A review of those forms of standard quantum mechanics that include the Pauli Exclusion Principle as it is applied to atomic species, (that is versions of quantum that are multi-electron and multi-orbital) shows they are not consistent with energy conservation. Particular focus is given to helium in which it is shown that energy conservation is not consistent with current models. If the two electrons in the ground state, per current theory, are at the same energy as the ionization energy, it is demonstrated that according to the standard theory approximately 30 eV are lost during ionization, or alternatively, about 30 eV of energy are created during ionization/electron attachment. The same issue of energy loss during relaxation of energy levels following ionization is shown to exist for all atomic species, thus demonstrating that the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP) and energy conservation are not consistent for any atomic species for current forms of distinguishable electron forms of quantum theory. Only that form of quantum that has a single orbital, and for which only one ionization energy can be computed (that is the original Schrodinger form), is consistent with an energy balance. However, this form is not consistent with common spectroscopy results, and it is argued PEP has no meaning in this form of quantum theory. In contrast a new model, Classical Quantum Mechanics (CQM), invented by R. Mills,, following modification, is consistent with all spectroscopy and energy conservation for bound electron systems. This new model is based on the validity of Maxwell s Equations and Newton s Laws at all scales. Detailed, and remarkably simple, computations for determining the ground state energy levels in one and two electron systems using CQM are presented. Agreements with data are excellent.
A review of those forms of standard quantum mechanics that include the Pauli Exclusion Principle as it is applied to atomic species, (that is versions of quantum that are multi-electron and multi-orbital) shows they are not consistent with energy conservation. Particular focus is given to helium in which it is shown that energy conservation is not consistent with current models. If the two electrons in the ground state, per current theory, are at the same energy as the ionization energy, it is demonstrated that according to the standard theory approximately 30 eV are lost during ionization, or alternatively, about 30 eV of energy are created during ionization/electron attachment. The same issue of energy loss during relaxation of energy levels following ionization is shown to exist for all atomic species, thus demonstrating that the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP) and energy conservation are not consistent for any atomic species for current forms of distinguishable electron forms of quantum theory. Only that form of quantum that has a single orbital, and for which only one ionization energy can be computed (that is the original Schrodinger form), is consistent with an energy balance. However, this form is not consistent with common spectroscopy results, and it is argued PEP has no meaning in this form of quantum theory. In contrast a new model, Classical Quantum Mechanics (CQM), invented by R. Mills,, following modification, is consistent with all spectroscopy and energy conservation for bound electron systems. This new model is based on the validity of Maxwell s Equations and Newton s Laws at all scales. Detailed, and remarkably simple, computations for determining the ground state energy levels in one and two electron systems using CQM are presented. Agreements with data are excellent.
A review of standard quantum mechanics, including the Pauli Exclusion Principle as it is applied to atomic species, shows that the standard theory is not consistent with energy conservation. Particular focus is given to helium in which it is shown that energy conservation is only possible if the ground state has electrons at two distinct energies. If the two electrons in the ground state, per current theory, are at the same energy as the ionization energy, it is demonstrated that according to the standard theory approximately 30 eV are lost during ionization, or alternatively, about 30 eV of energy are created during ionization/electron attachment. The same issue of energy loss during relaxation of energy levels following ionization is shown to exist for all atomic species, thus demonstrating that the Pauli Exclusion Principle and energy conservation are not consistent for any atomic species. In contrast, a new model of quantum mechanics, Classical Quantum Mechanics (CQM), invented by R. Mills, is shown, following some modification, to be consistent with energy conservation for bound electron systems. This new model is based on the validity of Maxwell s Equations and Newton s Laws at all scales. Detailed, and remarkably simple, computations for determining the ground state energy levels in one and two electron systems using CQM are presented. Excellent agreement with data is found.
