × de Broglie wavelength ) and Argon (= Ar, 3 × de Broglie wavelength ) have the same 2 nodes (= a pair of wave crest and trough ) in both the upper and lower parts of each orbit, so their total orbital numbers become the same 4 orbits, which can explain their same maximum valence electrons' number 8 (= 2 × 4 orbits ).
Krypton (= Kr ) is 4 × de Broglie wavelength, its orbit has 4 nodes in both upper and lower parts ( one orbit contains eight nodes ) which can cross additional four other orbits with their opposite wave phases crossing each other perpendicularly.
So an atom of 4 × de Broglie wavelength can contain at maximum 6 orbits (= 2 + 4 ), which can explain Kr valence electrons' number 18 (= 3 × 6 orbits ).
The fact that the valence electron numbers of those noble gas mean the maximum electron's number in each de Broglie wavelength can be found in the change of ionization energies in the periodic table.
1 × de Broglie wavelength = up to 2 orbits (= each orbit contains 1 electrons ) = 2 (= 1 × 2 ) valence electrons as shown in Helium.
2 × de Broglie wavelength = up to 4 orbits (= each orbit contains 2 electrons ) = 8 (= 2 × 4 ) valence electrons as shown in Neon.
3 × de Broglie wavelength = up to 4 orbits (= each orbit contains 2 electrons + 1 hole to satisfy Coulomb electrically symmetrical distribution ) = 8 (= 2 × 4 ) valence electrons as shown in Argon.
4 × de Broglie wavelength (= n = 4 ) = up to 6 orbits (= each orbit contains 3 electrons + 1 hole to satisfy Coulomb electrically symmetrical distribution ) = 18 (= 3 × 6 ) valence electrons as shown in Krypton.
5 × de Broglie wavelength = up to 6 orbits (= each orbit contains 3 electrons + 2 holes to satisfy Coulomb electrically symmetrical distribution ) = 18 (= 3 × 6 ) valence electrons as shown in Xenon.
6 × de Broglie wavelength = up to 8 orbits (= each orbit contains 4 electrons + 2 holes to satisfy Coulomb electrically symmetrical distribution ) = 32 (= 4 × 8 ) valence electrons as shown in Radon.
The point is a wave crest of one electron's orbit needs to cross the opposite phase (= trough ) of another electron's orbit perpendicularly, one to one, in this realistic Pauli repulsion mechanism based on electron's de Broglie wave interference.
If an electron's wave crest crosses another electron's crest (= both crests contain electrons, so this case where an electron ( = crest ) approaches another electron (= crest ) is unlikely due to Coulomb repulsion between electrons ), there must be places of two trough orbits crossing (= trough-trough crossing or opposite-opposite phase crossing ) each other near electrons.
After all, these two trough (= trouhg-trough crossing ) orbits (= opposite phase in two different directions destroying other electron crest phase ) kicks out another electron due to destructive interference between de Broglie wave opposite phases (= an electron or crest phase cannot cross more-than-one trough opposite phases in more-than-one different directions perpendicularly at the same time ← destructive interference occurs ).
So to avoid destrucive interference of de Broglie waves, each electron (= crest part ) has to cross another ( only one, Not two ) electron's de Broglie wave's trough part perpendicularly, one to one.
When de Broglie's wave crest (= electron part ) and another electron' trough part crosses perpendicularly ( like He and Ne ) , a pair of wave crest and trough becomes harmless neutral phase (= the opposie crest and trough crosses perpendicularly, cancel each other seen by other electrons which tend to move in the symmetrically-middle or neutral part of other electron's crest and trough phases in multi-electron atoms ), which does not cause destructive interference in other electrons, so makes the whole atomic electrons stable.
(Fig.88) If Ar has 12 valence electrons, Coulomb repulsion is Not uniform.
Argon is 3 × de Broglie wavelength, and it has 4 orbits, so the total valence electrons should be 12 (= 3 × 4 orbits ) instead of actual Argon's eight valence electrons ?
Unfortunately, in this case, Coulomb repulsion among electrons is unsymmetric (= Not uniform ) and stronger only in some parts (= Coulomb repulsion among electrons in the atomic upper or lower part becomes stronger due to the shorter distance among electrons than the centeral part of the atom, as shown in the upper figure = electrically-unsymmetrical electrons' distribution around a nucleus in the upper 12-electron fictitious atom ).
