3
$\begingroup$

This website http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/ 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' http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2546 (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.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ 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 The Bohr model was superseded not because it was "wrong" but because the same data can be beautifully fitted within a formal quantum mechanical theory, a much larger enterprise. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 20, 2012 at 8:02
  • $\begingroup$ I have checked several pages of the website and it is full of misconceptions and false claims. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 21, 2012 at 10:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 21, 2012 at 13:12

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
9
$\begingroup$

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

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

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).

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.