Quantum mechanics (QM) and quantum electrodynamics (QED) are often touted as the most successful theories ever. In this paper, this claim is critically evaluated by a test of internal consistency for the ability to calculate the conjugate observables of the nature of the free electron, ionization energy, elastic electron scattering, and the excited states of the helium atom using the same solution for each of the separate experimental measurements. It is found that in some cases quantum gives good numbers, but the solutions are meaningless numbers since each has no relationship to providing an accurate physical model. Rather, the goal is to mathematically reproduce an experimental or prior theoretical number using adjustable parameters including arbitrary wave functions in computer algorithms with precision that is often much greater (e.g. 8 significant figures greater) than possible based on the propagation of errors in the measured fundamental constants implicit in the physical problem. Given the constraints of adherence to physical laws and internal consistency, an extensive literature search indicates that quantum mechanics has never solved a single physical problem correctly including the hydrogen atom and the next member of the periodic chart, the helium atom. Rather than using postulated unverifiable theories that treat atomic particles as if they were not real, physical laws are now applied to the same problem. In an attempt to provide some physical insight into atomic problems and starting with the same essential physics as Bohr of − e moving in the Coulombic field of the proton and the wave equation as modified after Schrodinger, a classical approach is explored which yields a model which is remarkably accurate and provides insight into physics on the atomic level. The proverbial view deeply seated in the wave-particle duality notion that there is no large-scale physical counterpart to the nature of the electron is shown not to be correct. Physical laws and intuition may be restored when dealing with the wave equation and quantum atomic problems. Specifically, a theory of classical quantum mechanics (CQM) was derived from first principles as reported previously [1-7] that successfully applied physical laws to the solution of atomic problems that has its basis in a breakthrough in the understanding of the stability of the bound electron to radiation. Rather than using the postulated Schrodinger boundary condition: “ 0 Ψ→ as →∞ r ,” which leads to a purely mathematical model of the electron, the constraint is based on experimental observation. Using Maxwell’s equations, the classical wave equation is solved with the constraint that the bound 1 = n -state electron cannot radiate energy. Although it is well known that an accelerated point particle radiates, an extended distribution, modeled as a superposition of accelerating charges, does not have to radiate. A simple invariant physical model arises naturally wherein the predicted results are extremely straightforward and internally consistent requiring minimal math as in the case of the most famous equations of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, de Broglie, and Planck on which the model is based. No new physics is needed; only the known physical laws based on direct observation are used. The accurate solution of the helium atom is confirmed by the agreement of predicted and observed conjugate parameters using the same unique physical model in all cases.
Quantum mechanics (QM) and quantum electrodynamics (QED) are often touted as the most successful theories ever. In this paper, this claim is critically evaluated by a test of internal consistency for the ability to calculate the conjugate observables of the nature of the free electron, ionization energy, elastic electron scattering, and the excited states of the helium atom using the same solution for each of the separate experimental measurements. It is found that in some cases quantum gives good numbers, but the solutions are meaningless numbers since each has no relationship to providing an accurate physical model. Rather, the goal is to mathematically reproduce an experimental or prior theoretical number using adjustable parameters including arbitrary wave functions in computer algorithms with precision that is often much greater (e.g. 8 significant figures greater) than possible based on the propagation of errors in the measured fundamental constants implicit in the physical problem. Given the constraints of adherence to physical laws and internal consistency, an extensive literature search indicates that quantum mechanics has never solved a single physical problem correctly including the hydrogen atom and the next member of the periodic chart, the helium atom. Rather than using postulated unverifiable theories that treat atomic particles as if they were not real, physical laws are now applied to the same problem. In an attempt to provide some physical insight into atomic problems and starting with the same essential physics as Bohr of − e moving in the Coulombic field of the proton and the wave equation as modified after Schrodinger, a classical approach is explored which yields a model which is remarkably accurate and provides insight into physics on the atomic level. The proverbial view deeply seated in the wave-particle duality notion that there is no large-scale physical counterpart to the nature of the electron is shown not to be correct. Physical laws and intuition may be restored when dealing with the wave equation and quantum atomic problems. Specifically, a theory of classical quantum mechanics (CQM) was derived from first principles as reported previously [1-7] that successfully applied physical laws to the solution of atomic problems that has its basis in a breakthrough in the understanding of the stability of the bound electron to radiation. Rather than using the postulated Schrodinger boundary condition: “ 0 Ψ→ as →∞ r ,” which leads to a purely mathematical model of the electron, the constraint is based on experimental observation. Using Maxwell’s equations, the classical wave equation is solved with the constraint that the bound 1 = n -state electron cannot radiate energy. Although it is well known that an accelerated point particle radiates, an extended distribution, modeled as a superposition of accelerating charges, does not have to radiate. A simple invariant physical model arises naturally wherein the predicted results are extremely straightforward and internally consistent requiring minimal math as in the case of the most famous equations of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, de Broglie, and Planck on which the model is based. No new physics is needed; only the known physical laws based on direct observation are used. The accurate solution of the helium atom is confirmed by the agreement of predicted and observed conjugate parameters using the same unique physical model in all cases.
