1) The DOI you shared is a dead link. On your profile it's linked to an IOSR publication which is a predatory publisher that does not conduct proper peer review.

2) By scanning through it, I saw all you did was to throw different distribution functions at the Schrödinger equation finding out that not all of them are solutions to the SE. That is not how anything works here. Your paragraph around the Lorentzian is a nice demonstrator for this: you just thow it at the basic equation not having checked out where it applies. Otherwise you might have that e.g. in spectroscopy it is the natural lineshape which comes from the Fourier transform of excited quantum state time dynamics which can be derived from the SE., so the Lorentzian actually comes from SE-based calculations. I haven't looked at the other paragraphs, but I would assume they have similar systematic errors invalidating the concept of the "paper".

3) Most people who express disagreement with the SE are not aware of its explanatory power: you can use it to predict the color of things, magnetism, electrical conductivity, structures of molecules and many more. Especially for quantum chemistry, i.e. molecular structures and derivative parameters like photophysical properties, these calculations become pretty demanding with respect to calculation capacities on a binary computer and a quantum computer can actually solve that. So while you waste your time trying to disprove the SE in physically invalid ways, others proceed to use the for a valid purpose.

Quantum mechanics is fundamentally based on probability. For example, if there are N people, M of them may have different eye colors. As the number of events increases, the probability value becomes more accurate. Additionally, changes in experimental conditions affect the interference pattern in the double-slit experiment through various factors, including the distance and width of the slits, the wavelength, the position of the detector, and the spectral properties of the detector itself. These changes highlight the importance of experimental conditions in quantum mechanics and their impact on observed results. Furthermore, this knowledge will aid in the development of more reliable and efficient quantum systems, such as quantum computers and quantum communication networks.

This is just a small part of what illustrates the capabilities of quantum mechanics. If you are interested in the possibilities of quantum mechanics, we invite you to explore a series of our articles published over the last 10 years in various fields. For example, you may refer to the work by Rakhimov R.Kh. and Ermakov V.P. titled "Impulse Tunneling Effect: Features of Interaction with Matter. Observer Effect."

---

Learn more:

1. [Computational nanotechnology](https://rjsocmed.com/2313-223X/user/setLocale/ru_RU?source=%2F2313-223X%2Findex) // Computational Nanotechnology. 2024. Т. 11. № 2. С. 116–145. DOI: 10.33693/2313- 223X-2024-11-2-116-145. EDN: MWBRQW

Jürgen Weippert Rustam Khakimovich Rakhimov & ResearchGate Community

Dear Jürgen,

Thank you for your detailed response. I deeply appreciate the effort you have put into articulating your perspective and highlighting areas where you believe the Schrödinger Equation (SE) continues to be relevant. However, I must respectfully disagree with several points you raised, based on the findings presented in my research paper, which mathematically demonstrates the limitations of SE in describing quantum mechanics comprehensively.

On the Lorentzian Derivation

You mentioned that the Lorentzian you derived comes from SE-based calculations. While I acknowledge the historical success of SE in certain approximations, this is precisely where my paper intervenes. The derivation of a Lorentzian curve or any other feature using SE assumes conditions that often oversimplify the reality of quantum systems. These conditions ignore critical complexities such as non-linear interactions, chaotic quantum phenomena, and high-energy transitions that SE cannot adequately describe. My paper mathematically proves that SE fails to encompass the full dynamics of quantum particles in arbitrary states—especially in cases that deviate from these controlled scenarios. Thus, while SE-based calculations may produce results under specific assumptions, they are inherently incomplete and cannot claim universal applicability.

On Quantum Chemistry and Material Properties

You pointed out SE’s utility in predicting molecular structures, photophysical properties, magnetism, and electrical conductivity. While SE indeed offers approximations for such phenomena, it is important to recognize that these predictions are often context-dependent and rely on empirical adjustments or computational approximations that go beyond SE itself. For example:

On Quantum Computing’s Role

You argued that quantum computers could solve computationally demanding problems in quantum chemistry and physics. However, quantum computing, as it stands, is based on the principles of quantum mechanics, which inherently rely on SE and its extensions. If the foundational equation itself is incorrect or incomplete, then building an entire computational framework on top of it is akin to constructing a skyscraper on a shaky foundation. My paper establishes that SE does not universally predict quantum particle mechanics, and thus, any computational framework derived from it is equally prone to failure when applied beyond controlled conditions.