So a fictitious atom with 4 orbits, each of which contains three electrons, total 12 electrons, becomes unstable and needs to exclude some electrons due to Coulomb repulsion, for electrons' distribution to be symmetrical around a nucleus.
As shown above, if Ar has 12 electrons, it contains 3 layers of the same 4 electrons, which electrons' distribution is asymmetric, and Coulomb repulsion among packed 12 electrons does not allow these 12 all electrons to be packed in a single atom with 3 × de Broglie wavelength orbits.
For Coulomb repulsion to be uniformly (= symmetrically ) distributed around nucleus, the electrons' numbers of the upper and lower layers must be smaller than that of the middle layer (= the upper and lower layers have 2 electrons, and the middle layer has 4 electrons, the total is 8 electrons ).
When the total valence electron's number is 8 (= each orbit has 2 electrons + 1 hole in each 3 × de Broglie wavelength orbit ), the Ar valence electrons are evenly distributed in hexahedral way like neon, so stable due to balanced Coulomb force.
This is why both Neon (= 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbits ) and Argon (= 3 × de Broglie wavelength orbits ) have the same 8 valence electrons due to balanced Coulomb repulsion among 8 symmetrical electrons.
Coulomb repulsion must be considered also in Kr with 4 × de Broglie wavelength orbtis, and each orbit contains 3 electrons and 1 hole in Kr 6 orbits (= total valence electrons are 3 × 6 = 18 in Kr ).
Classical orbit is far more useful and easier to handle in molecular calculation than unreal quantum mechanical wavefunction.
(Fig.89) If the number of orbits exceeds the maximum number ↓
As I said, there are the maximum (= limit ) numbers of orbits depending on number × de Broglie wavelength.
In 1 × de Broglie wavelength, an atom can have up to two orbits like helium.
If an atom tries to contain more than two orbits of 1 × de Broglie wavelength, an electron is expelled by destructive interference of opposite phase of other electrons' de Broglie waves. ← this is real Pauli principle mechanism.
In 2 × de Broglie wavelength, an atom can contain up to four orbits like neon.
If an atom tries to contain more than four orbits of 2 × de Broglie wavelength, it also expels electrons by destructive interference with opposite phase of other de Broglie waves.
How are these maximum orbit numbers determined ?
When an atom has just the maximum number of orbits like helium and neon, each electron can cross the opposite phase of another electron's de Broglie wave perpendicularly, one to one (= crest-1 crosses trough-1 | crest-2 crosses trough-2 | crest-3 crosses trough-3 | crest-4 crosses trough-4 .. = all perpendicular crossing ).
For example, in neon atom of Fig.89, e1 electron (= crest-1 ) crosses the opposite phase (= trough-1 ) of e3 de Broglie wave perpendicularly, e3 electron (= crest-2 ) crosses the opposite phase (= trough-2 ) of e2 de Broglie wave perpendicularly ..
When an electron (= electron phase, crest ) crosses the opposite phase (= trough ) of another electron perpendicularly, this pair of crest and trough de Broglie waves becomes "neutral phase" which cannot affect other electrons any longer by destructive interference. So all electrons' motions become stable and OK.
But if an atom contains more than the maximum number of orbits, this symmetrical "neutral phase" is broken, and destructive interference of de Broglie waves occurs, and electrons' motions become unstable.
↑ If more electrons are added to the original symmetrical hexahedral structure of Neon's 8 valence electrons, this symmetrical distribution of electrons around Neon's nucleus is broken, and de Broglie wave destructive interference occurs, which prevents more electrons from being added to Neon.
In case of more orbits than the maximum number contained in an atom (= if one excessive e1' orbit is added ), some intersection points contain the abnormal same electron-electron (= crest-crest ) phase (ex. e1 and e4 in Fig.89 right lower ), and other intersection points contain the abnormal same opposite (= trough-trough ) phase (ex. e1' and e3 opposite phase in Fig.89 right upper ).
