Top
Quantum chemistry failed.
BCS,
Condensed matter,
Spin Hall effect.
Quantum computer is very impractical.
SUSY is a waste of time and money. (14/ 5/1)
Nobel Prize should NOT stop science. (14/ 9/17)
(Fig.1) Bohr's quantum atom in journal Nature.
Last week, we see very interesting topic about Bohr model in journal Nature and its specials.
( Nature, Volume 498 Number 7452 6 June 2013 )
This year "2013" is just 100 years after Bohr model was born in 1913.
Nature celebrates Bohr model's 100 years, and makes an important comment,
" The familiar Solar-System-like structure was based on sound foundations and has served theorists and experiments well down the years."
I imagine it was very diffucult to express direct praise for Bohr's realistic atom in Nature's position.
Though they were choosing words very carefully, I feel Nature's real thoughts ( they want to develop science ) from the fact that many pages are used to deal with Bohr model.
(Fig.2) "Unrealistic" quantum mechanics blocks all developments of science.
Journal Nature is dealing with various fields such as molecular biology, physics, and chemistry.
I imagine, if some specialists in molecular biology see some textbooks about "mathematical" ( NOT physical ) quantum field theory and unrealistic quantum world, they would surely be disappointed and shocked at the wide discrepancy between reality and their theories.
But even if they try to criticize their unrealistic theories such as many-worlds, 10-dimensional string theory, and faster-than-light entanglement, they don't have knowledge enough to talk them down.
So I spent much time and made these webpages to get busy ordinary people, new students and specialists in other fields to know various complicated fields, and be able to discuss as equals.
This is one of main purposes of my websites.
(Fig.3) "Direct" damage = they continue teaching "wrong" and imaginary science even now.
Due to fatal paradoxes of special relavity, rejection of all relativistic theories such as QED, general relativity, standard model and string theory is just a matter of time.
The problem is that they continue teaching these imaginary fields to new students and spreading actual damage (= "direct" damage ) even now.
The important point is that they are hiding these "true" paradoxes and wrong mathematics such as QED and spin-orbit interaction.
( Actually, I myself didn't notice these "true" paradoxes of relativity for more than four years, even though I doubted relativity from the beginning. )
And standard model also relies on virtual particles violating relativity and imaginary quarks.
( Fractional charge cannot be isolated. "Quasiparticles" in condensed matter is not a real particle. )
And of course, string theory also depends on wrong math such as zeta function ( Fig.3 red line ).
( Personally, I myself have never thought these "mathematical" theories are beautiful. )
(Fig.4) "Give up asking" quantum mechanics is causing "infinite" damage in all fields.
Due to unrealistic spin and wavefunction, quantum mechanis ( and chemistry ) cannot ask what the wavefunctions ( and spin ) really are, even though about 100 years have passed since quantum mechanics was born.
As a result, we cannot escape from mathematical spell of Schrodinger equation, and cannot try much easier ways, when we think about various molecular interactions in actual medicine and industry.
So in the present molecular biology and medicine, all they can do is to apply various medical herbs or something to animals or humans in ( clinical ) experiments.
The problem is these experiments take much time, and wasting their talents.
( And we cannot know concrete molecular mechanisms, even though various side effects happen. )
(Fig.5) Choosing proper basis set for each atom is important.
It is said that "ab-initio" methods are one of most successful theories.
But in the actual calculation, its methods is too compilicated to be applied to various fields.
Furthermore, they just choose proper basis sets artificially in advance to match actual data.
For example, in 6-31G, they choose different sized pair of 1s, 2s, and 2p.
( Hydrogen -- 1s, 1s', and carbon -- 2s, 2s', 2p, 2p' ).
These sizes are determined artificially to manipulate scaling factor in advance to fit the results.
And if they cannot get good results, they added other-typed polarized and diffuse functions to them.
In this way, they just choose some proper basis functions, which match the experimental results.
