MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081663300 · doi:10.4006/1.3009282

Exact classical quantum mechanical solution for atomic helium which predicts conjugate parameters from a unique solution for the first time

2008· article· en· W2081663300 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R Mills

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics Essays · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsBohr modelSchrödinger equationHelium atomQuantum mechanicsPhysical systemExcited stateQuantumObservablePhysical lawTheoretical physicsElectronStatistical physicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics EssaysSame topicQuantum Mechanics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207