This abnormal "trough-trough (= opposite-opposite phase )" crossing de Broglie waves are Not neutral ( only when different phases: wave trough-crest cross each other, these two crossing de Broglie waves is neutral and does no harm to other electrons ), so abnormal "trough-trough" waves can affect other electrons by destructive inteference and makes electrons' motion unstable.
For example, in Fig.89 right lower, e1-electron (= crest ) crosses e4-same (= crest ) phase wave, perpendicularly and abnormally. ← "Perpendicular crossing" means these e1 and e4 same-phase (= crest-crest ) orbits do not affect each other (= so, originally, e1 electron should cross the opposite phase of e4 electron perpendicularly ).
But other e1' and e3 opposite phase waves (= trough-trough, in Fig.89 right upper ) affect and destroy e4-electron (or e1-electron ) wave (= destructive interference ) from two different directions.
Because neither e1' nor e3 opposite phase wave is perpendicular to e4 orbit (= it's impossible for e4 orbit to cross two different-directional opposite-phase orbits perpendicularly at the same time ).
→ e4 electron is excluded by e1' and e3 opposite-phase de Broglie waves from two different directions by destructive interference.
In Fig.89-lower (= which configuration is prohibited also by Coulomb repulsion among unsymmetrical distribution of more than eight electrons ), e4-electron is excluded from e1'-opposite wave phase by two de Broglie wave destructive interferece, because this e4-electron orbit is perpendicular only to e3 opposite wave phase, and Not perpendicular to the excessive e1' opposite wave phase (= real Pauli repulsion ).
↑ In this case, e1' and e3 same electron phases overlap each other.
This destructive interference of de Broglie waves determines the maximum number of valence electrons in different de Broglie wavelength orbits.
And, this is a realistic physical mechanism of Pauli exclusion principle.
(Fig.89') If Neon (= 4 orbits with 2 × de Broglie wavelength ) contains more than 8 electrons, electron (= e1 ) is kicked out by destructive interference with excessive electrons' de Broglie waves's opposite phases = real Pauli repulsion.
As I said, Neon with 8 valence electrons contains 4 orbits with 2 × de Broglie wavelength, each of which orbit contains two electrons (= Neon 8 electrons = 2 × 4 orbits ).
According to the real Pauli repulsion, when excessive electrons are added to the original 8 electrons of Neon's orbits, it causes destructive interference among the de Broglie waves of the original electrons and the added excessive electrons's opposite wave phases.
As a result, in the upper figure, the original electron-1 (= e1 ) is excluded by the added excessive electrons e1' and e3' de Broglie wave's opposite phases (= jagged waves ) = These de Broglie waves are Not perpendicular to each other, hence, cannot avoid destructive interference.
This is real Pauli repulsion, unlike the unrealistic quantum mechanical Pauli exchange energies lacking real (exchange) forces.
(Fig.90) Two perpendicular de Broglie wave orbits in H2
Helium has two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits which cross each other perpendicularly to avoid destructive interference.
In the same way, hydrogen molecule (= H2 ) also contains two 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbits which cross each other perpendicularly, as shown in Fig.90.
We can explain Pauli exclusion principle which prevents three hydrogen atoms from forming imaginary H3 molecule (= joining three hydrogens together ) using realistic mechanism based on repulsive force and force carrier (= medium ).
If the 3rd hydrogen atomic orbit approaches H2 molecule, this 3rd H orbit interferes destructively with the parallel opposite phase of one of two hydrogen orbits in H2 molecule, as seen in Fig.90 lower.
Because it's impossible for an electron to cross more-than-one other electrons' opposite de Broglie wave phases (= more-than-one different directions ) perpendicularly at the same time.
This is a realistic mechanism of Pauli repulsive force in molecules which cannot bind to more external electrons than the maximum number of electrons determined by de Broglie wavelength.
In multi-electron atoms such as Neon with 8 valence electrons, multiple electrons' pairs of de Broglie wave crest and trough phases crossing and canceling each other (= crest and trough opposite wave phases crossing each other become neutral seen from other electrons ) generate the harmless neutral phase in the symmetrically middle directions where other electrons' orbits pass safely avoiding destructive interference.