Of course, these basis functions are based on hydrogen energy levels, which completely agrees with Bohr-Sommerfeld hydrogen.
(Fig.6) Is this useful ?
Even in (MR)CI (= configuration interaction ) , we cannot get correct binding energy.
They combine MP and CC methods to them.
But these ab initio methods such as MP and CC can give wrong ground state energy, which is lower than experimental results.
So "ab initio" is just to utilize basic hydrogen atom's energy states.
Due to Virial theorm, the lower limit of these basis set is determined by an integer times de Broglie wavelength like Bohr model. ( See this page. )
Most important difference is they are many-worlds, and Bohr model is not.
They exaggerate it (= "ab initio" ) too much, I think.
( See this page and this page. )
(Fig.7) Bohr's accelerating electron really radiates ? = " Brainwashing ".
You may often see the explanation such as " Bohr's classical orbit is wrong, because its accelerating electron radiates and loses energy. "
But unfortunately, this explanation is completely wrong.
It uses Poynting vector (= E × H ) as the energy flow.
This Poynting vector is equal to the change of the electric and magnetic energies in the vacuum.
This electric energy in the vacuum (= 1/2εE2 ) means the potential energies needed to gather minus (or plus) small charges to the sphere (= Fig.7 left-below ).
But a single electron is NOT made from smaller charges. ( A single electron is the smallest charge. )
It means the vacuum electric energy in a single electron is NOT energy, and Poynting vector itself is meaningless in this case. See also this page.
So this wrong explanation is a kind of brainwashing about Bohr model, I think.
(Fig.8) "Artificial" trick in QED.
It is said that QED is one of most successful theories in the physical world, and has passed most precise test.
But as shown on this page, QED uses "atrifical" wrong math to get correct values.
So these fascinating words repeatedly used in various textbooks and (web)news are one of "brainwashing".
Fig.8 is the fundamental mistake in calculation in QED g factor (= anomalous magnetic moment )
In Fig.8 upper, the integral of odd function "k" becomes zero.
( The interval of integration is from -∞ to +∞ to satisfy Lorentz invariant. )
After the change of variables ( k = l - β ), The part of " l " becomes zero due to odd function.
As a result, only "-β" is left, which includes the information of g-factor.
This math is indispensable for getting g-factor in QED.
Of course, the math of Fig.8 is wrong, because the "change of variable" cannot change the result itself !
(Fig.9) Right math.
If we use a right mathematical method, the part of "-β" becomes zero, too.
Because after the integral, " l2 " term diverges much faster than " βl " term.
As a result, only " l2 " term is left, and becomes zero.
( It is quite natural that "change of variable" is just a "method", and cannot change the result itself ! )
So QED mathematical method of Fig.8 violates basic math.
(Fig.10) Fractional charge quarks and black holes were "actually" found ?
You may often hear the news such as "quarks and black holes were "really" found."
Again these expressions are exaggerations.
Because quarks with fractional charge ( and gluons ) can NEVER be isolated.
And black hole, which absorbs everything, cannot be directly observed, we only estimate their existence indirectly from x rays around them.
We should face true paradoxes and "reality" instead of "holographic universe" and black hole information "paradox".
(Fig.11) "Name" is changed ?
It is often said that classical mechanics doesn't apply in the micro world.
But when they insist these things, the meaning of "classical world" is very narrow.
For example, we prove Schrodinger equation also satisfies an integer times de Broglie wavelength like Bohr-Sommerfeld model as shown on this page.
The problem is that quantum mechanics changes the name of de Broglie waves to problematic uncertainty principle.
Due to this very vague concept of uncertainty principle, development of science is blocked now.
Actually, in various real fields such as molecular biology and industry, quantum wavefunctions are NOT used.
And quantum tunnel is caused by de Broglie wave, so they should consider Bohr model and real de Broglie wave, too, when they use the word of "classical" world, I think.
(Fig.12) "1s" wavefunctions disappear by destructive interference ?