The reliance on SE across multiple domains stems from historical inertia rather than its universal validity. Its limitations, as mathematically demonstrated in my research, necessitate a paradigm shift. Quantum mechanics needs a foundational revision—an equation or framework that accounts for the intricacies SE overlooks. Without this, predictions, whether for molecular properties or material behaviors, remain inherently flawed.

Your examples underscore SE's historical utility under specific conditions but do not negate its fundamental limitations. My paper presents these limitations rigorously and conclusively. As science progresses, we must not cling to outdated models simply because they work in some scenarios. Instead, we must pursue frameworks that reflect the true nature of quantum reality. Quantum computing, as envisioned today, remains unfeasible because its very foundation—the Schrödinger Equation—is fundamentally incomplete.

The IOSR journals adhere to a double-blind peer-review process, which ensures that the quality and integrity of submissions are assessed by experts without bias. According to their own criteria, only 10-15% of submissions are accepted, underscoring a selective and stringent review process. Additionally, IOSR journals are indexed in respected repositories, such as CrossRef, NASA ADS, ArXiv, and Google Scholar, and assign Digital Object Identifiers (DOI) to all articles. These features validate their authenticity and scholarly reliability.

Regarding the venue of publication, I firmly believe that the value of a scientific paper lies in its content, not the prestige of its publication platform. History provides numerous examples where transformative ideas were initially published in non-mainstream journals but eventually reshaped scientific understanding. The principle here is inclusivity—knowledge, like the sun, should illuminate everyone, irrespective of its medium. My paper's findings are grounded in rigorous mathematical proofs and offer a paradigm shift in understanding quantum mechanics, which stands as a contribution to science, regardless of the publishing journal.

Finally, the importance of discussing groundbreaking ideas is to invite critique, validation, and dialogue. I encourage evaluating my paper based on its content and the arguments presented rather than the venue of publication, as that is the true spirit of scientific inquiry.

I hope this clarifies my position and addresses your points comprehensively. I encourage further discussion to explore these ideas deeply, as science thrives on rigorous debate and exploration.

Best regards, Sandeep Jaiswal

Yes, it is difficult to argue with this, since quantum mechanics is still far from perfect. The Schrodinger equation, of course, cannot describe all possible events: it only speaks of the probability of a possible quantum state and is not designed to carry out direct calculations, but serves only to estimate the probability. But the fact that quantum mechanics as a science has allowed us to advance in the theoretical understanding of many processes, as well as the creation of new technologies is indisputable. Thank you for your questions. With great respect for your approach to discussing this scientific problem. With best wishes, Rustam Rakhimov

Rustam Khakimovich Rakhimov Jürgen Weippert

Dear Rustam,

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply. Such responses are truly a rarity on ResearchGate or any social platform. In a world often dominated by negativity and narrow-mindedness, your approach stands out as a beacon of wisdom and humility.

I completely agree with your perspective and truly appreciate the time you’ve taken to engage meaningfully with my question. Rest assured, I will make it a priority to review your research—perhaps not today, but certainly over the weekend when I can dedicate the attention it deserves.

To me, a great researcher is not that wins Noble Prizes for his groundbreaking papers but wins the hearts of people by his noble groundbreaking deeds. Your mindset embodies this ideal, and I hope you continue to nurture it regardless of the challenges that may arise.

In my eyes, you’ve already won this discussion with your thoughtful contributions. Keep it up, and thank you again!

Warm regards, Sandeep Jaiswal

You mentioned that the current methods can only calculate small systems or have to use approximations, be it for structure, magnetism or photophysics. That's exactly where the quantum computer comes in:

for a molecular structure calculation, the computational maximum accuracy is the full-CI (configuration interaction) method. That's beyond any resonable calculation time for anything beyond three atoms while DFT can handle hundreds and semiempirical methods thousands of atoms. A quantum computer, e.g. with the AQE algorithm, can actually achieve full-CI accuracy within reasonable calculation time, so it makes the claim that the SE can't handle that fall flat along the way. Since the calculation of photophysical properties is an expansion which starts from that point, the quantum computer also brings us beyond that.

Jürgen Weippert

Dear Jürgen,

Thank you for your thoughtful and nuanced follow-up! It’s always refreshing to engage with someone who approaches scientific discourse with a constructive and inquisitive spirit. I deeply appreciate the shift in tone—it elevates our dialogue and brings us closer to the core of understanding rather than divergence. This argument raises an important distinction between computational capability and foundational validity.

