The Schrödinger equation describes the basic physical models in a very contradictory way. And its canonization, which gives a catastrophic divergence of the energy of electronic levels with an increase in the mass of an atom, in principle, stalled the development of science. Nevertheless, it allowed, albeit roughly, to systematize and describe many phenomena of the microworld, primarily the hydrogen atom. And approximate descriptions of many “quantum” effects were obtained, but with the use of numerous adjustable parameters. So the bottom line from the century of development of quantum theory (QT) is, in fact, the development of some quantum mechanical methods.
The Schrödinger equation describes the basic physical models in a very contradictory way. And its canonization, which gives a catastrophic divergence of the energy of electronic levels with an increase in the mass of an atom, in principle, stalled the development of science. Nevertheless, it allowed, albeit roughly, to systematize and describe many phenomena of the microworld, primarily the hydrogen atom. And approximate descriptions of many “quantum” effects were obtained, but with the use of numerous adjustable parameters. So the bottom line from the century of development of quantum theory (QT) is, in fact, the development of some quantum mechanical methods.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, it became clear that some experiments cannot be explained on the basis of known physics, now referred to as classical physics. In 1900, Max Planck was able to correctly describe the distribution of blackbody radiation energy as a function of wavelength λ or frequency ν = c/λ. He had to accept the existence of energy packets (quanta) with energy E = hν. A few years later, Albert Einstein found that this unexpected relation between energy and frequency is also necessary in order to understand photoemission from metallic surfaces. A decade later, Niels Bohr arrived at the correct equation for the electronic spectrum of the hydrogen atom by applying “quantum conditions” on the motion of the electron around the nucleus and the Planck’s relation E = hν on the energy difference between the energy levels (1916). A decade later, Heisenberg, Born, and Jordan introduced “quantum mechanics” and de Broglie and Schrödinger (1925-1926) introduced “wave mechanics.”
The intensive path of development of science has led not only to the compilation of a large amount of poorly systematized knowledge about nature but also to the fact that under this "cultural layer" many magnificent ideas of the luminaries of the last century were found. This primarily concerns quantum theory, which has departed from the principles of quantization of Planck–Einstein and degenerated into a formal science, which not only does not need to be understood but also is forbidden to be understood. However, starting from the Planck–Einstein spatial resonances called quanta, we get a transparent physical picture and can correct a number of theories. The foundation of this book was laid by the popular science article "Uncombed Physics and the Particle of God" (https://rusnor.org/pubs/articles/8058.htm). This is what the Higgs boson was pompously called when Higgs was awarded the Nobel Prize. This work was continued by the author in subsequent books in which the author deliberately (for self-control) tried to include only the material that had passed the examination in scientific journals. This book includes both the author's early scientific works, which identified problems in elementary basic models, and the author's latest, which gave ways to solve fundamental problems.
Inadequate descriptions of atoms and molecules by the methods of classical physics led researchers to propose new ways to describe physical reality, giving birth to a totally new science, quantum mechanics. The methods of quantum mechanics are based on the introduction of a wave function, whose physical meaning is related to the probability of finding a certain particle, at a certain time in a volume element, positioned between x and x + dx in the x = direction, between y and y + dy in the y = direction, and between z and z + dz in the z = direction at certain time t. This wave function Ψ satisfies the Schrödinger equation, (−2mℏ2∇2+v)Ψ=EΨ,ℏ=2πh, or for short, HΨ = EΨ, where H, the Hamiltonian operator, is defined by the expression H=−2mℏ2∇2+V; h is Planck’s constant; ∇2 is the sum of the partial second derivatives with respect to x, y, and z; m is the mass of the particle; and V is the potential energy of the system. The Hamiltonian H represents the quantum equivalent of the sum of the kinetic energy and potential energy, with V being the potential energy operator and 2m−ℏ2∇2 the kinetic energy operator. Finally, E is the total energy of the system and is a number, not an operator.
