Dear colleagues,

I’d like to take a moment for a small reflection before continuing our discussion. When we mention the names of scientists or critique certain approaches, such as quantum mechanics (QM), our intention is solely to discuss scientific aspects and analyze potential errors from a purely academic perspective. We deeply respect all researchers and their contributions to science, and any critique is meant to advance our collective understanding, not to offend or diminish anyone’s work. If any participant felt otherwise, I sincerely apologize—this was never our intention.

That said, I’m truly grateful for the growing interest in our discussion on the real radius of the hydrogen atom! Our paper, "Der reale Radius des Wasserstoffatoms: Neue theoretische und experimentelle Ansätze" (German International Journal of Modern Science №99, 2025, has been downloaded over 50 vloer, with notable activity from universities in Germany, Estonia, India, Indonesia, and the USA. I’ve recently invited colleagues from these countries to join us, and I’m thrilled to see that many of you are engaging with our work. However, with over 50 participants, we’ve only received 4–5 comments so far.

To foster a more collaborative dialogue, I’d like to pose a few questions:

Do you find the 47% and over 30,000% deviations of QM predictions (0.529 Å for the ground state and 483 Å for the excited state, 𝑛=30 from experimental data 1.0 Å and 1.4 Å acceptable for practical applications?

Have you encountered similar discrepancies in your research when using QM to model atomic or molecular systems?

What experimental methods would you recommend to measure the hydrogen atom radius more precisely and test our deterministic approach (DTA), which predicts 1.06 Å (6% deviation) and 1.413 Å (0.9% deviation)?

Our DTA, based on the proton’s potential electrostatic field, offers a more accurate framework than QM, and we believe it can pave the way for a deeper understanding of atomic physics. I’d especially love to hear from our colleagues in Germany, Estonia, India, Indonesia, and the USA—what are your thoughts on replacing QM with a deterministic model? Let’s continue this discussion in a spirit of mutual respect and collaboration. I look forward to your insights!

In QM, the Bohr radius is not really an unequivocal location for the electron. It is just the peak of a probability distribution that falls off both toward and away from the proton. Absurdly, one author has computed "the time average that the electron is in the nucleus." I recommend to you another researcher who has a deterministic model for Hydrogen and more: https://brilliantlightpower.com/theory/

Another work that should be read by all physicists whether believing or doubting QM is here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338980602_Something_is_rotten_in_the_state_of_QED?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7InBhZ2UiOiJwcm9maWxlIiwicHJldmlvdXNQYWdlIjpudWxsLCJzdWJQYWdlIjpudWxsLCJwb3NpdGlvbiI6InBhZ2VDb250ZW50In19

Dear David Selke, Thank you for your thoughtful comment and for contributing to our discussion on the real radius of the hydrogen atom! I truly appreciate your perspective as an engineer and your references to alternative approaches that challenge the conventional framework of quantum mechanics (QM). Your point about the Bohr radius not being a definite location for the electron, but rather a peak in the probability distribution, highlights one of the core issues we have with QM: its reliance on probabilistic interpretations rather than deterministic trajectories. The idea of calculating the "average time an electron spends in the nucleus" does indeed sound absurd, as it underscores the abstract nature of QM that often disconnects from physical reality.

I’m intrigued by your recommendation of the deterministic model proposed by Brilliant Light Power (https://brilliantlightpower.com/theory/). Their Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUT-CP) aligns with our own concerns about QM, as it seeks to apply classical physical laws to atomic systems, offering a more intuitive understanding of electron behavior. In our paper, "Der reale Radius des Wasserstoffatoms: Neue theoretische und experimentelle Ansätze" (German International Journal of Modern Science №99, 2025, DOI: [to be inserted]), we also challenge the structure of QM by showing that its predictions for the hydrogen atom radii—0.529 Å for the ground state and 483 Å for the excited state (n=33 n = 33 n=33)—deviate significantly from experimental data (1.0 Å and 1.4 Å) by 47% and over 30,000%, respectively. In contrast, our deterministic approach (DTA), based on the proton’s potential electrostatic field (PEPP), predicts radii of 1.06 Å (6% deviation) and 1.413 Å (0.9% deviation), which are much closer to experimental values. Like the GUT-CP, DTA emphasizes real electron trajectories, allowing us to visualize the electron’s motion more intuitively—for instance, explaining the transition from 1.06 Å to 1.413 Å with an energy close to 3.4 eV (photon at 365 nm), aligning with experiments by Stodolna et al. (2013).

I also took the time to review the paper you recommended, "Something is rotten in the state of QED" by Oliver Consa (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338980602_Something_is_rotten_in_the_state_of_QED). Consa’s critique of quantum electrodynamics (QED) is eye-opening, particularly his argument that QED’s claimed precision—often hailed as the most accurate theory in science—relies heavily on a single experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (g-factor). He suggests that this precision may have been achieved through questionable mathematical manipulations, such as the renormalization techniques used to handle infinities in QED calculations. This resonates with our own skepticism about QM, as its foundational assumptions lead to significant discrepancies in the hydrogen atom radii, which we believe stem from a deeper flaw in its probabilistic framework.

Your comment, along with the references you provided, strengthens our conviction that deterministic models like DTA and GUT-CP may offer a more accurate path to understanding atomic physics. I’d like to ask a few questions to deepen our discussion:

• How do you see the GUT-CP model comparing to our DTA in terms of practical applications, such as engineering or material science?
• Given Consa’s critique of QED, do you think the scientific community’s reliance on QM and QED is more a matter of tradition than evidence, especially when deterministic models show better agreement with experimental data?
• As an engineer, have you encountered practical challenges in applying QM to real-world systems that might be better addressed by deterministic approaches?

I’d also like to invite our colleagues from Germany, Estonia, India, Indonesia, and the USA—who have shown great interest in our paper with over 50 downloads—to join this conversation. With over 50 participants in this discussion but only 4–5 comments so far, I encourage everyone to share their thoughts in this respectful and collaborative dialogue. Let’s continue to challenge the structure of QM and explore deterministic models as a path to truth in atomic physics! I look forward to your response and further insights.

Unveiling the Flaws of Quantum Mechanics: The Misunderstanding of the Bohr Radius

The Bohr radius (0.529 Å) is often taught as the "most probable" radius of the hydrogen atom in its ground state, but experimental data reveal a radius of 1.0 Å—a 47% deviation! For the excited state 𝑛=30, QM predicts 483 Å, while experiments show 1.4 Å, a staggering 30,000% deviation. These discrepancies expose fundamental flaws in QM’s probabilistic framework. Our paper, "Der reale Radius des Wasserstoffatoms: Neue theoretische und experimentelle Ansätze" (German International Journal of Modern Science №99, 2025), challenges QM with a deterministic approach (DTA) based on the proton’s potential electrostatic field. DTA predicts radii of 1.06 Å (6% deviation) and 1.413 Å (0.9% deviation), aligning closely with experimental data.

Gurcharn S. Sandhu’s work, "Dynamic Electron Orbits in Atomic Hydrogen" (Journal of Modern Physics, 2023, DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2023.1411087), further supports this critique. Sandhu argues that the Schrödinger equation’s time-invariant potential energy term "smears" the electron’s position, preventing visualization of its trajectory. His deterministic model yields a 1s orbit radius ranging from 0.13𝑎0 to 1.87𝑎0 (≈1 Å), closely matching our DTA prediction of 1.06 Å.

With over 50 downloads and interest from Germany, Estonia, India, Indonesia, and the USA, our ResearchGate discussion is gaining traction—but we need your insights! How can we correct the misunderstanding of the Bohr radius and move beyond QM’s limitations? Join our respectful dialogue: [insert ResearchGate discussion link]. Let’s redefine atomic physics together! #Physics #HydrogenAtom #Determinism #QuantumMechanics

Hi Bakhodir,

Thanks for following my references to Mills' and Consa's work. I have one question about one of your papers that I looked up. It had colored, "heat map" type pictures for the electron, measuring some 1mm, which was later corrected to 1 angstrom. I don't understand where the millimeter dimension came from or why it needed to be adjusted. Did you use some algorithm to produce those images? And why did they need to be corrected so much?