Let me address your claim systematically:

In conclusion, while the AQE algorithm and quantum computing’s potential are fascinating, they cannot solve the deeper issues rooted in the foundational laws they aim to simulate. Computational efficiency is moot if the theory itself is flawed. Thus, the assertion that SE can handle molecular systems accurately—even with quantum computing—falls short when examined through this lens.

I appreciate your points and welcome further constructive dialogue on this matter, as it’s through such exchanges that we refine our understanding and push the boundaries of knowledge.

Best regards, Sandeep Jaiswal

Rustam Khakimovich Rakhimov

Dear Rustam,

Thank you for your insightful contributions to our discussion on quantum mechanics and its practical applications. Your emphasis on the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and the significance of experimental conditions, particularly in the context of the double-slit experiment, aligns well with foundational principles in the field.

The double-slit experiment indeed underscores the wave-particle duality of quantum entities, where interference patterns emerge due to the superposition of probability amplitudes. Variations in experimental parameters—such as slit separation, slit width, wavelength, and detector positioning—profoundly influence the observed interference patterns. These dependencies highlight the necessity for precise control in experimental setups to accurately interpret quantum phenomena.

Your reference to the "Impulse Tunnelling Effect: Features of Interaction with Matter. Observer Effect" is particularly intriguing. The pulsed tunnelling effect (PTE) offers a unified mechanism for describing tunnelling phenomena across various fields of physics. It has been analysed in contexts such as optics, nano-electronics, and material synthesis, suggesting potential applications in enhancing process efficiencies, including the synthesis of environmentally friendly hydrogen.

Integrating PTE into quantum systems could potentially address technical challenges, such as stabilising qubit characteristics and quantum states, thereby advancing the development of practical quantum computers.

The interplay between quantum mechanics' probabilistic nature and phenomena like the pulsed tunnelling effect underscores the vast potential for innovation in quantum technologies. Continued exploration in this domain is essential for developing more reliable and efficient quantum systems, including quantum computers and communication networks.

I appreciate your invitation to delve deeper into this subject through your publications. Engaging with such comprehensive research is invaluable for anyone committed to advancing in the field of quantum mechanics.

Best regards,

Sandeep Jaiswal

Quantum technologies need big investments to deliver on their big promises

Sustained investments can deliver quantum devices that handle more information, more rapidly and more securely than can classical ones...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00564-8

Microsoft quantum computing 'breakthrough' faces fresh challenge

Analysis pokes holes in protocol that underpins Microsoft’s claim to have created the first topological qubits...

"A physicist has cast doubt on a test that underlies a high-profile claim by Microsoft to have created the first ‘topological qubits’, a long-sought goal of the company’s quantum computing effort. The critique comes amid mounting speculation about the validity of Microsoft’s claim..."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00683-2

Dear Ljubomir Jacić,

Building upon our previous discussion, let's delve deeper into the specific aspects of Microsoft's recent quantum computing claims that have elicited skepticism within the research community.

1. Ambiguity in Identifying Majorana Zero Modes

Microsoft's assertion centres on the creation of Majorana zero modes, which are pivotal for topological qubits due to their potential for enhanced stability. However, the experimental evidence presented has been met with caution:

• The primary challenge lies in distinguishing Majorana modes from Andreev bound states, which can produce similar experimental signatures but do not confer the same computational advantages. This ambiguity raises questions about the definitive identification of Majorana particles in Microsoft's experiments.
• This skepticism is further compounded by a prior incident in 2018, where a high-profile Nature paper claiming the detection of Majorana particles was retracted due to misinterpretation of data. The retraction has made the community more vigilant regarding similar claims.

2. Lack of Demonstrated Quantum Processing Capabilities

While Microsoft has introduced the Majorana 1 chip as a groundbreaking quantum processing unit (QPU) powered by a topological core, critical evaluations point out that:

• Current demonstrations have primarily showcased readout methodologies without evidence of actual quantum processing or coherent operations on qubits. This gap between proposed functionality and demonstrated capability fuels skepticism about the chip's readiness for practical quantum computing applications.

3. Claims of Discovering a 'New State of Matter'

Microsoft's announcement also highlighted the creation of a 'new state of matter' associated with their topological qubits. However, this claim has been met with reservations:

• The assertion lacks comprehensive peer-reviewed evidence confirming the existence of this novel state. Without such validation, the research community remains cautious about embracing this claim.