Despite its successes, quantum mechanics (QM) has remained mysterious to all who have encountered it. Starting with Bohr and progressing into the present, the departure from intuitive, physical reality has widened. The connection between QM and reality is more than just a “philosophical” issue. It reveals that QM is not a correct or complete theory of the physical world and that inescapable internal inconsistencies and incongruities arise when attempts are made to treat it as physical as opposed to a purely mathematical “tool.” Some of these issues are discussed in a review by F. Laloe [Am. J. Phys. 69, 655 (2001)]. In an attempt to provide some physical insight into atomic problems and starting with the same essential physics as Bohr of e moving in the Coulombic field of the proton and the wave equation as modified by Schrodinger, a classical approach is explored that yields a remarkably accurate model and provides insight into physics on the atomic level. The proverbial view, deeply seated in the wave-particle duality notion, that there is no large-scale physical counterpart to the nature of the electron may not be correct. Physical laws and intuition may be restored when dealing with the wave equation and quantummechanical problems. Specifically, a theory of classical quantum mechanics (CQM) is derived from first principles that successfully applies physical laws on all scales. Rather than using the postulated Schrodinger boundary condition “Ψ → 0 as r → ∞,” which leads to a purely mathematical model of the electron, the constraint is based on experimental observation. Using Maxwell’s equations, the classical wave equation is solved with the constraint that the bound (n = 1)state electron cannot radiate energy. By further application of Maxwell’s equations to electromagnetic and gravitational fields at particle production, the Schwarzschild metric is derived from the classical wave equation, which modifies general relativity to include conservation of spacetime in addition to momentum and matter/energy. The result gives a natural relationship among Maxwell’s equations, special relativity, and general relativity. CQM holds over a scale of spacetime of 85 orders of magnitude — it correctly predicts the nature of the universe from the scale of the quarks to that of the cosmos. A review is given by G. Landvogt [Internat. J. Hydrogen Energy 28, 1155 (2003)].