In answer to your questions:

1. A difference (though not a practical one in terms of technology) of GUTCP vs DTA is that GUTCP predicts the same Bohr radius as QM. If there is new measurement data, such as a change to the accepted ionization energy of Hydrogen, which agrees with DTA, that would be a challenge to GUTCP as well as QM. On a more practical side, GUTCP predicts the hydrino states of hydrogen which a ground state electron may fall to after giving up a specific amount of energy to an acceptor, which may be another atom, ion or molecule which is capable of receiving this energy in a through-space resonant or near field, catalytic process. Is the "ground state" only the highest state which is stable to spontaneous emission of a photon - the highest of many? Does DTA agree with hydrino theory? The SunCell of Brilliant Light Power is reported to run on such catalysis of Hydrogen to lower energy states.

2. Although Consa's work is more sensational, other voices are saying that mainstream physicists are going along to get along, rather than making heard their doubts about orthodox physics. Sabine Hossenfelder and Alexander Unzicker are a couple of outspoken critics of aspects of modern physics. Neither of them challenges QM (yet) but their existence shows that one can exist outside of the mainstream in today's physics environment.

3. In my paper about Shor's Algorithm machines: Article A Classical Mechanism for Shor's Algorithm Implementations

I show that, by replacing the quantum parts of Shor's Algorithm with random number generation on a classical computer, one can factor integers (that is, do the allegedly quantum calculation) solely from the action of loop conditions on noise - a hidden brute force search, essentially, which gets credit for being a quantum process due to the experimenters' expectations. I am firmly against the superposition of states since I think it is an offense to logic. By claiming that a different logic applies to quantum states, and further that quantum math determines everything, QM proponents are sawing off the branch they sit on. Math only works if logic is true.

People forget that the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment was proposed by Schrodinger to oppose the superposition of states, not to teach it. Schrodinger's article, "Are There Quantum Jumps" might prove eye-opening to one who learned QM from textbooks and got a smoothed-over history of the field.

Hi David,

Thank you for your insightful questions and for enriching our discussion! I’ll address your query about the "heat map" images and the 1 mm dimension, and then respond to your points on GUTCP, hydrino theory, and the critique of QM.

Regarding the 1 mm dimension in the "heat map" images: The 1 mm size you noted refers to the scale of the enlarged illustration of the hydrogen atom’s electron density distribution, as obtained in a photoionization microscopy experiment similar to that described by Stodolna et al. (2013, Physical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.213001). In our study, we measured the size of the atom’s image on the illustration as 1 mm in the ground state and 1.4 mm in the excited state. These dimensions were then scaled to the real atomic sizes using the appropriate scaling factor, resulting in 1.0 Å for the ground state and 1.4 Å for the excited state, which align with experimental data. This scaling process is detailed in our paper, "The Real Radius of the Hydrogen Atom" (DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18580.00644), attached to this discussion on ResearchGate. The "heat map" images were generated numerically to visualize the electron’s trajectory density in the proton’s potential electrostatic field (PEPP) under our deterministic approach (DTA), rather than a probabilistic distribution as in QM. We used a method similar to that described by Gurcharn S. Sandhu in "Dynamic Electron Orbits in Atomic Hydrogen" (Journal of Modern Physics, 2023), computing trajectories based on energy and angular momentum conservation.

The correction from 1 mm to 1 Å in the text was made to avoid potential confusion, ensuring that readers understand these are the real atomic sizes, not the illustration scale. I apologize if this wasn’t clear initially, but the scaling was explained in the paper, and I hope this clarifies the matter.

On GUTCP, hydrino theory, and SunCell: You’re correct that GUTCP predicts the same Bohr radius as QM (0.529 Å), which deviates by 47% from the experimental 1.0 Å. Our DTA, based on the proton’s potential electrostatic field (PEPP), predicts 1.06 Å (6% deviation) for the ground state and 1.413 Å (0.9% deviation) for the excited state, aligning much closer to experiments. If new measurements of hydrogen’s ionization energy support DTA, this would indeed challenge both QM and GUTCP. Regarding hydrino states, DTA does not support fractional quantum states (n=1/2,1/3,… n = 1/2, 1/3, \ldots n=1/2,1/3,…). In DTA, the ground state is defined by the electron’s equilibrium in the proton’s field, yielding 1.06 Å without requiring lower-energy states. The energy difference between our predicted radii (1.0 Å to 1.4 Å) is about 4.1 eV, close to the 3.4 eV of a 365 nm photon used in Stodolna’s experiment, suggesting a physical mechanism for orbital changes without invoking hydrinos. As for the SunCell, its reliance on hydrino transitions remains unproven, and critics have questioned such claims. If it works, the energy output might stem from plasma effects rather than hydrino transitions. DTA offers a simpler explanation through classical interactions.

On critics of modern physics and your work on Shor’s Algorithm: I agree that voices like Sabine Hossenfelder and Alexander Unzicker show that challenging mainstream physics is possible, encouraging our critique of QM. Your work on Shor’s Algorithm, demonstrating that a classical mechanism can replicate its results, aligns with our skepticism of quantum superposition. I also appreciate your note on Schrödinger’s opposition to superposition—I’ll explore his article "Are There Quantum Jumps" further.

A question for you: Given our shared goal of replacing QM’s probabilistic interpretations with deterministic models, how can the scientific community overcome its reliance on QM traditions, especially when deterministic approaches like DTA and your classical mechanisms align better with experimental data?

I invite our colleagues from Germany, Estonia, India, Indonesia, and the USA—who have shown great interest in our paper with over 50 downloads—to join this conversation. Let’s continue challenging QM and exploring deterministic paths to truth in atomic physics! I look forward to your response, David, and further insights from our community.

Hi Bakhodir,

Thanks for clarifying about the scale change. I will have to read your paper more closely.

Why do you think the "accepted" value of the radius of Hydrogen's electron has persisted? Almost surely, earlier measurements have supported earlier theory. Do you think this is "more of the same" that we saw in Consa's QED critique?

I went to look at NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology) database values for different atoms' ionization energies, and found something that amazed me. https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/ASD/ionEnergy.html . Type in "H-like" in the box next to "Spectra" and click "Retrieve Data".

Every single one of the Ionization energies (H, He+, Li2+, etc) is surrounded by parentheses - when you hover over those parentheses, a tooltip says "theoretical value". Does NIST know about the experimental divergence but is giving out "theoretical", QM orthodox values hoping no one will notice? In my preprint, I noticed that many (most) NIST reported values were extrapolated, theoretical or otherwise not measured. Preprint Ionization Energies from Classical Force Balance: Calcium-li...

Do you have a suggestion why the classical force-balance technique matches NIST so well (at least for low to mid proton number) in the above paper, despite that the new measurements you refer to are so different than NIST? If NIST could be way off, couldn't the measurement you cite be off too?

I have mentioned Unzicker before. Both he and Lee Smolin in their respective books (The Higgs Fake and The Trouble with Physics), say that there is some overlooked bad assumption that is preventing progress, like a modern version of the epicycle theory. I claim that bad assumption is the point-particle approximation. Here is a short paper with that thesis: Article Against Point Charges

Article Orbit of an Extended Body in a Repulsive Field: Toward an El...

Hi David,

Thank you for your insightful questions and for continuing this important discussion! Your observations about NIST and the persistence of QM’s flawed values resonate deeply with me, and I’m glad we’re digging into these issues together. Let me address your points and add a critical perspective on QM’s misuse of fundamental concepts like energy, which further exposes its absurdity.

On the persistence of the "accepted" radius of the hydrogen atom (0.529 Å): The "accepted" value of 0.529 Å, rooted in the Bohr model and perpetuated by QM, persists because of a historical bias in physics. Early measurements, often indirect and influenced by the theoretical framework of the time, were interpreted to fit the Bohr model. This is indeed "more of the same" as seen in Consa’s QED critique—a self-reinforcing cycle where theory dictates measurement, and measurement is adjusted to fit theory, ignoring experimental reality. The scientific community, enamored with QM’s mathematical elegance, has been reluctant to challenge this value, even as experimental data (e.g., 1.0 Å in the ground state) show a 47% deviation. This is not science—it’s dogma, forcing everyone to wear mismatched shoes, as if a sandal and a boot were the same, while ignoring the discomfort of reality!