4. External Skepticism from Industry Experts

Within the quantum computing community, Microsoft's announcement has been met with both excitement and skepticism. Notably, executives from Amazon's quantum computing division have expressed reservations:​

• Amazon's head of quantum technologies, Simone Severini, indicated that the scientific evidence does not fully support Microsoft's claims. He referenced past instances of scientific misconduct by Microsoft in the quantum computing sphere, highlighting the need for cautious interpretation of their recent announcements. ​Business Insider
• Amazon acknowledges the significant challenges ahead in quantum computing, indicating that several more stages of scaling are necessary before practical applications can be realized. This perspective suggests a more conservative timeline for the development of functional quantum computers.

The skepticism surrounding Microsoft's recent quantum computing claims stems from a combination of ambiguous experimental evidence, limited demonstrated functionality, unverified assertions of discovering new states of matter, and critical perspectives from industry experts. These factors collectively highlight the necessity for rigorous peer-reviewed research and transparent validation to substantiate such groundbreaking claims in the field of quantum computing.

Best regards,

Sandeep Jaiswal

The promise of quantum computers and quantum sensors prove that the theory is ruthlessly practical as well as delightfully bizarre...

Yet the promise of quantum computers and other technologies built on the back of it are enough to convince that, a century on, quantum theory is here to stay...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-04007-0

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-01663-0

https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-025-00357-z/index.html

Microsoft quantum computing claim still lacks evidence: physicists are dubious

Some attendees of a packed presentation were curious about the prospect of the first ‘topological’ qubits, but left with questions unanswered...

"At a standing-room-only talk in front of skeptical physicists, Microsoft researcher Chetan Nayak has presented evidence for the company’s claim to have created the first ‘topological’ qubits. Qubits are analogous to the ‘bits’ in classical computers, and topological ones are much-desired because they might make quantum computers more stable and easier to build at scale. “It was a beautiful talk,” says theorist Daniel Loss, who nonetheless took issue with the strong claims and relative lack of evidence. And the presentation, which took place at a meeting of the American Physical Society, didn’t address a recent critical preprint. “It’s a hard problem,” says experimental physicist Ali Yazdani. To anyone trying to make topological qubits, he says, “good luck”..."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00829-2

Quantum computer untangles knot maths

"Researchers at the UK quantum-computing company Quantinuum report that their quantum machine, H2-2, can distinguish between different types of knot on the basis of topological properties, and show that the method could be faster than those that run on ordinary, or ‘classical’, computers. The finding hints at where the innovative computers could someday be particularly useful. This is owing to mysterious connections between topology and quantum physics. “That these things are related is mind-blowing, I think,” says Konstantinos Meichanetzidis, a Quantinuum researcher who led the work behind the preprint..."

Preprint Less Quantum, More Advantage: An End-to-End Quantum Algorith...

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01094-z

AI helps build a quantum computer ‘brain’

A team has used an artificial intelligence (AI) model to calculate the best way to rapidly assemble ‘neutral atom arrays’ — a grid of atoms that might one day serve as the ‘brain’ of a quantum computer. One of the big challenges in using arrays of atoms for quantum computing is working out how to rearrange them in an “efficient, fast and scalable manner”, says physicist and study co-author Jian-Wei Pan. AI solved that problem for the team — and did it quickly...

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/2ym8-vs82

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02577-9

Atomic ‘conveyor belt’ boosts power of quantum computer

Array system could help to scale up technology that uses atoms to create qubits...

A conveyor belt of atoms arranged in orderly rows could resolve a major stumbling block towards developing a large-scale quantum computer...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09596-6

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03002-x

Short answer: The claim that “the Schrödinger equation is wrong, therefore quantum computing is a scam” is not aligned with scientific consensus.

Facts

· The Schrödinger equation is a well-tested effective theory for nonrelativistic systems. For relativistic or field-theoretic regimes we use Dirac, Klein–Gordon, quantum field theory, etc. Modern quantum theory is broader than Schrödinger’s original form but shares the same core: unitary evolution, operators, and measurements—repeatedly validated experimentally.

· Quantum computing relies on linear unitary evolution and measurement. These principles are evidenced by interference, entanglement, teleportation, error-correcting codes, and functioning platforms (trapped ions, superconducting circuits, photonics).

· The cited DOI (10.9790/4861-1505012633, IOSR-JAP) is not a top-tier, field-shaping venue. Paradigm changes require reproducible predictions that outperform existing theory across experiments; such evidence is lacking.

