Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This website appears to refute Quantum mechanics using some proof.

An important paper involved is this 'Calculation of Helium Ground State Energy by Bohr's Theory-Based Methods' (written by the website author)

How to disprove the author's claims, assuming his refutation of QM is unacceptable/false.

Note: I don't know if this question belongs here.

Edit:It may take considerable effort to refute or support his claims.

share|cite|improve this question
no need to refute anything. He found a solution for a particular atomic configuration in the Bohr model framework. So? The Bohr model was superseded not because it was "wrong" but because the same data can be beautifully fitted within a formal quantum mechanical theory, a much larger enterprise. – anna v Oct 20 '12 at 8:02
I have checked several pages of the website and it is full of misconceptions and false claims. – juanrga Oct 21 '12 at 10:44
@juanrga: While I agree that it is full of misconceptions, one should be precise regarding false claims, because a lot of the claims are not false except they rub you the wrong way if you know the accepted story, but they make sense for a person who (in my opinion courageously and sensibly, but experimentally wrongly) rejects entanglement. – Ron Maimon Oct 21 '12 at 13:12
up vote 8 down vote accepted

Arriving at the same answer as quantum mechanics for one particular scenario by making a bunch of ad hoc assumptions (for example - the calculation didn't work, so we'll make the orbital planes perpendicular) isn't useful. QM allows you to calculate much more than the ground states of atoms.

Any competing theory - and that paper doesn't contain anything which could be described as a theory - would have to have the same breadth of applicability as QM

share|cite|improve this answer

The problem with his claims is that they don't include entanglement, which was the major prediction of new quantum theory, as opposed to the Bohr model. At least he correctly is attacking the source of the quantum weirdness-- entanglement was experimentally demonstrated from the He atom ground state originally.

The main point of this attack on QM is to replace QM with an entanglement free scheme, which will then not have to have all the "many worlds" quantum superpositions, but just some physical deBroglie waves waving along with particles in real space.

This is hopeless, because entanglement is measured directly by now. The best evidence is in the Bell test experiments of Aspect. It is there that you see that classical local models are definitely wrong, and while you might cook up some explanation for the energy of Helium, you can't cook up a local explanation for violations of Bell's inequality.

For the particular claims on this website, perpendicular orbits doesn't work for Helium, because the electrons repel--- they don't stay perpendicular. The classical orbits are a chaotic nightmare, you can't use them to semiclassically quantize the ground state of Helium, it just isn't semiclassical. If you try, you will have to use orbits which are far apart from each other an abnormal fraction of the time, due to the entanglement. This is ad-hoc and inconsistent with classical equations, unlike QM (this is a repeat of what twistor59 said).

share|cite|improve this answer

At the core of the problem, I think, lies the question why the electrons that circulate around a nucleus don't behave as it would be expected according to Maxwell. This is where in quantum mechanics, the wave-particle dualism comes in, and by moving from the description of a moving particle to a standing wave (which is what the time-independent Schrödinger equation essentially does), this contradiction is resolved. But the author of the page seems to be just ignorant about the "wave" part of the description, and instead puts up a lot of straw man arguments ("electrons are not moving in QM" etc). He's really seems to be bending over backwards to avoid having to treat an electron as a wave, but on atomic scales, you simply can't have one without the other.

Then there's such things as his literal interpretation of the term "electron spin", which leads to a very firm attachment of my palm to my face. I've only looked at the page shortly, but that's already been enough for me and there is so much wrong it that for anyone to correct it, it would probably take hours, if not days, a lot of patience, and someone to calm you down from time to time.

share|cite|improve this answer
There's nothing wrong with a literal interpretation of electron spin, so long as you don't think the electron has constituent parts. Regarding the waves, this is a mistake, but he is working in Bohr/DeBroglie model where the waves are following the classical trajectories, and he wants to continue on this path, without transitioning to full quantum mechanics. This is wrong, but you need to explain why, not just from the fact that it contradicts everything you've ever learned (which it does). – Ron Maimon Oct 22 '12 at 0:39
Well, the page nicely shows what happens if one interprets the electron spin literally: Things are just bound to go haywire. Also, the best explanation for why one cannot go without the wave character is in my opinion right there in the "circulating particle" problem. The author of the page does at some point mumble something about de Broglie waves and that they lead to stable states in the Bohr-Sommerfeld model, but he completely fails to consequently follow this path -- and furthermore doesn't realize this is the exact thing for which he wants to discredit the quantum mechanical picture. – Antimon Oct 22 '12 at 8:01
You should interpret the spin literally, nothing goes haywire, that is not the problem on the page. The author wants deBroglie waves, he just wants them to live on real space, not in the space of all possible worlds. This is the main problme, and it's not as stupid as you are making it out to be, it's still wrong though. – Ron Maimon Oct 22 '12 at 13:09

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.