Schrodinger's hydrogen is always spreading into infinity.
So to get finite value by normalization, radial wavefunctions must always include "wave".
As a result, in the n=1 energy level, unrealistic "1s" wavefunction with NO angular momentum always exists in the quantum mechanical hydrogen.
But as you feel, this 1s wavefunction contradicts Davisson-Germer experiment.
Because if an electron is oscillating in one-dimensional line, its wavefunction disappears due to destructive interference.
Furthermore, if two electrons of helium often collide with nucleus (= no angular momentum ), it becomes very unstable and chaotic helium atom.
(Fig.13) Bell inequality violation is impossible in this real world.
You may often hear that Bell inequality violation denied hidden variable proposed by Einstein.
The trick of these entanglement experiments is illusory concept of photon particle.
If we consider photon as classical electromagntic waves, we can explain these faster-than-light spooky link in local and realistic ways.
( See this page ).
As shown on this page, Einstein is exploited too much by string theorists, entanglement experimentalists and various media, against his will, I think.
My website uses intemperate languages so often that some people would get angry and uncomfortable about my websites.
But for one small private website to overcome various mind-controls repeated by infinite textbooks and (web)news, conspicuous expressions and characters are indispensable, I think. Sorry.
(Fig.14) Two "Shut up and calculate !" obstruct development of science.
There are infinite academic papers about spintronics and quantum chemistry.
But we cannot know what the spin and wavefunction "really" are, even now.
As shown on this page, the moment we try to ask what spin really is, we find that we must return as far as to Bohr's orbit.
( Actually "Bohr magneton" is used in electron spin even now ).
The same thing can be said about the interpretation of wavefunction collapse.
All interpretations such as many-worlds (= fantasy ) and pilot wave theory (= not using Coulomb force ) have fatal defects.
So all they can do is to give up asking (= Shut up and calculate ! ), which obstructs the development of science.
As you notice, if you try to start asking what the quantum mechanical world really is, we have to go back as far as to Bohr model 100 years ago.
[ Weinberg's book. ]
Steven Weinberg makes a very important comment in his new book.
------------------------------------
My own conclusion is that today there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws, and that we ought to take seriously the possibility of finding some more satisfactory other theory, to which quantum mechanics is merely a good approximation.
-------------------------------------
As you know, if quantum mechanics is only an approximation with serious flaws, there is ONLY one theory left, which can explain hydrogen spectrum.
(Fig.14') Einstein agreed with Bohr model, and disagreed with quantum mechanics !
It is famous that Einstein NEVER agreed with strange quantum mechanics, so he was neglected by physical society in his later life.
On the other hand, ordinary people don't know well about the fact that Einstein fully agreed with Bohr model ( and de Broglie theory ).
After knowing Bohr model can explain hydrogen spectrum results, Einstein said,
"This is an enormous achievement. The theory of Bohr must be right." ( Bohr's vision, ScienceNews, 7/13, 2013 )
So Einstein and Bohr were good friends before "EPR" paradox.
Personally, I think Sommerfeld model in 1916 should be more appreciated, because this theory is a key player to show quantum mechanics is wrong.
And we should return to realistic views and experiments by Newton, Maxwell, and Millikan again, and reconsider all of the present strange quantum mechanics and quantum field theory.
(Fig.15) "Where" is the energy emitted ?
In the section of Bohr's extreme atom in Nature, they referred to "antimatter atom".
As they pointed out, there are many unknown things left about antimatter, though about 70 years have passed.
As shown on this page, antiparticle was predicted by Dirac equation.
And the mass energy of mc2 means special relativity is right, they insist.
But as shown on this page, there is fatal contradiction between beta plus decay and electron capture about the place where the energy is emitted.
( One of energy is "teleported" into an electron somewhere else in beta plus decay. This is strange. )
So both these two concepts cannot coexist.
(Fig.16) Positive potential energy (= mc2 ) means very unstable electron !