INTRODUCTION A theory of classical quantum mechanics (CQM), derived from frst principles, successfully applies physical laws on all scales. The classical wave equation is solved with the constraint that a bound electron cannot radiate energy. The mathematical formulation for zero radiation based on Maxwell's equations follows from a derivation by Haus. 2 The function that describes the motion of the electron must not possess spacetime Fourier components that are synchronous with waves traveling at the speed of light. CQM gives closed form solutions for the atom, including the stability of the n=l state and the instability of the excited states, the equation of the photon and electron in excited states, the equation of the free electron, and photon which predict the wave particle duality behavior of particles and light. The current and charge density functions of the electron may be directly physically interpreted. For example, spin angular momentum results from the motion of negative
Chapter 4 deals with Quantum Mechanical (QM) phenomena. The first section describes the first attempts at quantization of energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc. We start with Plank's solution to the black-body problem, introducing the concept of photons: discrete packets of electromagnetic energy. We show how Plank's description of black-body radiation is perfectly fit by the cosmic microwave radiation, providing the strongest evidence for the Big-Bang at the origin of the Universe. We then describe Bohr's solution to the paradoxical stability of atoms, introducing quantization of angular momentum (or action) and correctly predicting the energy levels of the hydrogen atom. We show how Einstein used Plank's idea to explain the photo-electric effect (an effect exploited in CCD cameras and solar cells) and how he used Bohr's understanding of energy levels in atoms to provide an intuitive explanation of Plank's law. Einstein insight opened the way to the field of spectroscopy and the development of the laser. In the second section, following the lead of Dirac, we show that QM is equivalent to Linear Algebra in the space of complex functions (which describe the state of the system). We show that Schrödinger's equation is a natural consequence of that description, once the relation between energy and frequency established by Plank (for photons) and de Broglie (for particles) is taken into account. In the context of the chiral ammonia molecule we discuss the queerness of QM which describes physical systems as superposition of states (such as left and right chirality state of a molecule, dead and alive cat). We show that this queerness is nonetheless supported by experiments and is behind much of our technology: masers and lasers, atomic clocks, semiconductors (diodes, transistors, etc.). In the following section we introduce the representation of operators in QM (the equivalent of matrices in linear algebra): momentum, position, energy, etc. which correspond to measurements on the system. We show that the non-commutability of some operators (common with matrix operations) leads to Heisenberg uncertainty principle: the position and momentum of a particle cannot be determined with absolute precision. We discuss the solution of Schrödinger's equation for free particles demonstrating their equivalence with EM phenomena: particles undergo refraction and diffraction, exemplifying the particle/wave duality inherent to QM systems. We discuss QM tunneling and its use in the Scanning Tunneling Microscope. In the following section we study Dirac's equation: the successful attempt by Dirac to unify QM with Einstein's relativity, with the resulting prediction of anti-particles and spin. We then solve for the energy levels of electrons in the hydrogen atom (from Schrödinger's equation) and show that the existence of spin profoundly affects the behavior of electrons in an atom: they cannot share the same energy level, a rule known as Pauli's exclusion principle. Pauli's principle is central to the understanding of the chemical properties of atoms and fully explains Mendeleev's periodic table of the elements. In the next section we discuss along with two exactly soluble systems (diatomic rotational and vibrational levels), various approximations used to study systems (e.g. molecules) for which there are no analytical solutions. In particular, we introduce Pauling's variational approach, Hückel molecular orbital theory and time independent perturbation theory. We apply those approaches to determine the energy levels in alkenes, in multi-electron atoms and in systems under constant electric or magnetic field (such as in Magnetic Resonance Imaging). In the last section we discuss time dependent perturbation theory. We use it to establish the rules allowing for transitions between energy levels and revisit Einstein description of absorption/emission phenomena.
The famous 1927 Solvay Conference was considered a turning point in the world of Physics. The scientific realists like Albert Einstein had lost and the instrumentalists like Niels Bohr had won the fundamental conflict. Since then Physics has followed the path of the instrumentalists in which Quantum Physics has been determined by the concept of Elementary Particles and Probability Waves. Until May 2013, when for the first time a photo had been made of the Probability Waves Inside the Hydrogen Atom . It should be impossible to make a photo of a non-existing complex probability wave with mass zero But the fact could not be denied anymore that scientists had succeeded to make the “complex” and the “non-existing” quantum mechanical “Probability Wave” visible. New discoveries like “Photonic Molecules” and “Photon-Photon Interaction” require a new interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation . Since the Copenhagen Interpretation there is still no clarity about the physical interpretation of the Quantum Mechanical “Probability Wave Function”This Manuscript describes a third unknown interpretation of the Quantum Mechanical “Probability Wave Function”. A fundamental physical interpretation