On NIST’s use of "theoretical" ionization energies for hydrogen-like atoms: Your discovery that NIST reports "theoretical" ionization energies for hydrogen-like atoms (H, He+, Li2+, etc.), marked by parentheses, is shocking but not surprising. The tooltip indicating these are QM-derived values (e.g., 13.6 eV for hydrogen) suggests that NIST prioritizes orthodoxy over experimental truth. If NIST is aware of experimental divergences but chooses to present QM’s theoretical values, it’s a deliberate attempt to uphold a failing paradigm, hoping no one will notice the discrepancy. In our work, we’ve shown that the experimental radius of hydrogen is 1.0 Å, and DTA predicts 1.06 Å (6% deviation), while QM’s 0.529 Å is off by 47%. The ionization energy of 13.6 eV, which NIST labels as "theoretical," aligns with QM’s prediction but fails to reflect the real proton field’s work, which we calculate as W=13.6 eV W = 13.6 \, \text{eV} W=13.6eV at 1.06 Å, matching experiment. NIST’s reliance on theoretical values for such a fundamental data point as hydrogen’s ionization energy is a thread worth pulling—it could unravel the entire QM facade!

On the classical force-balance technique matching NIST: Your classical force-balance method matching NIST’s values for low to mid proton numbers (e.g., calcium) is intriguing. This likely happens because NIST’s "theoretical" values are derived from QM models that, for lighter elements, are tuned to approximate experimental ionization energies through empirical adjustments. However, as you noted, these values diverge significantly from new measurements, like the ones we cite (1.0 Å and 1.4 Å for hydrogen). The fact that your method aligns with NIST suggests that QM has been artificially calibrated to fit certain data, but it fails when confronted with reality, as seen in hydrogen’s radius. Regarding your question about the reliability of our measurements: our experimental values (1.0 Å ground, 1.4 Å excited) are based on photoionization microscopy experiments (e.g., Stodolna et al., 2013), which directly image the electron density. These are more reliable than NIST’s theoretical extrapolations, which are rooted in QM’s flawed assumptions. However, I agree that all measurements should be scrutinized—but QM’s 47% and 30,000% deviations are indefensible compared to DTA’s 6% and 0.9%.

On QM’s misuse of energy as a scalar quantity: Your mention of overlooked assumptions in physics, as noted by Unzicker and Smolin, brings me to a fundamental flaw in QM: its treatment of energy. Energy is a scalar quantity, meaning it should be a positive sum of contributions, independent of reference frame. In classical mechanics, if kinetic energy is 10 eV and potential energy is 20 eV, the total energy is 30 eV—simple and logical, like lifting 20 kg with one hand and 10 kg with the other, totaling 30 kg. But QM claims the total energy of hydrogen’s electron is -13.6 eV, with V=−27.2 eV V = -27.2 \, \text{eV} V=−27.2eV and K=13.6 eV K = 13.6 \, \text{eV} K=13.6eV, so E=13.6−27.2=−13.6 eV E = 13.6 - 27.2 = -13.6 \, \text{eV} E=13.6−27.2=−13.6eV. This is absurd—how can a scalar quantity like energy be negative? It’s as if QM says you can only lift 10 kg total, despite holding 30 kg, defying physical sense. QM’s introduction of negative energy violates the fundamental nature of energy as a scalar, showing its disconnect from reality. In DTA, we calculate the work done by the proton’s field as W=13.6 eV W = 13.6 \, \text{eV} W=13.6eV at 1.06 Å, a positive scalar matching the ionization energy, consistent with experiment and classical mechanics.

On the point-particle assumption and extended-body models: I completely agree with your critique of the point-particle approximation, which you identify as a core flaw in QM, and your support for GUTCP’s extended-body model. The point-particle model ignores the physical structure of the electron and proton, leading to errors like the 0.529 Å radius. In DTA, we don’t explicitly model the electron as an extended body, but we use the real potential electric field of the proton (PEPP), which yields radii (1.06 Å and 1.413 Å) far closer to experiment. Your work on extended-body models for nuclear structure is fascinating, and I’ll make time to read it—the idea of moving away from point particles could indeed be the key to breaking physics out of its current stagnation. QM’s insistence on point particles is another example of wearing mismatched shoes, pretending they’re the same, while forcing everyone else to follow suit.

A question for you: Given QM’s absurd treatment of energy as a negative scalar and its reliance on theoretical values over experimental reality, how can we push the scientific community to abandon these flawed assumptions and embrace deterministic models like DTA or your extended-body approach?

I invite our colleagues to join this discussion and challenge the QM orthodoxy that’s holding physics back. Let’s keep pulling these threads, David—I’m confident we’re on the path to real progress!

Hi Bakhodir,

Don't take this the wrong way, but your English is excellent :) A joy to read.

Negative potential energies are inherited by QM but also are used in Newtonian orbits. I have an idiosyncratic view of potential energy. I agree that energy should be independent of reference frame, and that is also key to my understanding: a ball on top of a hill may have mgh of potential energy, because that much "could be" converted to kinetic energy. However, the ball does not have more mass due to this supposed "energy content" according to E = mc^2. So if the mass / energy inventory does not change when h / height changes, why do we call potential energy a form of energy, instead of the "potential to become or to develop energy"? I hope I am not just splitting hairs.

Likewise, the gravitational potential energy of the ball with respect to the moon or to Jupiter can't be physically realized in a property of the ball: it would have to have different masses at the same time otherwise. I think the conservation of energy became popular because it was very useful, but with the elevation of potential energy to a form of energy in its own right, what was once an insight became merely a tautology. If everything that can "become" energy is a form of energy, then of course energy is conserved. But so what? Also, with the discovery of the mass defect in atoms leading to the atomic bombs, the true conservation is now of mass-energy and not only of energy - meaning that our best, orthodox understanding is now that energy is *not* conserved independently of matter. Saying that mass is a "form of" energy just continues the tautology building. Am I way off base here?

I thought about your opposition to energy as a negative scalar. It makes me think of electrical properties like resistance (Ohms), capacitance (Farads), and inductance (Henries). In most cases it only makes sense for these to be positive. However, an amplifier circuit could be said to have a negative resistance. But that is far afield from fundamental physics. Is the definition of an electron's potential energy as being with respect to an ionized, "infinitely distant" state where potential energy would equal zero, leading to negative potential energies for bound states, harmless? If not ionization, what situation should be defined as zero potential energy for Hydrogen? Maybe the ground state?

I think your publishing papers and having discussions like this is key to honing our ideas so that when your colleagues in the mainstream come to critique deterministic models, they will find their objections have been considered already. I am actually surprised that some QM defenders have not arrived to show us the errors of our ways :)

Hi David,

Thank you again for your kind words—it’s a pleasure to engage in this disc

ussion with you! I’m glad we’re exploring these fundamental issues together, and your latest comments on potential energy and its interpretation give us a great opportunity to dig deeper into the flaws of QM while refining our deterministic approaches. Given the broad scope of this topic, I’d like to focus on the experimental results, particularly the geometric size of the hydrogen atom, and then address other parameters that are often taken as "standards" but fail to align with reality.On potential energy as a "potential to become energy": I fully agree with your interpretation of potential energy as a "potential to become energy." This aligns perfectly with how we view the electric potential of the proton in DTA. In our approach, the proton’s electric potential, which we denote as PEP (Proton Electric Potential), performs work to move the electron, converting this potential into energy. For example, at a radius of 1.06 Å, the work done by the proton’s field is W=13.6 eV W = 13.6 \, \text{eV} W=13.6eV, a positive scalar that matches the experimental ionization energy of hydrogen. This is analogous to classical mechanics, where potential energy (e.g., mgh mgh mgh in gravity) represents the capacity to do work in the future. The key point is that energy in a system like electron-proton must always be defined relative to a specific coordinate, not arbitrarily, ensuring physical meaning. QM, however, often loses this clarity by introducing arbitrary conventions that lead to absurdities, as we’ll discuss below.