Realism and limits

· Media hype around “breakthrough chips” is common. Today’s devices are noisy, with limited qubit counts; practical advantages are narrow and problem-specific.

· There are genuine challenges: scaling, fault tolerance, resource overheads. Not every task benefits; some expectations are marketing-driven.

Why it’s not a “scam”

· Quantum tech already delivers value: quantum sensing, QKD, enhanced metrology, niche simulations of small quantum systems, and proven algorithmic advantages in principle (Shor, Grover, linear-algebra-based algorithms)—even if large-scale industrial impact is still emerging.

· If basic quantum mechanics were “wrong,” we would have to re-explain a vast body of consistent evidence—from atomic spectra to superconductivity, semiconductors, lasers, and everyday electronics.

Bottom line

Quantum computing is not a scam; it’s high-risk, high-reward R&D with solid scientific foundations and overhyped PR. A sensible path is to fund fundamentals, error correction, and focused applications while also advancing classical architectures and algorithms.

Rustam Khakimovich Rakhimov Ljubomir Jacić

Dear Rustam & Ljubomir,

Thank you for your clear and careful response. I respect the rigour with which you highlight the tested scope of the Schrödinger equation, the experimental foundations of quantum computing, and the distinction between hype and genuine scientific progress.

That said, allow me to share a broader perspective drawn from my own published research and discussions:

1. On the Schrödinger Equation

While it has proven predictive in controlled, idealised regimes, my analysis (e.g., IOSR-JAP, DOI: 10.9790/4861-1505012633) demonstrates that the equation is unfit as a fundamental law. It can only represent a narrow subset of harmonic, Gaussian wave-like motions. In real-world, non-ideal particle dynamics it fails to provide universality. A genuine fundamental law should be valid in all environments, not only under laboratory-grade isolation. Thus, I argue Schrödinger’s equation is an approximation—useful, yes, but partial.

2. On Probability vs. Determinism

Mainstream QM embraces probability (via Born’s rule) as elemental. Yet probability by definition reflects ignorance, not causality. In my work (Why Quantum Mechanics is Wrong at its Core, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35003.32802), I contend that particles exist in definite states at all times; superposition is a mathematical abstraction born from incomplete modelling. A deterministic alternative, whether hidden-variable-like or beyond current frameworks, is needed to restore cause-and-effect clarity.

3. On Measurement and Observation

You correctly note that “unitary evolution and measurement” are bedrock principles. My objection is not that unitary evolution is invalid, but that the collapse postulate makes no physical sense: why should an observer’s choice of apparatus dictate the behavior of a supposedly objective particle? The double-slit paradox is better interpreted as evidence of an undiscovered mechanism—or even a deeper layer of reality—than as proof that “consciousness causes collapse.” Here, I have suggested (controversially) that the missing link may touch on consciousness, but the broader point is: collapse as randomness is inadequate as an explanation.

4. On Entanglement and Non-locality

Quantum mechanics reproduces correlations beautifully, but offers no causal “how.” Experiments validating Bell’s theorem indeed rule out local hidden variables. Yet this leaves the door open for nonlocal deterministic frameworks. Einstein’s “spooky action” remains unexplained by quantum formalism—it is predicted, but not mechanistically accounted for. I argue we should not settle for “it works mathematically” but continue to search for a deterministic underpinning.

5. On Quantum Computing

I fully acknowledge the value in quantum sensing, metrology, and error-correction progress. However, if the foundational postulates themselves are only partial truths, then scaling QC to a universal computational paradigm may never materialise. This is why I use terms like “mirage”: not to dismiss the impressive engineering underway, but to stress that if the base theory is incomplete, the long-term promise may prove hollow beyond niche applications.

In summary:

• I do not deny quantum mechanics’ spectacular success in its limited scope.
• I do insist it is not the final truth. Its postulates are partial, probabilistic placeholders for deeper deterministic laws.
• My estimate—based on contradictions across measurement, uncertainty, superposition, and entanglement—is that QM is only ~30% correct, a stepping stone rather than an endpoint.
• The challenge is not to abandon QM, but to build upon it toward a universal deterministic science, one that unifies gravity, quantum, and cosmology without paradox.

Your caution against hype is essential. My call is to go even further: to recognise that the very foundations are incomplete, and to seek the deterministic framework that will make today’s paradoxes tomorrow’s understood laws.

With respect,

Sandeep Jaiswal