It has been found that bosons are not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This paper argues that in some cases the exclusion principle is also invalid for fermions. According to the Law of Included Multiple-Middle and the like, the 4 neutralities between Pauli Exclusion Principle's validity and invalidity are as follows: first, according to Neutrosophy, any proposition has three situations of truth, falsehood and indeterminacy respectively; second, some scholars have pointed out that the exclusion principle may be broken in high energy state; third, due to the existance of man created law (man-made law), the broken exclusion principle and the man-made (instantaneous) magnetic monopole can be artificially created; fourth, the exclusion principle is not compatible with law of conservation of energy, and in physics the principles that are not compatible with law of conservation of energy will be invalid in some cases.
It has been found that bosons are not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This paper argues that in some cases the exclusion principle is also invalid for fermions. According to the Law of Included Multiple- Middle and the like, the 4 neutralities between Pauli Exclusion Principle's validity and invalidity are as follows: first, according to Neutrosophy, any proposition has three situations of truth, falsehood and indeterminacy respectively; second, some scholars have pointed out that the exclusion principle may be broken in highenergy state; third, due to the existance of man created law (man-made law), the broken exclusion principle and the man-made (instantaneous) magnetic monopole can be artificially created; fourth, the exclusion principle is not compatible with law of conservation of energy, and in physics the principles that are not compatible with law of conservation of energy will be invalid in some 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.
It has been found that bosons are not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This paper argues that in some cases the exclusion principle is also invalid for fermions. According to the Law of Included Multiple- Middle and the like, the 4 neutralities between Pauli Exclusion Principle's validity and invalidity are as fol- lows: first, according to Neutrosophy, any proposition has three situations of truth, falsehood and indetermi- nacy respectively; second, some scholars have pointed out that the exclusion principle may be broken in high- energy state; third, due to the existance of man created law (man-made law), the broken exclusion principle and the man-made (instantaneous) magnetic monopole can be artificially created; fourth, the exclusion princi- ple is not compatible with law of conservation of ener- gy, and in physics the principles that are not compatible with law of conservation of energy will be invalid in some cases.
Abstract Section I.—The exclusion principle of Pauli was introduced into the old quantum theory as an empirical fact that had been brought to light in the ordering of spectra. The new mechanics has provided some sort of explanation of the principle, for in a closed system with many electrons the mathematically possible stationary states can be separated into a number of groups, with the property that transitions between stationary states in different groups cannot occur. One of these group is made up of the stationary states corresponding occur. One of the these groups is made up of the stationary states corresponding to wave functions that are antisymmetrical in the co-ordinates of the electrons. Apart from accidental degeneracies, the stationary states in different groups have different energy values. The exclusion principle then states that only energy values belonging to the antisymmertical group are found in nature. The exclusion principle has had great success not only in explaining the spectra of helium and of more complicated atoms, but also, under the form of the Fermi-Dirac statistics, in accounting for metallic conduction and ferromagnetism. In all these phenomena we are dealing with systems is stationary states, possessing energy values which are discrete, although they may lie very close together. Now, as was first emphasised by Oppenheimer, we must also use antisymmetrical wave-functions to describe aperiodic phenomena, such as the collision between an electron and an atom. If we do not, we obtain probabilities for the formation of atoms whose wave-funtions are not antisymmetrical, as we shall show in section 4, where we consider the collision between an electron and a helium atom. A helium atom described by a symmetrical wave-function would show a singlet series in palce of the observed triplets and triplet series in place of the observed singlets. The wave-functions of open systems are essentially degenerate; the symmetical and antisymmetrical solution are not separated from one another by a finite energy difference; but for any arbitrary value of the energy (and of the other integrals of the motion) we can form a symmetrical and an antisymmetrical solution. This is somewhat fundamental difference between open and closed systems. For closed systems containing two electrons there exist only the symmetrical and the antisymmetical solution; but for open systems we might take any combination of the two. In fact, to describe an observable phenomenon such as a collision, the wave-function that it would first occur to us to use is a combination of the two. To fix our ideas we shall discuss the collision between two electrons. Our arguments could equally well be applied to the collision between an electron and a hydrogen atom, the problem originally discussed by Born; but the former is the simpler case, and perhaps illustrates our theory better.