On negative energy and the choice of reference frame in QM: Your question about the "harmlessness" of defining potential energy as zero at infinity, leading to negative values for bound states, is a critical one. In QM, the potential energy of the electron in hydrogen is set to V=0 V = 0 V=0 at infinite separation, resulting in V=−27.2 eV V = -27.2 \, \text{eV} V=−27.2eV at 0.529 Å, with a total energy of E=−13.6 eV E = -13.6 \, \text{eV} E=−13.6eV. While this convention is mathematically convenient, it lacks physical sense. If energy is a scalar quantity, how can it be negative? Moreover, in the Bohr model, the origin of coordinates is at the nucleus, yet QM defines energy relative to infinity. If the potential energy is negative due to this choice, why isn’t the radius negative as well? QM arbitrarily applies the negative sign to energy but not to radius, revealing a deeper issue: its interpretations often lack direct physical meaning, relying instead on mathematical constructs and subjective explanations that contradict reality. In DTA, we avoid this by focusing on the work done by the proton’s field, W=13.6 eV W = 13.6 \, \text{eV} W=13.6eV, which is positive and aligns with experiment, without needing artificial negative values.

On the reference frame and physical meaning: Your example of a ball on a hill with potential energy mgh mgh mgh is a great analogy. In classical mechanics, we define h=0 h = 0 h=0 at the ground level, a physically meaningful reference point, so the potential energy is positive and represents the capacity to do work as the ball falls. This doesn’t lead to negative energies because the reference frame is tied to a real, tangible point—the Earth’s surface. In QM, however, setting V=0 V = 0 V=0 at infinity is an arbitrary choice that leads to negative energies, such as E=−13.6 eV E = -13.6 \, \text{eV} E=−13.6eV, which defies the scalar nature of energy. QM’s choice of reference frame is not grounded in fundamental principles of mechanics or electrodynamics—it’s a contrived system designed to fit its mathematical framework, not reality. As you pointed out, this is akin to reinterpreting Newtonian mechanics in a way that suits QM’s preferences, rather than adhering to physical laws. Has QM invented an absurd reference frame that distorts the true nature of energy and leads to incorrect predictions, like the 0.529 Å radius (47% off from the experimental 1.0 Å)? In DTA, we use a reference frame that reflects the real proton field, yielding radii of 1.06 Å and 1.413 Å, with deviations of only 6% and 0.9% from experiment.

On the geometric size of the hydrogen atom and experimental results: I’d like to draw your attention to the geometric size of the hydrogen atom as determined by experiment, which is a critical point in this discussion. The experimental data, such as those from Stodolna et al. (2013, Physical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.213001), show the hydrogen atom’s radius as 1.0 Å in the ground state and 1.4 Å in the excited state (n=30 n = 30 n=30). These values starkly contrast with QM’s predictions of 0.529 Å (ground) and 483 Å (excited, n=33 n = 33 n=33), which deviate by 47% and 30,000%, respectively. In DTA, our calculations yield 1.06 Å (ground) and 1.413 Å (excited), with deviations of only 6% and 0.9% from experiment. The geometric size of the atom is a fundamental parameter, yet QM’s reliance on the Bohr radius as a "standard" leads to catastrophic errors. I’d be interested in your thoughts on these experimental results—do you agree that the geometric size of the hydrogen atom, as measured, should take precedence over theoretical predictions that fail so dramatically?

On other parameters of the hydrogen atom and the CODATA "standard": Beyond the geometric size, we should also consider other parameters of the hydrogen atom, such as its ionization energy. In technical data, including CODATA, the Bohr radius (0.529 Å) and the associated ionization energy (13.6 eV) are often treated as the "gold standard." However, as you pointed out with NIST’s use of "theoretical" values, these standards are rooted in QM’s flawed framework. For example, CODATA accepts the ionization energy as 13.6 eV, but in QM, the work done by the proton’s field at 0.529 Å is W=27.2 eV W = 27.2 \, \text{eV} W=27.2eV, leading to a contradiction: if E=−13.6 eV E = -13.6 \, \text{eV} E=−13.6eV is the ionization energy, why is the field’s work twice as large? In DTA, we resolve this by calculating W=13.6 eV W = 13.6 \, \text{eV} W=13.6eV at 1.06 Å, matching the experimental ionization energy and the measured radius. CODATA’s acceptance of QM’s values as the "true" standard perpetuates a misconception that we must challenge—parameters like the radius and ionization energy must be based on experimental reality, not theoretical dogma. What other parameters of the hydrogen atom do you think we should re-evaluate to further expose QM’s shortcomings?

A practical exercise for you and our colleagues: To better understand the connection between the experimental illustrations and the real physical sizes of the hydrogen atom, I propose the following steps for you and other participants in this discussion:

A question for you: Given the experimental evidence for the hydrogen atom’s geometric size and the discrepancies in other parameters perpetuated by CODATA, how can we encourage the scientific community to prioritize experimental data over theoretical "standards" that fail to reflect reality?

I invite our colleagues to join this discussion, try the proposed exercise, and challenge the QM orthodoxy that’s holding physics back. Let’s keep pushing for a physics that reflects reality, David—I’m excited to continue this journey with you!

Hi Bakhodir,

I finally followed your link to the Stodolna at al (2013) paper. I found it quite technical. I also noticed that they believe they are seeing QM effects (the electron tunneling into a classically forbidden region). For instance, on page 4: "However, in case of excitation to a quasibound state, electrons with an emission angle smaller than theta_sub_c may tunnel through the V(eta) potential barrier, leading to a situation where the electron can reach a position on the detector that is not classically accessible." Why do you think they are presenting their paper as confirmatory for QM? Why didn't they draw the same inference as in your paper about the radius of the hydrogen ground state - wouldn't that be a higher impact claim for them?

I also found in the Figure 3 caption "A comparison of the experimentally measured (solid lines) and calculated radial (dashed lines) probability distributions P(R) is shown to the right of the experimental results. In order to make this comparison, the computational results [right column graphs] were scaled to the macroscopic dimensions of the experiment [middle column images]". (My additions in square brackets).

I noticed some of your formulas are not coming across to me correctly. For instance, "V=−27.2 eV V = -27.2 \, \text{eV} V=−27.2eV". I don't know if I need to allow more cookies or if it is something on your end. Whether you can edit those 3 copies to just one occurrence in your old posts or not, maybe you can check for these in the future before you post.

You asked "What other parameters of the hydrogen atom do you think we should re-evaluate to further expose QM’s shortcomings?" I remember a quote of Dr. Randell Mills (creator of GUTCP), in which he said "the constant parameters of the Hydrogen atom are known to 10-figure accuracy. So, probabilities have nothing to do with it" (my paraphrase). If these properties are all fundamentally uncertain, how come their measurements are not all over the place? Are all these labs using a Star Trek "Heisenberg Compensator?" :)

I would like to know more about your PEP. I wonder how it is different from the proton field used in my classical-ionization-energies preprint, which is based on GUTCP of Mills and Mod 1 of Phillips. There the force balance (sum of centrifugal, electric and magnetic forces) determines the radius of each electron. Where can I find your DTA computation of 1.0 angstroms for the ground state?

Thanks! :)

Dear David,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and for diving into the Stodolna et al. (2013) paper! I’m excited to address your questions and share more about our work on the hydrogen atom, which I believe offers a clearer picture of its true structure.

Good Afternoon my friend,

I was not able to find "Validation of Deterministic and Quantum Models" in a quick Google search, but I did find "https://sibac.info/journal/innovation/69/75665" and Google-translated it. I think it is worthwhile to compare your derivation of the Hydrogen electron radius with another that comes from Dr. Phillips, a GUTCP supporter who has proposed the "Mod 1" that inspired my preprint. He is releasing a series of physics articles on a Substack page, of which the relevant one to compare hydrogen models is here: https://hydrogenrevolution.substack.com/p/the-hydrino-hypothesis-chapter-4 . You can skip a bit and search for the heading: The GUTCP Hydrogen Model. The derivation of the Bohr radius culminates in Eq. 4-7, and this is used to find the 13.6 eV energy in equation 4-8. I will give you the first crack at analyzing the differences in your derivation and Phillips'.

In my ionization energies paper, I used a python script to compute the energies using GUTCP force balance terms.

For Hydrogen, I called: r = solveForR('F = m*[hbar]*[hbar]/(m*m*r*r*r)', '[Fe] = Z*e*e/(4*[pi]*[epsilon0]*(r*r))', '[Fm] = 0', '[Fm2] = 0', '[Fm3] = 0', '[Fm4] = 0'

where F is the centrifugal force, Fe is the electric force, and Fm(etc) are the magnetic forces.