Unlike the multi-electron atoms with longer orbits of multiple electrons' pairs canceling each other, in the shorter one-electron hydrogen atomic 1 × de Broglie wavelength orbit (= with no holes ), the 3rd hydrogen atomic orbit (= right side ) crossing the 2nd-middle small hydrogen atomic orbit perpendicularly cannot avoid being parallel to the 1st hydrogen atomic opposite de Broglie phase (= left side ) causing destructive interference, which realistic Pauli principle mechanism can perfectly explain why unreal H3 molecule is impossible.
Realistic Pauli exclusion principle of all other atoms such as oxygen atoms of C=O bonds can also be explained by this realistic atomic model without fatal paradoxes of quantum mechanical molecular orbitals.
This realistic atomic model based on actually moving electrons can perfecty explain the single (= C-C ethane ), double (= C=C ethylene ) and triple (= acetylene, HCCH ) molecular bonds.
Quantum mechanical molecular orbital theory cannot explain the carbon monoxide (= CO ), making a paradoxical claim that a carbon atom absorbs a oxygen's two electrons and becomes a unrealistic carbon negative ion (= C- !?, this last ), despite the oxygen's stronger electronegativity.
Unlike the paradoxical quantum mechanical CO molecule, the realistic moving electron model can easily explain the carbon monoxide electrons' structure without any contradiction.
Quantum mechanics tries to explain Pauli exclusion principle as unphysical exchange interaction (= unrealistically indistinguishable electrons ), even this fake exchange interaction cannot generate strong repulsion enough to prevent the 3rd electron from binding to H2 molecule, so quantum mechanical nonphysical exchange interaction allows unrealistic H3 molecule. ← Quantum mechanical Pauli repulsive mechanism is false.
↑ According to contradictory quantum mechanical Pauli principle's exchange energy rule, when two neighboring hydrogen atoms have the opposite spins (= one atom has up spin, and the other atom has down spin ), these two hydrogen atoms can bind to each other and form H2 molecule.
In the case of three hydrogen atoms aligned side by side (= H-atom-1 with up spin + H-atom-2 with down spin + H-atom-3 with up spin ), any two neighboring hydrogen atoms have the opposite spins to each other (= symmetric bonding ), hence unreal H3 molecule is possible in quantum mechanical spin exchange rule.
Quantum mechanical Schrödinger equations are completely useless, unsolvable and unable to obtain exact molecular orbitals or wavefunctions ( this p.2, this p.6 ).
Such a useless quantum mechanics can only artificially choose fake solutions called trial functions or basis sets ( this p.27, this p.2-3 ), adjusting many free parameters to fit experimental results (= without predicting experimental values ) by variational approximate methods ( this p.36-37 ), which is extremely time-consuming and impractical ( this Approach, this p.8-left ) with No power to predict any molecular bonds.
One of the most serious problem is the quantum mechanical atoms and molecules with more than two electrons can Not be expressed by the quantum mechanical wavefunctions either in the conventional valence bond method or molecular orbital theory, which forced physicists to give up the multi-electron quantum mechanical models and reluctantly adopt the unphysical one-pseudo-electron DFT as the only choice.
So physicists have relied mainly on empirically-obtained energies or adjusted parameters instead of deriving them from the useless quantum mechanical theory in various molecular bonds, as seen in the popular Hückel approximate method for π double bonds ( this 2.2.7, this p.12-14 ).
↑ This is the clear proof that quantum mechanics made No contribution to the actual molecular science.
The most serious problem is the unrealistic quantum mechanics can neither use real Coulomb force nor separate actually-separable atoms and electrons, so quantum mechanics is intrinsically unable to deal with any multi-electron atoms and molecules, forever, so we must find realistic practical molecular models as soon as possible.
Due to the circular motion of an electron inside an atom, the influence of de Broglie wave or Pauli repulsion is limited, Not affecting distant area, hence, the inner orbital de Broglie wave cannot affect or destroy the outer 2s electron's orbital de Broglie wave where the outer orbits keep some distance from the inner orbits (= 1 × de Broglie wavelength inner orbits do not affect or destroy the outer 2 × de Broglie wavelength orbit, because outer orbits keep some distance from the inner orbits ).
(Fig.91) Wave nature is needed for closed stable orbits ↓
Only in the simplest one-electron hydrogen atom and helium with just 2 symmetrical perpendicular orbits, each electron orbit is naturally closed even if we simply compute the orbits using just Coulomb force.