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 difficulties of the old quantum theory were largely dispelled by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s. First Heisenberg (1925) developed the rather abstract matrix mechanics and soon after Schro¨dinger (1926; see also Eckart, 1926) developed the physically more appealing wave mechanics. Subsequently he showed them to be mathematically equivalent. The physicists were greatly relieved; now they had once again a mathematical formalism that enabled the results of experiments to be calculated. It was possible to move forward. It is certainly a very elegant and indeed beautiful formalism, and does enable the results of many physical measurements to be calculated with great accuracy. It is used daily by atomic and nuclear physicists; there is no other way to make calculations. From the earliest days there has been intense debate about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, and it shows no signs of being settled; if anything it is becoming more intense over the years. As Penrose has remarked, no one understands quantum mechanics. Feynman (1967; see also Sykes, 1994) also admitted that ‘nobody understands quantum mechanics’, and Einstein once remarked: ‘I have thought a hundred times as much about the quantum problems as I have about general relativity theory’ (Pais, 1994, p. 57). It should therefore be evident that the most that can be done here is to try to show where the real difficulties lie, and how the failure to recognize that quantum mechanics is an essentially statistical theory has led to a series of confusing quantum paradoxes. It is just these paradoxes that have often been used to support theological speculations. It is useful to ask what ‘understanding quantum mechanics’ actually means. Certainly it means being able to calculate the results of many measurements. The same applies to Newton’s theory of gravitation, which we understand in the sense that we can use it as a basis of calculation, although we do not really understand the gravitational force itself. Very often, especially in modern physics, the mathematical formalism does not give us the sort of intuitive physical feeling for what is going on that we often obtain from classical mechanics. Perhaps we can never achieve more than this for quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics we can assume that a property that is measured objectively exists prior to the interaction of the measuring apparatus with the observed system. Quantum mechanics, however, ‘is incompatible with the proposition that measurement discovers some unknown but pre-existing property’ (Peres, 1997, p. 14). There is an important distinction between mysteries and absurdities. We may be forced to live with mysteries, but there is no reason why we should put up with absurdities such as the wave-particle duality, tunnelling through potential barriers, acausal events and the collapse of the wave function. These are the quantum paradoxes that will be discussed later on. They arise within the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and are solved by other interpretations. These alternative interpretations enable us to make conjectures about what is going on, even though we cannot understand it in detail. This is acceptable and a stimulus to further research. It is certainly difficult enough to understand quantum mechanics, but there is no need to try to visualize logical absurdities in the effort to do so. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that makes it possible to calculate the results of some experiments. Anything more than this, such as questions about the interpretation of what is measured and whether it tells us what is actually going on in the system being studied, belongs to philosophy. Thus we are concerned here with what is essentially a philosophical debate; if it were just a matter of physics the debate would have been settled long ago. One of the difficulties is that it invokes the results of experiments and uses the language of quantum mechanics. Inevitably this language uses philosophical terms and then it is easy to give the impression that the philosophical propositions are in some way entailed by the physical results. These in turn can influence theological thinking. In order to be quite clear which arguments are justified and which are not, it is essential to separate the three levels of discourse: physical, philosophical and theological. Our task is to relate these together, and this immediately raises the traditional problems of the philosophy of science, including the relation of experiment to theory, and of theory to explanation. We begin by discussing experiments, distinguishing between those that are real and those that are imaginary.
The “quantum” world, within the framework of which “outstanding” scientific discoveries are being made now, is built on initially laid nonsense. Quantum theory was initially built on incorrect adjustment by Schrödinger of two-dimensional “solutions” of the One-dimensional harmonic oscillator equation. These are the consequences of this fitting and “excited minds.” This is the reason why quantum mechanics is not necessary to UNDERSTAND, but it is necessary to ACCEPT. But they accepted and canonized, as is shown in this work, non-physical, rough, approximate solutions. And it is on the basis of these solutions that electron orbitals, widely used in fundamental and applied science, are constructed. So the “Terrible Secret” of the theorists is that in fact without having a basic model they are exclusively engaged in fitting Schrödinger’ssolutions.