For Helium, r = solveForR('F = m*[hbar]*[hbar]/(m*m*r*r*r)', '[Fe] = (Z-1)*e*e/(4*[pi]*[epsilon0]*(r*r))', '[Fm] = [hbar]*[hbar]*[sqrt(s*(s+1))]/(Z*m*r*r*r)', '[Fm2] = 0', '[Fm3] = 0', '[Fm4] = 0'

There is a link to the full Python program in my paper, and also a link to a spreadsheet that gathers all the data and compares it to NIST with graphs.

After the radius is found, I computed the energy in eV thus:

thisElectronVolts = 6241509000000000000*(protonNum-(electronNum-1))*1.60218e-19*1.60218e-19/(8*3.141592654*0.00000000000885419*thisRadius)

Where the first constant converts to eV from Joules, and the other constants are recognizable. My program only makes the computations automated to avoid human error in making so many of them. The inputs are all taken from Dr. Phillips or Dr. Mills. You might be able to find an error in my radius-to-energy formula above: but it "works", so maybe not?

I'm interested to see what you think of Phillips' derivation since it comes out to 13.6 eV while also arriving at the Bohr radius as an intermediate step. Of course, experiment trumps theory - a point that BLP is trying to show with their SunCell!

Hello David.

You mentioned that you couldn't find the paper. Here is the link to it: "Validation of Deterministic and Quantum Models for Electron Orbit Radii in Hydrogen Atom Using Photoionization Microscopy", DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33076.56961.

An answer to your question will be provided.

Dear David,

Good afternoon, my friend! Thank you for your thoughtful response and for directing me to Dr. Jonathan Phillips’ article on the Hydrogen Revolution Substack, specifically Chapter 4 of his Hydrino Hypothesis series. I’ve reviewed Phillips’ derivation under "The GUTCP Hydrogen Model," focusing on Equation 4-7 for the radius and Equation 4-8 for the energy, as well as your Python script for computing ionization energies. Let’s analyze the differences between our Deterministic Approach (DTA) and Phillips’ GUTCP derivation, highlighting three critical errors in GUTCP that lead to its discrepancies with experiment.

Our approach in DTA

In DTA, we calculate the radius of the hydrogen atom electron based on the energy balance. Chemists have experimentally determined the value of the ionization energy, and we strictly adhere to the principles of energy conservation. You can read more about this in the article published in SibAC (Siberian Academy of Sciences of Russia), link in Russian: [https://sibac.info/journal/innovation/69/75665]. Also available in English: "A new engineering methodology for calculating the radius of a hydrogen atom and other elements of a periodic table" [DOI: 10.17632/hz52wk77kd.1].

We predict a radius of 1.06 Å for the ground state with 6% deviation from the experimental 1.0 Å (Stodolna, 2013) and 1.413 Å for the excited state by a laser of photon wavelength 365-367 nm with 0.9% deviation from 1.4 Å.

The energy level determined by the proton electrostatic potential field (PEPP) at 𝑟 = 1.06 Å is 13.6 eV, which does not correspond to the energy level of the proton electric field. In DTA, energies are treated as absolute scalar quantities. The electric field potential of a proton in the reference frame (RF) can be described through the potential energy (PE): from the proton radius 𝑟𝑝 = 10^(−15) m to the electron orbit at a distance of 𝑟 = 1.06 Å, it is equal to 1,441,896.187 eV. The kinetic energy (KE) at this radius is 6.802 eV, and the total energy 𝑇, relative to the reference frame, is 1,441,902.989 eV, which indicates the presence of a deep potential well near the proton. Note: The Bohr model and quantum mechanics raise doubts about their scientific validity, since they do not agree with the laws of Newton and Maxwell, as well as their basic principles. Moreover, their approaches often ignore such key concepts as the reference frame, total energy, potential and kinetic energy. These theories are rather mathematical constructions that describe physical processes through abstract mathematical models. As a result, such an interpretation is devoid of practical meaning and logic. If the fabulous has no meaning and logic, then it is a dimensional expression!.

a) The First Error: The "Spoiled Grain" in Equation 4-7

Equation 4-7 relies on the quantization condition 𝑚𝑒𝑣𝑟 = ℏ, which is a remnant of the Bohr model known as the "spoon of spoiled porridge". Despite GUTCP's claims of its purely classical nature, this non-classical assumption leads to an incorrect value for the Bohr radius of 0.529 Å, which is 47% off from the experimental value of 1.0 Å. For the excited state at 𝑛 = 30, GUTCP predicts a radius of 483 Å, which is 30,000% off from the experimental value of 1.4 Å.

In contrast, DTA avoids the "spoon of spoiled porridge" and the quantum rules invented by Bohr. Well, Bohr was a genius, of course, but he was clearly not good with porridge. More than a century has passed, and neither Bohr nor his great colleagues have been able to cook up a normal explanation. That is why DTA predicts values ​​of 1.06 Å and 1.413 Å with deviations of only 6% and 0.9%, respectively — and this is without any porridge experiments!

To be continued.

Conclusion

The initial analysis of the GUTCP methods revealed a discrepancy between the obtained results and the experimental data. For example, the experimentally measured radius is 1.0 Å, while in GUTCP it is 0.529 Å. As already noted, I believe that the reason for this discrepancy is the use of quantum rules proposed by Bohr, an incorrect reference system, and mixing of energy categories.

For clarity, you can calculate the radius of the excited state of a hydrogen atom when irradiated with a laser with a wavelength of 365 nm and compare it with the experimental value of 1.4 Å. Estimate the magnitude of the detected deviation.

I would be happy to hear your thoughts on these differences!

Best wishes,

Bakhodir.

Good Morning Bakhodir,

I will delve more into your DTA model in a future post, but first I want to question the accuracy of the GUTCP/Mod 1 model: granting that it is wrong for the sake of argument, how does it produce many correct-looking results if an intermediate value (the radius) in computing the energy is off by some 40+ percent? Shouldn't the energy be off too by a similar amount? Or do two wrongs make a right?

For instance, I have counted in the spreadsheet referenced in the ionization energies preprint some 548 ionization energies (among H-Ca and their isoelectronic series up to Uranium) which are within 1% of NIST values. Many more would fall within 6%. If mvr = hbar is the problem in the GUTCP/Mod 1 derivation, leading to large radius errors, what is the "other problem" that makes these many ionization energies come out "right"? I mentioned before my formula for converting radius to eV:

thisElectronVolts = 6241509000000000000*(protonNum-(electronNum-1))*1.60218e-19*1.60218e-19/(8*3.141592654*0.00000000000885419*thisRadius)

"thisRadius" is in meters.

Unfortunately, this paper did not cover excited states, so I don't have any data for them handy, but the GUTCP book does in Book 1 if you want to look them up (the book can be streamed or downloaded from the BLP website).

Best,

Dave

Dear Dave,

Good morning! Thank you for your insightful question about the GUTCP/Mod 1 model and its ability to produce seemingly accurate ionization energies despite an incorrect radius. Your observation that GUTCP predicts 548 ionization energies within 1% of NIST values, with many more within 6%, despite a 47% error in the hydrogen radius, is a critical point that deserves a deeper analysis. Let’s address this paradox using our Deterministic Approach (DTA), rooted in Newtonian mechanics (NM) and Maxwellian electrodynamics (MED), while also highlighting a broader issue with the data and models you’re comparing against.

1. The Flaw in NIST and CODATA Data: A Foundational Issue

Before delving into GUTCP’s paradox, we must address a fundamental problem: the NIST and CODATA data you’re comparing your results to are themselves based on calculations using the Bohr model and quantum mechanics (QM). These models are inadequate for describing even the simplest hydrogen atom, as evidenced by experimental data. For instance, Stodolna (2013) measured the hydrogen radius in the ground state as 1.0 Å, while QM and the Bohr model predict 0.529 Å—a 47% deviation. For the excited state (n=33 n = 33 n=33), the experimental radius is 1.4 Å, but QM predicts 483 Å, a staggering 30,000% deviation. If these models fail so dramatically for hydrogen, their applicability to more complex atoms (like those from H to Ca and their isoelectronic series up to uranium) is highly questionable.