In all other complicated atoms and molecules, each electron's orbit is usually Not closed, if we consider only Coulomb force for predicting electron's motion.
As shown in two slit experiments, de Broglie wave interference has strong power enough to modify Coulomb force (= an electron is scattered by Coulomb force of slit wall atoms, but the direction in which an electron is scattered is changed by de Broglie wave interference causing fringe. ).
Electron's de Broglie wave tries to avoid destructive interference and synchronize in phase with each other.
Due to constructive interference of de Broglie wave, the electron's orbit is naturally closed (= both ends with the same phase tend to automatically fit and bind to each other for avoiding destructive interference by the pressure balance mechanism where the opposite de Broglie wave phases with low and high density area tend to attract and connect with each other naturally ).
This realistic de Broglie wave interference effect modifying Coulomb force a little needs to be determined by actual experiments. = We should move forward with new experiments by treating electrons, de Broglie waves and Pauli repulsion as real physical objects which realistic atomic model-based scientific progress and experiments are miserably forbidden in the present unrealistic quantum mechanics due to "unrealistic exchange interaction" lacking real physical forces. → Our science stops progressing now.
↑ The current unrealistic quantum mechanics never even admits de Broglie wave as real waves or useful tool, and the concept of real force is Not available (= instead, nonphysical exchange energy prevails ) in impractical quantum mechanics.
(Fig.92) ↓ This realistic H2 molecule proves to be true by computation.
Except for the simplest one-electron hydrogen atom and the helium with two symmetrical (perpendicular) orbits around the same single nucleus, all other aromic and molecular orbits with different multiple nulei or multiple electrons are unable to have the closed orbits (= it's hard for two ends of an orbit to just meet each other on the same point under the complicated multi-electron or multi-nuclear Coulomb forces ), if we simply calculate only Coulomb force.
We need to consider other forces such as de Broglie wave constructive and destructive interference (= which de Broglie wave force or influence must be determined by actual experiments, like Coulomb force relation and electric charge had to be determined by actual experiments at first, a long time ago ) to explain the closed orbits (= de Broglie wave's lower and higher pressure regiones attract each other, and form an integral multiple of de Broglie wavelength by constructive interference ) in more complicated multi-electron atoms and molecules.
So we need to use the approximate method of estimating real H2 molecular orbits using the following computing program, and prove that realistic Coulomb force and de Broglie wavelength can reasonably explain the actual hydrogen H2 molecular experimental bond energy, even without relying on the contradictory unrealistic exchange energies.
Two orbits of H2 molecule are supposed to be perpendicular to each other. Here we suppose electron-a (= or electron-1 ) moves in the orbit parallel to x-z plane, and electron-b (= or electron-2 ) moves in x-y orbit, as shown in Fig.92.
Sample JAVA program to compute H2 molecule (= two perpendicular orbits ).
When you run this program, you need to input the initial x-coordinate of electron-a (= ea ) and electron-b (= eb = distance between nucleus-b and electron-b ) in the unit of MM ( 1MM = 10-14 meter ).
Then, you are asked to input the absolute value of the binding energy of H2 molecule (= experimental value of H2 binding energy is 4.746 eV, this p.2 ).
Lastly, you are asked to input the distance between two nuclei of H2 molecule (= experimental value of H2 internuclear distance is 0.7414 Å ).
From these 4 input values, this program calculates two electrons' motions and orbits based on Coulomb electric force (= calculate Coulomb force and de Broglie wavelebgth, change the electrons' positions and velocities at short time intervals, until an electron moves a half orbit ), and outputs de Broglie wavelength (= a value closer to "1" × de Broglie wavelength is better ) in one orbit, final coordinates of two electrons, and average forces acting on two nuclei (= for H2 nuclei to keep staying in the same positions, average forces acting on nuclei need to be close to zero ).
As I said, each H2 molecular orbit cannot be closed, only if we simply calculate it.
So we approximately suppose these two electrons experience the same average Coulomb force (= summing Coulomb force acting on two electrons and divide it by 2 at each electron's position at short-time intervals ), and two electrons have approxiamtely the same average velocity in two (perpendicular) symmetrical orbits.