As you know, an electron is one of most stable elementary particles.
But if a single electron's energy is positive like mc2, the electron is very unstable and easily broken.
Because it is natural that stable state means its potential energy is negative.
Even if this big mass positive energy is stored inside an electron, the more negative energy is needed to keep this electron from releasing stored mass energy as a "stopper".
As a result, total energy of stable electron needs to be negative !.
So the big positive potential energy of mc2 is very unnatural.
(Fig.17) Positron or electron ( or "hole" ) ??
When a few antimatter such as positrons are generated, a lot of electrons, protons and other ions are generated, too.
In the cloud chamber, we see the ions with which some particles collide.
So a part of infinite electrons or protons are easily mistaken for a very small number of positrons.
Under the plate, infinte low energy electrons are flying, and in upper part of the plate, infinite high energy electrons are flying, too.
So "accidentally" two electrons' pictures may overlap.
Or the electron is just bent by some collisions.
And in case of protons and positrons with high speed in the accelerator, they cannot distinguish them so easily.
They insist secondary generated particle's showers are different between them.
But as you feel, there are inifinite electrons around positive protons.
So it is possible that these electrons accompanying them may cause the same pattern as "imaginary" positrons.
And a positron has positive charge, so tends to attract valence electrons like protons, NOT like an electron.
Anyway, due to fatal paradox of special relativity, we need to stop "Shut up and caluclate !", and revise the concepts of antimatter now.
(Fig.18) Why quantum mechanics cannot be used in various protein interaction ?
As I said, solving multi-electron wavefunction ( Schrodinger equation ) is too difficult to be applied to computing protein interactions.
To compute macro molecule using Schrodinger equation, we have to choose "artificially" some finite basis set.
Of course, small basis set cannot get correct energy state, and various different errors happen in each different basis set.
Bond energies such as hydrogen bonds and van der Waals force, which determine actual protein interaction, are less than one-tenth of covalent bond.
For example, total ionization energies of single oxygen ( 1-6th ) is 433.11 eV, which is much bigger than covalent bond (= about 3.0 eV ) and hydrogen bond (= about 0.1 eV ).
So total errors of the whole protein due to different choice of basis set is much bigger than these small bond energies.
Density functional theory (= DFT ) is NOT "ab-initio", and it depends on rough approximation such as "LDA", which cannot deal with various protein interactions.
We need to depend on other realistic concepts such as classical Coulomb force acting on each valence electron and nuclei, giving up mathematical quantum wavefunctions.
(Fig.19) Comparison of forces acting on C electron.
As Nature pointed out, we don't know various important things such as "how big each atom is" and "the true meaning of each molecular bond length".
Actually, very vague concept of electron pair (= spin up and down ) is completely useless.
( First, magnetic moment of electron spin is too weak to determine various bond property ! )
As shown on this page or this page, we can easily explain these true nature including steric hindrance vs. covalent bonds using classical orbits (+ de Broglie wave ).
(Fig.20) True nature of electric and magnetic field ?
According to the mathematical QED, the electromagnetic fields are caused by unrealistic virtual photons.
Surprisingly, these virtual photons are faster-than-light tachyons.
( This is the reason why they are called " virtual". )
If we give up unrealistic quantum field theory, we can start to investigate true natures of electromagnetic fields, de Broglie waves, charges and gravity, and make them useful for our daily living.
( So we should aim at "true" nature of magnetism instead of "quantum" nature of magnetism. )
-------------------------------------------
I appreciate Nature's will included in these articles and specials about Bohr model.
They seem to choose words very carefully, not to stimulate various physicists.
I understand it is very difficult for Nature to change its position so quickly.
So we may criticize the papers dealing with unreality such as "multiverse", "faster-than-light" entanglement ( swapping ), "Shut up and calculate !" spin, and general relativity.
Sorry in those cases.
2013/6/18 updated. Feel free to link to this site.