By comparing GUTCP/Mod 1 results to NIST and CODATA, you’re essentially benchmarking against flawed data derived from QM, not against true experimental values like those of Stodolna. This creates an illusion of accuracy: GUTCP aligns with NIST because both are rooted in the same erroneous framework, not because GUTCP is physically correct.

The Broader Implications: QM as a Pseudoscience

The reliance on QM and the Bohr model, as reflected in NIST and CODATA data, highlights a deeper issue: QM, as a probabilistic theory, has been a pseudoscience that has caused significant harm to physics. For over 100 years, it has dulled the minds of young physicists, replacing the deterministic clarity of Newton and Maxwell with abstract probabilities and wave functions. Any logically thinking person would have rejected this framework long ago, given its failure to predict even the hydrogen atom’s radius accurately. The question remains whether this perpetuation of QM is due to ignorance or a deliberate effort to maintain the status quo in academia.

The Need for a Paradigm Shift and Collaboration

A fundamental shift in atomic physics, moving away from QM to a deterministic framework like DTA, would lead to rapid advancements in technology and scientific progress. However, as my colleague Ismail Abbas and I have discussed, achieving this shift through our current “artisanal” efforts—working as a small team—could delay the process by 15–20 years. To accelerate this transition, we need collaborative efforts with researchers like you, Dave, who are open to questioning established models and exploring new approaches. Teamwork could help us validate DTA further, conduct new experiments, and develop technologies that QM’s limitations have held back.

Conclusion

GUTCP/Mod 1’s ability to match NIST ionization energies despite an incorrect radius is due to a compensating mechanism: the quantization condition mevr=ℏ m_e v r = \hbar me​vr=ℏ and empirical corrections adjust the energies to fit flawed NIST data, which itself is based on QM. This is not a sign of physical accuracy but of mathematical curve-fitting. DTA, by contrast, predicts both radius and energy accurately without such adjustments, offering a more reliable framework. The broader issue is QM’s failure as a pseudoscience, which has hindered physics for over a century. I’d love to collaborate further, Dave, to explore how DTA can address these challenges and drive progress in atomic physics.

Best regards, Bakhodir

Good afternoon Bakhodir,

Since the numerical results of GUTCP are in contradiction to DTA, maybe you can still consider some logical aspects for inclusion in your model. As I was taught from Krane's "Modern Physics", a (point) electron that orbits the nucleus accelerates (change of direction). The E field from the electron at a moderately distant point will oscillate as the electron becomes closer and farther from that point during its orbit. When QM is inculcated even in high school chemistry, it is said the accelerating electron must radiate, lose energy, and "spiral into the nucleus" using classical physics. And that is why we need QM. :(

I think the uniform current loops in GUTCP atomic orbitals (called "orbitspheres" in older publications) have a great advantage in that they have no change to their charge (dE/dt = 0) and no change to their current (dB/dt = 0). Because the sources of both the electric and magnetic field do not change (no time derivative), there is no radiation and no "spiral into the nucleus". Do you think this inherently extended-body property could augment the DTA model and escape this point-particle-inflicted weakness of pre-quantum models? If not, how do you see the existing DTA electron of Hydrogen avoid losing all its energy to radiation?

I still owe you a review of DTA's (theoretical) derivation of 1.06 angstroms, but take it easy on me: I'm just an engineer :)

Best,

Dave

1. "Because the numerical results of GUTCP contradict the experimental data" - it would be more accurate to say that they contradict the experimental data on the visualization of the structure of the atom. We validate our models against experimental results.

2. "An accelerating electron must emit energy, lose it, and as a result collapse and fall into the nucleus" - these are the words of Bohr, who interpreted the process of electron fall in an atom in this way in order to refute Rutherford's planetary model. His approach was successful, as you can see from the results..

3. The statement that "an accelerating electron must radiate energy and lose it" is not entirely accurate. Under the influence of the Coulomb force, the electron is indeed accelerated, which leads to an increase in its kinetic energy, not to its loss. However, the question of the necessity of energy emission requires clarification. Observations show that energy emission occurs rather at the final stage of its motion (which is confirmed by the integral of the proton's potential electric field), and not at the moment when the electron moves along a spiral trajectory and "decides" to emit a photon.

4. According to the DTA, an electron in a hydrogen atom never falls into the nucleus because it is prevented from doing so by the Lorentz force, which arises from the interaction of a moving charge with a magnetic field. This force plays a key role in stabilizing the electron's trajectory and orbit, preventing it from spiraling into the positively charged nucleus. If you look at the images that showed the electron's trajectory during its interaction with the proton's field at that time, you will notice that the electron first moves in a straight line to the orbit, and then begins to rotate around the nucleus, like a poor relative who found himself in an unexpected situation (joke).

One of the main errors of Bohr's model was ignoring the effect of the Lorentz force, which made this model physically incomplete. If Bohr had had a deeper understanding of the nature of electromagnetic interactions in 1913 and had taken this force into account, quantum mechanics might never have emerged as an independent theory.

I admit that the main reason for such development of atomic physics is that Bohr is a mathematician, he did not know theoretical Newtonian mechanics well. That is why when he created his model he did not pay attention to the physical aspects (essence) of mathematical expressions. Why do I think so? There are reasons for this that cannot be ignored: when a physicist-mechanic solves a problem about a closed dynamic system, he first makes up a system of equations of the balance of forces and the balance of energy relative to a specific frame of reference. But we do not observe these actions in Bohr's calculations.

And then the supporters of quantum mechanics, with the air of great thinkers, rolled an empty cart over bumps, hoping that at least Schrödinger's cat would look inside.

5. Whether "quantum mechanics" is needed or not - everyone decides for themselves, depending on their mood and the amount of coffee they drank. However, in science (from the point of view of adequacy), a theory is considered invalid if the discrepancy between its predictions and experimental data exceeds 20%. In quantum mechanics, this discrepancy is not 20%, but more than 30,000%. It seems that someone forgot to put a comma or simply decided that mathematics is for weaklings. I wonder what the scientific council will say about this? Perhaps they will simply wave their hands and say: "Oh well, let it be, who even checks these numbers?"

As for DTA, it is not a new science, but rather a well-forgotten classical Newtonian mechanics and Maxwellian electrodynamics. There is nothing fundamentally new in it, except for the precise interpretation of the principles and laws of these fundamental theories. In a figurative sense, DTA can be compared to an elegant bouquet that Bakhodir collected from the fundamental ideas of great physicists and mechanics. Well, you know, as if he went into the garden of Newton and Maxwell, picked flowers there, and then declared: "Look at what a beautiful bouquet I have come up with!" At one time, Bohr also tried to create his own "bouquet" from these theories, but his composition turned out to be so disharmonious that even the bees refused to pollinate. Then he gave up and decided to offer a new concept of the field.

Hi Bakhodir,

I am done for the day but I will address just one point quickly. You said:

"According to the DTA, an electron in a hydrogen atom never falls into the nucleus because it is prevented from doing so by the Lorentz force, which arises from the interaction of a moving charge with a magnetic field"

What about atoms with spin-0 nuclei? They should have zero net (nuclear magnetic) field due to symmetry. I dabbled in nuclear modeling here:

Article Toward Classical Models of Nucleons and Nuclei

I think that He-3 should have a nuclear magnetic field but He-4 should not. What generates the magnetic field in Helium-4? The other electron? what if it's He-4+ ion? It's ok if you haven't tackled Helium yet, but you might find this kind of challenge when developing DTA for heavier elements.

Sorry I didn't have time to do your whole post justice yet.

Dave

Hi David.

Here is my take on your question.

1. "What about spin 0 atoms?" is a term coined by quantum mechanics to reconcile theoretical energy states of atoms with experimental data.

Initially, the concept of a principal quantum number (PQN) was proposed, but over time it became apparent that many photons did not meet its requirements. As a result, additional parameters were added: angular quantum number (l), magnetic quantum number (m_l), and spin quantum number (m_s), which characterizes the spin of an electron and can take values ​​of −1/2 or +1/2. Not supported by experimental data.

These additional parameters are used to reconcile theoretical results with experimental data. Without them, the practical applicability of the model is often questionable. Simply put, these conditional parameters of the concept are waiting for their experiments, like the Titanic was waiting for its iceberg.

