The atom model of Quantum Mechanics (QM) was conceived from an unsolved paradox. Indeed, Schrödinger’s equation has been deducted by considering a free electron, but it is applied for the atom, where the electron is inside a potential. In order to eliminate the nonsense, quantum theorists proposed a ridiculous postulate: they claim it makes sense to use the equation because it gives results in agreement to experimental data. The unsolved paradox evidences that Schrödinger’s equation cannot be applied to the physical conditions considered in the QM atom model, and that his equation actually requires some special conditions not considered in the theory (for instance, the electron helical trajectory, rejected by Heisenberg). The banishment of the aether has introduced several paradoxes in the development of Theoretical Physics. And because the theorists have neglected other paradox (from the mathematical probability the spectacular successes of Bohr’s hydrogen atom cannot be accidental), these two unsolved paradoxes introduced dramatic consequences in the development of Nuclear Physics.
The atom model of Quantum Mechanics (QM) was conceived from an unsolved paradox. Indeed, Schrödinger’s equation has been deducted by considering a free electron, but it is applied for the atom, where the electron is inside a potential. In order to eliminate the nonsense, quantum theorists proposed a ridiculous postulate: they claim it makes sense to use the equation because it gives results in agreement to experimental data. The unsolved paradox evidences that Schrödinger’s equation cannot be applied to the physical conditions considered in the QM atom model, and that his equation actually requires some special conditions not considered in the theory (for instance, the electron helical trajectory, rejected by Heisenberg). The banishment of the aether has introduced several paradoxes in the development of Theoretical Physics. And because the theorists have neglected other paradox (from the mathematical probability the spectacular successes of Bohr’s hydrogen atom cannot be accidental), these two unsolved paradoxes introduced dramatic consequences in the development of Nuclear Physics.
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)].
The purpose of this work is to retrace the steps that were made by scientists of XX century, like Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, for the formulation of what today represents the modern quantum mechanics and that, within two decades, put in question the classical physics. In this context, the study of the electronic structure of hydrogen atom has been the main starting point for the formulation of the theory and, till now, remains the only real case for which the quantum equation of motion can be solved exactly. The results obtained by each theory will be discussed critically, highlighting limits and potentials that allowed the further development of the quantum theory.
The Schrödinger equation is the cornerstone of quantum mechanics and is used to determine the energy levels of the hydrogen atom. However, in the teaching of Quantum Chemistry, many students tend to regard the solutions of the Schrödinger equation as purely mathematical results without fully understanding the physical origin of quantum energy levels. In this paper, an approximate model of the hydrogen atom is first developed based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the Coulomb potential. This model is then used to derive the Bohr radius and the ground-state energy by minimizing the total energy function. Subsequently, the time-independent Schrödinger equation is formulated and solved by the method of separation of variables in spherical coordinates to obtain the exact energy spectrum of the hydrogen atom. The results demonstrate that both the approximate model and the exact solution predict the same ground-state energy, E1 = −13.6 eV, while the Schrödinger equation further generalizes this result to the quantized energy spectrum, En = −13.6/n2. These findings indicate that the solutions of the Schrödinger equation are not "miraculous" mathematical outcomes but rather the inevitable consequences of the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. This approach provides a clearer physical interpretation of quantum energy levels and offers significant pedagogical value for the teaching of Quantum Chemistry.
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.
The mere existence of stable atoms, and their arrangement into many-atom nanoscale structures, can only be explained by the laws of quantum mechanics. Indeed, the accumulated evidence regarding the internal structure of atoms motivated the formulation of quantum mechanics at the early twentieth century. Here we focus on single-electron (hydrogen-like) atoms. The dominance of the Coulomb central potential between the electron and nucleus, translates into a simple Schrödinger equation for their relative position distribution. Solving rigorously this equation reveals quantized energy levels, which explains the emission spectra of hydrogen-like atoms (Rydberg formula). The corresponding stationary probability density distributions for the electron around the nucleus are reminiscent of the Bohr model, where classical trajectories (orbits) are replaced by single-electron wave functions (orbitals). The degeneracies of different orbitals, associated with three quantum numbers, will later turn out to be critical for understanding many-electron atoms and the periodic table of the elements.
The paradox of the nuclear atom can only be resolved in one way. Experimental evidence demonstrates conclusively the existence of a central massive nucleus surrounded by free electrons, where the sizes of both the nucleus and of the electrons are tiny compared with the size of the atom, but classical physics shows such an atom to be unstable. The model analysed above is obviously a model of the real-life hydrogen atom. Qualitatively, the result that the system is stable, with the atomic electron able to exist in one of a number of well-defined energy eigenstates, satisfies the experimental requirements. Experiments which were first carried out by Davisson and Germer and by G. P. Thomson, showed 'wave-like' properties of an electron beam. The important result is that the electron is not governed merely by the laws of classical mechanics and electrodynamics, but by the laws of quantum mechanics.