that will change the generally accepted Copenhagen Interpretation. This Manuscript will answer the fundamental question: Does an alternative theory exist in which the existence of this particular photo, of the Quantum Mechanical Probability Wave within the Hydrogen Atom, could be explained. And that the famous photo of the Hydrogen Atom can be explained in a logical and a simple way. To find the answer, we have to go back in time. Back 300 years in time to the moment when Isaac Newton discovered the beauty and one of the many secrets of the light. The moment when science walked away from light. And we return to the fundamental question: “Is it possible to build Matter out of Light (confined electromagnetic waves)?” To answer this question if it is possible to build Matter out of Light, we first have to answer the question how we have come to this world of Probability Waves and Elementary Particles and Quantum Physics.Louis de Broglie described in 1924 in his PhD thesis the wave properties of matter. Erwin Schrödinger published in 1926 the well-known Schrödinger wave equation with the characteristic spherical and elliptical wave solutions. To describe these material waves, the immediately and first explanation was: “There is only one possibility. These are “Electromagnetic Waves”. De Broglie Waves are ” Light Waves”. Because these were the only waves, known in the world of Physics, that could travel through vacuum. But there was a fundamental problem. These material waves, discovered by Louis de Broglie and mathematically described by Erwin Schrödinger could never be solutions of the well-known 4 linear equations of James Clerk Maxwell. The material waves were spherical and elliptical solutions of confinement and that was impossible for the solutions of the linear Maxwell Equations. According to the linear Maxwell Equations, superposition is possible but Electromagnetic Interaction and Electromagnetic Confinement can only be described by a set of non-linear differential equations. To solve this fundamental problem a new set of 3 non-linear Electromagnetic Equations (Equation 5 in this manuscript) has been developed which replaces the well-known 4 linear Maxwell Equations and the possible solutions of Equation (5) are also Spherical and Elliptical solutions of confinement. Table 1 in this manuscript presents a number of Electromagnetic Spherical Confinements as solutions of Equation 5a .A second problem was that the model of the atom of Bohr could not hold. How could an electron be everywhere at the same time in a kind of a spherical shell surrounding the nucleus. And be a particle at the same time. And Bohr found a compromise to declare the “De Broglie” waves to be the probability waves. Two problems were solved. Bohr’s planetary model could hold. And there was a name for the unknown material waves, discovered by Louis de Broglie and mathematically described by Erwin Schrödinger. The theory of “Probability Waves, Elementary Particles and Quantum Physics” had been created.
Even after nine decades of successful run of the Quantum Mechanics (QM), different viewpoints on foundational problems of Quantum Physics are still being actively debated. That is because mathematical logic of QM often defies the physical intuition which constitutes the main spirit of Physics. De Broglie’s hypothesis of matter waves implied that the dynamic characteristics of a micro particle in motion, can be ascribed to the wave characteristics of the wavelet accompanying the particle. The Schrödinger equation models the matter-wave interactions through wavefunction ψ and effectively serves as the foundation of QM. Even though mathematical structure of the Schrödinger equation is sound and elegant, here we show a conceptual mistake in the development of this equation wherein the physical situation has not been correctly modeled in the equation. The Coulomb potential energy of the proton electron pair in Hydrogen atom is essentially the negative interaction energy between their superposed electrostatic fields which is inversely proportional to their instantaneous separation distance. Assuming the proton to be relatively fixed at the origin of an appropriate coordinate system, the potential energy of the orbiting electron will be a function of instantaneous position coordinates of the electron. This has not been properly modeled in the Schrödinger equation. The resulting errors in the solution have been quantitatively demonstrated in this paper. We have stressed the necessity of incorporating a specific correction in the potential energy term of the Schrödinger equation, after which it may facilitate the adoption of Bohmian QM.
In the previous chapters we have seen how solutions to the time-independent Schro¨dinger equation correspond to the allowed energy levels of a quantum system and how, in the hydrogen atom case in particular, the results of this procedure are in extremely good agreement with the results of experiment. It would be possible to extend the process to predict the energy levels of other atoms. We would find that the corresponding Schro¨dinger equations could no longer be solved exactly, but that approximations could be developed which, when combined with computational techniques, would lead to predicted energy levels that were once again in very good agreement with experiment. However, such a programme, most of which is beyond the scope of this book in any case, would be premature at this stage as we have not yet established a general procedure that will do more than predict the allowed energy levels of a particle moving in a potential and the probability that it is in the vicinity of a particular point in space. We do not yet know, for example, how to predict the momentum of an electron in a hydrogen atom; we do not even know if it has a definite value or if it can only be specified by a probability distribution, as is the case for electron position. We have as yet no way of predicting under what conditions an atom undergoes a transition from one state to another, emitting energy in the form of a quantum of electromagnetic radiation.