2. Your opinion: "I think He-3 should have a nuclear magnetic field, but He-4 does not," is an interesting physical observation that may significantly affect both the structure of the nucleus and the structure of the atom. We have not yet reached the point of studying this issue in detail, but if the opportunity arises, we may have to study this parameter. As the saying goes: "I don't want to run ahead of the locomotive," so I can't say anything definite.

Bakhodir.

Good evening Bakhodir,

I have done some modeling (using GUTCP, years ago) and concluded that the magnetic constant mu_0 is so much smaller than the electric constant epsilon_0, that the magnetic force essentially "never" balances the electric force, that is, at any radius. Fm was some 10,000 times less than Fe. I was interested in shells of nucleons, but I wonder if the same would apply to the Hydrogen electron.

Have you calculated a force balance between electric and magnetic forces for Hydrogen? Is the electron velocity relativistic, and if so, does that need to be accounted for?

Finally, with respect to radiation or losing energy from the electron, even if the far-field / "radiation" is zero due to distance or something, couldn't one place an antenna a few millimeters from the orbiting electron and pick up oscillations of induced current? Since the distance from the E-field source changes during the electron's revolution? And wouldn't such induced current subtract from the energy balance of the poor electron? Now imagine in any kind of matter, many many such "antennas" hungrily receiving transmissions from each electron.

:(

I still think, whether the electron is a single current loop or many, that constant current loops, with their static charge density function and static current density function (like a turning hula hoop), are an important insight that shuts the door on "spiraling into the nucleus".

Thanks for your time,

Dave

Hello David.

Answer to question 1.

You are absolutely right: the magnetic constant μ₀ is much smaller than ε₀, which means that the magnetic force practically "never" balances the electric force, regardless of the radius. The force Fm is about 10,000 times smaller than the force Fe.

The movement of an electron is determined by three forces: the Coulomb force, the Lorentz force, and inertia. The imbalance of these forces makes the electron move along a curved trajectory, forming a spiral. When the forces are balanced at a certain point, from this point the electron begins to make a circular motion.

The Coulomb force is balanced by the inertial force (Fg = Fc), similar to how an astronaut is in a state of weightlessness. This process can be observed in orbit at an altitude of 250-500 km, where the weight of the mass can change by less than 2%. At this point, an insignificant tangential force will move the ship along a tangent trajectory.

also at a radius of 1.06 A the Coulomb force and the centrifugal force are balanced Fq=Fc, then the Lorentz force - FL despite 10,000 less than the Coulomb force, a weightless electron will move at a speed of 1,500,000 km/s along an orbital trajectory.

The Coulomb force is directed toward the center of the nucleus, the centrifugal force is directed opposite the Coulomb force, the Lorentz force - FL vector direction is directed perpendicular to the radial axis, to the Coulomb force.

An atom is a perpetual motion machine created by God. The interaction of three forces ensures its operation forever, without external energy supply, no need to add gasoline, no major repairs. If you take away 10-15% of energy, the electron will not fall on the nucleus and fly away to nowhere, in a millisecond the atom will be restored again.

An atom is a device, a perpetual motion machine created by God. The interaction of three forces ensures its endless operation without an external energy source: no gasoline or major repairs are required. Even if you take away 10-15% of energy, the electron will not fall on the nucleus and fly away to nowhere. In milliseconds the atom will restore itself.

The nature of the Lorentz force is related to the magnetic field that is created when an electron moves at an accelerated speed. It is known from experiments that if a charge moves at a certain speed, a magnetic field and magnetic lines of force are created around it. The higher the speed of the electron, the stronger the magnetic induction. These induction lines of force interact with the proton, causing the appearance of the Lorentz force. According to Newton's third law, the Lorentz force in the opposite direction arises through the magnetic field of the electron. Thus, a moment of a pair of forces is created, which leads to the rotation of the electron and proton around the axis. Since the mass of the proton is 2000 times greater than the mass of the electron, the electron rotates around the proton, and this process continues.

Best regards,

Bakhodir.

Hi Bakhodir,

I have no issues with calling the atom a perpetual motion machine - nor that it is created by God. But what becomes of the conservation of energy if the atom restores itself after some energy is taken away? I have already mentioned my skepticism about the potential energies which are needed to maintain the bookkeeping of energy conservation...

So, do you think placing an "antenna" among a lot of hydrogen atoms/molecules is a way to soak up energy forever, that could be useful on a macroscale? I am hesitant to say this, as this effect would surely have been noticed by the old "electricians" like Coulomb and Faraday.

The energy I refer to is coming from those oscillating fields brought about by orbiting point electrons. I think this generation of infinite energy may be a pathology of the point-electron model and could be solved with an extended-body-electron.

The "electron will move at a speed of 1,500,000 km/s" - isn't that faster than light at 3e8 m/s ? Maybe this is a typo for "m/s" ?

Thanks!

Hi David.

You are absolutely right, it is a typo. I apologize for the inattention: instead of 1,500,000 km/s, I meant 1,500,000 m/s.

The question: "Could placing an "antenna" among many hydrogen atoms or molecules be a way to infinitely absorb energy, suitable for use on a macro scale?" is indeed of great interest. At the moment, humanity has not yet reached this level of technological development and continues to overcome the challenges artificially created by quantum mechanics.

Perhaps in the future, if not through an antenna, then with the help of another device, it will be possible to find a way to extract this energy, unless, of course, alternative methods for obtaining free energy are developed.

Could you please clarify what exactly your skepticism is about the calculations of potential energies necessary to comply with the law of conservation of energy, and what aspects exactly cause you doubts - theoretical, practical, or, perhaps, related to the methods of their measurement?

With respect,

Bahodir.

Sir,

Sure! My difficulty with potential energies is theoretical. I will re-post the discussion from a few days ago, since I'm not sure how to link a specific post. I said: (begin quote)

"I have an idiosyncratic view of potential energy. I agree that energy should be independent of reference frame, and that is also key to my understanding: a ball on top of a hill may have mgh of potential energy, because that much "could be" converted to kinetic energy. However, the ball does not have more mass due to this supposed "energy content" according to E = mc^2. So if the mass / energy inventory does not change when h / height changes, why do we call potential energy a form of energy, instead of the "potential to become or to develop energy"? I hope I am not just splitting hairs.

Likewise, the gravitational potential energy of the ball with respect to the moon or to Jupiter can't be physically realized in a property of the ball: it would have to have different masses at the same time otherwise. I think the conservation of energy became popular because it was very useful, but with the elevation of potential energy to a form of energy in its own right, what was once an insight became merely a tautology. If everything that can "become" energy is a form of energy, then of course energy is conserved. But so what? Also, with the discovery of the mass defect in atoms leading to the atomic bombs, the true conservation is now of mass-energy and not only of energy - meaning that our best, orthodox understanding is now that energy is *not* conserved independently of matter. Saying that mass is a "form of" energy just continues the tautology building. Am I way off base here?" (end quote)

To summarize, everybody knows that the bombs convert matter to energy, violating the conservation of energy. So what is the harm in saying a ball rolling downward also violates the conservation of energy (narrowly defined), yet preserves some aggregate that is partly kinetic energy and partly a "state of affairs" that allows the ball to develop more and more kinetic energy until the situation changes (bottom of the hill).

Maybe potential energies are so entwined with practical calculations that we can't do without them anymore. However, I am still more comfortable saying "the potential to produce energy", even if we use "Joules" to compute with it :D . What do you think?

Dear David,

Thank you for your insightful thoughts on the nature of potential energy and its role in energy conservation. Your concerns touch on some deep conceptual aspects of physics, particularly regarding whether potential energy should be considered a form of energy or simply the "potential to develop energy." Let me offer a perspective that might help clarify these ideas.

Is Potential Energy Really "Energy"?

Potential energy is indeed different from kinetic energy in the sense that it is not an intrinsic property of an isolated object but rather a function of a system's configuration. In classical mechanics, it represents the work required to move an object within a force field (e.g., gravitational or electric). This means that potential energy is a real and measurable quantity, not just a bookkeeping trick.

If we were to discard the concept of potential energy and instead talk only about "the potential to develop energy," we would face difficulties in describing many well-established physical laws.

Your intuition is correct that energy and mass are related via E=mc2E = mc^2E=mc2. However, when we lift a ball to a certain height, the entire system (Earth + ball) stores the additional potential energy, not just the ball itself. The increase in energy is not localized in the mass of the ball alone, but rather in the gravitational field of the system.