↑ So this approximate method tends to give the lower binding energy (= higher H2 total energy ) than the actual H2 binding energy without approximation, but can give a pretty good result close to reality.
For example, we input the initial electron-a x-coordinate = ea (= "3370" MM = 0.3371 Å, here this unit is used, so input "3370" ), the initial electron-b's x-coordinate eb (= "4938.5" MM ), binding energy (= "4.746" eV = experimental value ) and distance between two nuclei (= "7414" MM = experimental value ).
In this case, the calculation results show one orbit of each H2 orbits is 0.98488 × de Broglie wavelength, which is almost an integer = "1" × de Broglie wavelength orbit, so this good result proves the realistic H2 molecule model with two perpendicular orbits is right (= as I said, this "approximate" method tends to give lower bond energy, so this de Broglie wavelength result tends to be slightly smaller than 1.00, which is a reasonable result ).
And in this case, average forces acting on nucleus-a is -0.000082 ( here, the force between electron and proton separated by Bohr radius is supposed to be "1" ) which is almost 0, meaning nucleus-a of this H2 molecule is almost stationary and stable at the same position surrounded by these H2 realistic electrons' orbits.
In the same way, the force acting on nucleus-b is also almost 0 (= -0.000128, The sign = "plus+" force is in the direction of the other nucleus ), meaning nucleus-b is also stationary and stable at the same position in this realistic H2 molecule.
So this realistic hydrogen molecule model with two perpendicular orbits of almost 1 × de Broglie wavelength just agrees with experimental values of H2 binding energy (= 4.746 eV ) and internuclear distance (= 0.7414 Å ).
Here we calculate another case when two orbits of H2 molecule is on the same plane instead of perpendicular to each other.
↑ When two electrons are on the same plane (= neglecting de Broglie wave destructive interference causing realistic Pauli repulsion ), two electrons can avoid each other more, lower the total energy, and its H2 bond energy becomes bigger than two perpendicular orbits.
Sample JAVA program to compute H2 molecule (= two orbits on the same plane ).
After running this program (= compile it with the file name of "hhmol.java" ), when we input the initial electron-1's x-coordinate ea = 3250 MM (= 3250 × 10-14 meter ), the initial electron-2's x-coordinate eb = 5570 MM, H2 bond energy = 4.746 eV (= experimental valeu), and the H2 internuclear length (= 7414 MM = experimental value ).
The result shows the one orbit is 1.001982, which is slightly bigger than the integer = 1.00 de Broglie wavelength (= when average forces acting on two nuclei become almost zero = stable nuclei ).
↑ This result shows when we consider two H2 orbits on the same plane, its total energy becomes slightly lower and its bond energy becomes bigger then the experimental values (= if we try to choose the case giving an integer 1 de Brolgie wavelength instead of 1.001982, its bond energy is bigger than the experimental value of 4.746 eV ).
This means the actual H2 molecular two orbits are perpendicular to each other by the realistic Pauli principle based on de Broglie wave interference instead of two orbits on the same plane.
Here we use the rough approximation supposing two electrons of H2 molecule always have the same velocity and experience the same Coulomb force (= average of two electrons ), so the upper 0.98488 de Broglie wavelength of two approximate perpendicular orbits become closer to an integer "1" with non-approximate method (= as I said, this truly non-approximate method needs to consider de Broglie wave interference's effect, which must be determined by experiments, in order to give closed orbits ).
These calculation results show that the realistic Coulomb attractive energies are strong enough to give the experimental values of H2 molecular bond energy (= unrealistic quantum mechanical exchange energy is unneeded ), and the actual H2 molecule orbits are perpendicular to each other (= proving the realistic Pauli principle ) instead of two electron orbits existing on the same place.
(Fig.93) ↓ Quantum mechanics uses unreal quasi-particle without force.
Atomic physics stops progressing in quantum mechanics and molecular dynamics.
We havet to give concrete shape to each atom like macroscopic objects to utilize atoms for technological innovation.
♦ Valence electrons
♦ Bohr's Neon,
Carbon bonds,
Four-fundamental forces.
♦ de Broglie waves determine all atomic structures.
♦ Truth of electromagnetic waves.
♦ others atomic size.
Japanese version
2020/ 12/17 updated. Feel free to link to this site.
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