In principle, if you were to measure the total mass-energy of the Earth-ball system with enough precision, you would indeed detect a tiny increase due to the added potential energy. However, this increase is typically negligible in everyday cases.

Does the Concept of Potential Energy Make Energy Conservation a Tautology? You raise an important philosophical question: does defining potential energy as a form of energy trivialize the principle of energy conservation? The answer is no, because energy conservation is an empirical law, not just a definitional construct. In a closed system with only conservative forces, mechanical energy (kinetic + potential) remains constant. In systems with non-conservative forces (e.g., friction), mechanical energy is not conserved, but total energy (including heat and radiation) is still conserved. In modern physics, Noether’s theorem provides a deeper explanation: energy conservation arises from the symmetry of physical laws with respect to time translation. This means that conservation of energy is not just a human-made definition, but a fundamental property of nature.

You correctly point out that nuclear reactions and mass-energy equivalence (E=mc2E = mc^2E=mc2) have reshaped our understanding of conservation laws. Indeed, what is truly conserved is mass-energy, not just energy. However, even in nuclear reactions where mass is converted into kinetic energy and radiation, the total mass-energy of the system remains constant.

Thus, while mass-energy conservation is a more fundamental principle than classical energy conservation, it does not invalidate the concept of potential energy. Instead, potential energy fits neatly into the broader framework of energy transformations, whether they involve gravitational fields, chemical bonds, or nuclear forces.

However, potential energy is not just a “possibility for energy to manifest,” but a fundamental element that allows us to understand how forces and energy transformations operate in nature. The principle of conservation of energy is far from being a tautology, but one of the most powerful and universal tools of theoretical mechanics and physics.

Respectfully,

Bahodir

Sir,

Thanks for the lesson! I did not appreciate that the earth-ball system is crucial to a proper understanding of potential energy "of the ball". Nor that this energy is in principle measurable, as indeed it is in the nuclear mass defect and even in the energy release of chemical bonds. In these systems I think the difference in potential energy in the initial and final state is released as energy (or absorbed from heat etc.)

I had been nursing this prejudice against potential energy for many years, but you talked some sense into me.

I have a related question on the conservation of angular momentum. In a car, pistons move linearly, but the crankshaft rotates. Likewise, the wheels have angular momentum, but the car that they drive has linear momentum. I can see that there must be much waste heat, in which the particles might be either rotating or translating or both. But it seems that the macroscale object(s) is/are converting linear to angular momentum and back. How is that possible if the conservation of angular momentum is a fundamental law?

Thanks again,

Dave

Dear David,

I'm glad to hear that the lesson on potential energy resonated with you and helped change your perspective! It's always fun to explore these concepts together, especially when they relate to fascinating examples like nuclear mass defects and chemical bond energy.

Your question about conservation of angular momentum in the context of a car is a great one - it really gets to the heart of how we reconcile macroscopic motion with fundamental physical laws. Let's dig in.

Angular momentum, as you know, is conserved in a closed system where no external torques are acting. In a car, the pistons, crankshaft, and wheels are all part of a complex system where linear and rotational motions are coupled through mechanical components. The key point here is that conservation of angular momentum does not prohibit the conversion between linear and angular momentum within the system; rather, it governs the overall momentum of the system as a whole.

In an engine, the linear motion of the pistons drives the crankshaft through the connecting rods. This is not a direct violation of conservation laws, since the total momentum of the system (linear and angular) is mediated by forces and torques inside the engine. The linear momentum of the pistons does not simply "disappear" - it is transferred into the rotational motion of the crankshaft through the geometry of the setup. The crankshaft itself has angular momentum, and the total momentum of the system (including the car frame, which may experience reaction forces) remains, in accordance with conservation principles. However, since the car is not an isolated system - friction, air resistance, and the road all exert external forces and torques - some of this energy is dissipated as heat, as you noted.

Likewise, when the rotation of the crankshaft eventually drives the wheels, their angular momentum contributes to the linear momentum of the car through contact with the ground. The wheels roll, and the friction between the tires and the road provides a torque that converts rotational motion into forward motion of the car. Again, this is not a violation of conservation of angular momentum - it is a conversion facilitated by external forces (the road pushing on the wheels). The total angular momentum of the system, including the Earth (since the road is part of it), is conserved, although we often ignore the Earth's contribution because its mass is so large that its rotational changes are negligible.

The waste heat you mention comes from inefficiencies - friction in the engine, tires, and air resistance - all of which involve microscopic particles gaining random translational and rotational energy. This does not directly affect the macroscale conservation of angular momentum, but rather represents energy leaving the system in a form that is no longer mechanically useful.

So, in short, the components of the car do not violate the law of conservation of angular momentum. Instead, they demonstrate how linear and angular momentum can be transformed by forces and moments in a system that is open to external influences such as the ground and air. This is a great example of how fundamental laws remain the same even in the messy, practical world of engineering!

If you are interested in transformations and savings, I can offer some new ideas. Please do not take this as a solicitation or advertisement, as some people may misunderstand it. Reference: [DOI 10.11648/j.ijmea.20241201.14], [https://www.academia.edu/115899708/A_new_methodology_for_evaluating_the_efficiency_of_complex_machine_mechanisms].

Hope this clarifies things - feel free to ask more questions if you want to go deeper!

Best regards,

Bakholr

Sir,

I apologize for asking instead of reading all your papers, but I thought you wouldn't mind. You disagreed with mvr = hbar as the basis of quantization, I suppose because it is a relic of QM. What is the basis of quantization in DTA? I think you have an integral of the force between allowed states to get the energy difference between them. But what makes some states allowed? Is there a theoretical reason or is it experimental?

Best,

Dave

Hello Dave.

If possible, why not answer?

I disagree with the equation mvr = ħ because it is derived purely mathematically, without regard to physical foundations and experimental evidence. I adhere to the pragmatic principles of Rutherford. In my opinion, any equation in physics should have not only mathematical rigor, but also a confirmed physical meaning based on observations or experimental data.

Note Bohr's postulate. Bohr related stationary orbits to principal quantum numbers and the principle of photon quantization, which radically changed the understanding of the nature of energy quantization.

High-energy photons are emitted from orbits located closer to the main one, while low-energy photons are emitted from orbits of larger radius, characterized by large quantum numbers, known as Rydberg ones.

Stadolny's experiment proved the fallacy of Bohr's postulate and quantum mechanics (QM). During the experiment, a laser with an energy of 3.4 eV was used for excitation, as indicated by the authors of the study. As a result, a clear image of two ring-shaped structures (orbits) was recorded on the coordinate axis: 1.0 mm and 1.4 mm horizontally (see figures a, b and c). The scales in the figures are clearly presented, and the scale of the figure shows that the size of the atom is increased to 1 mm.

It is important to note that in Figure (b) the 3.4 eV laser causes a transition of the hydrogen atom from the unexcited state to the excited state. The distance from the center of the proton for the unexcited state is 1.0 mm, and for the excited state it is 1.4 mm, i.e. the difference between the states is only 0.4 mm, which is clearly visible in Figure 4b. This corresponds to an increase in the excitation radius by only 1.4 times compared to the main radius. If we translate these data into real scale, the radius of the unexcited state of the hydrogen atom will be 1.0 Å, and the radius of the excited state will be 1.4 Å.

The experimental results confirm the erroneousness of the postulates and models of Bohr and quantum mechanics. According to the predictions of the Bohr model and QM, the radius of the unexcited state is r1 = 0.53 Å, and in the excited state (under the action of a 3.4 eV laser) the radius increases to 467.1 Å. The ratio of the radii of the excited and ground states is 900 times. However, the discrepancy with experimental data reaches 64185.71%.

In order not to violate academic rules on my part, I strictly adhere to the established norms in articles and comments.

Speaking in the language of engineers, I can say that A. Stadolno and her team did not comment on the essence of the obtained results, since the interpretation of the experiment was carried out from the position of quantum mechanics (QM). If they had paid attention to the points that we deciphered, they would have had to explain the discrepancies with the experimental data. Therefore, they simply stated that the experiment confirmed QM, which is essentially a lie. Read Stadolno's article - a great fairy tale for children!